Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2006

Adi ShankaraEdit

Old nomination was long and most of the comments there already addressed, so I'm restarting it. There appear to be language issues, but other than that, it seems almost ready to go. Raul654 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Maybe it needs some copyedit by editors who have not contributed to the article so far. IMHO, language issue can be better addressed by that way.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lead is short for an article of this size. Please read WP:LEAD and expand the lead a bit. --Maitch 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Expanded lead. BabubTalk 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is peer reviewed here. All the points from the peer review and the previous FAC nomination have been addressed. Also, a non fair-use image has been used. BabubTalk 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  1. As mentioned above, the lead is not a good summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
  2. I might have missed it, but I couldnt find what language he spoke or wrote his books in.
  3. Are all the foreign terms sanskrit? If so, it needs to be mentioned somewhere.
  4. Would it be possible to mention in which language Shankara means "bestower of happiness"?
  5. Who wrote the Shankara Vijayams? When were they written?
  6. With King Sudhanva of Kerala as companion - Kerala did not exist until many centuries later. ~~Could you mention the name of the kingdom?
  7. Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya -should be italicised for clarity.
  8. Are any of his works still available in its original form?
  9. Could the ISBN number of Tapasyananda Swami's Sankara-Dig-Vijaya be given?

-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Reply I have addressed 1 and 2. Yes all foreign terms are sanskrit. How could I include this in the article? I have addressed 4 and 5. The date of the Shankaravijayams would be proper in the article Shankara Vijayams. The name of the kingdom is not mentioned in the reference. So I reworded it as "the Malayali King...". I have addressed 7 and 8. 9 is already there :) BabubTalk 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • More If the dates of Shankaravijayams is proper in the article Shankara Vijayams, add them there. The dates are not there in that article (though you can add in this article the centuries when those were written).--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • More: Technically speaking, even "Malayali" would be incorrect, as Malyalam never existed at that time. But I think it is fine, as it could also refer to the ethinicity.(Please wikilink it to Malayali though) Leaning on support, but a few other points:
  1. In the Smārta tradition, Adi Shankara is regarded as an incarnation of Shiva. - There is a slight confusion caused here for people unfamiliar with Hinduism. Is Shankara considered as a God or a philosopher, or both?
  2. You mentioned the works are still extant. Where can an interested reader see them today?
  3. I'm confused at the liberal use of foreign terms in the article. For example, wouldnt saying Advaita Vedanta is based on scriptures/science, reason and experience, and aided by spiritual practices., be better than Advaita Vedanta is based on śāstra ("scriptures"), yukti ("reason") and anubhava ("experience"), and aided by karmas ("spiritual practices"). Is there any reason for using all the foreign terms, when there are words in English that can very aptly describe them?
  4. Vadakkumnathan (Vṛṣācala) Could you please confirm if the IAST is correct?
-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Done with "Malayali". 1) He is considered as an incarnation and worshipped in Smartism. But, his works are studied universally. So speaking from the Smarta view, he is an incarnation and obviously a philosopher. 2) More details regarding the numerous available editions of his works are at Works of Adi Shankara, linked from the relevant section of this article. 3) Well regarding the non-english terms, Adi Shankara's works are in Sanskrit. Frankly the English terms are just vague meanings. So it may be better if we give the actual terms he uses. 4) (Vṛṣācala) is given as "Vrishachala" in Tapasyananda's referenced book. I'll remove the IAST for now until I can confirm it. P.S. Your signature is making weird spaces appear on this page. Could you possibly shorten it? :) BabubTalk 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - All my concerns have been met.--thunderboltz 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support per last nom. Rama's arrow 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, but only because I don't think WP copyright policy is officially met until a copy of the copyright release is sent to Wikipedia as well as the author who requested it. I think the image page must reflect this. Bureaucracy but needed. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) OK, opposition withdrawn. I assume this should go thru with no problems. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specify how to send a copy to Wikipedia? Is it ok if the copy of the mail (stating the copyright/photo use permission) is displayed in a user subpage?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the editor is requesting to follow this policy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've forwarded the email to the PR dept per the above policy. BabubTalk 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Support per Darkblue Bakaman Bakatalk 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Per who? Lol, thats HTML code. :) -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Update per Babub. Lol that was funny.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2003 Pacific hurricane seasonEdit

This is a self-nomination on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I believe it meets all the featured article criteria, in particular it is well-referenced and stable. It covers all the storms of the season with a satellite image and track for them all. It is also includes information on the pre-season forecasts. I think its about time the WikiProject had a featured seasonal article (other than the 2005 Atlantic season, which is hardly typical). Support.Nilfanion (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ForestH2 t/c 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely laid out. Terri G 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning toward object): 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is superior to this, in both content and layout. There's more analysis, for one thing—economic impact, damages, etc. Granted, there's a big difference between the two seasons (that's why this isn't an object at the moment). For example, Marty hit a month after Ignacio; was cleanup already complete, or were problems exacerbated? Is the problem here that there isn't as much information available? As for layout, I much prefer 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, as it reads more like a typical encyclopedia article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has dozens of subarticles. However this article has just 1 subarticle, Marty. Interestingly, this layout is preferred within the project for the storms section, and as this is the entire coverage of all but one of the storms, that section should be like that IMO; as we couldn't restructure on the lines of 2005 without major info loss (unless we have Tropical Storm Hilda (2003)). That in turn calls into the question the need for an impact section, as it would add little new and would be repetition. Information is very hard to come by for Mexican storms for some reason :( --Nilfanion (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you have access to Spanish-language sources? I imagine that Mexican newspapers would cover the effects of the storms in significant detail, but I'm not sure how many are available online. I'll keep this as a comment and see if I can dig up some good print sources. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There really isn't much out there; I looked at what was available for Marty, and it is at most a paragraph. However, adding it all to the storm summary would overwhelm the article towards just one storm; most of the information and detail should remain on the Hurricane Marty (2003). However, some of it should be moved here—how much do you suggest? Titoxd(?!?) 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • If more isn't available for the other landfalling storms, then I wouldn't worry about adding more about Marty. There's already more on that storm in this article than any of the others. In a more perfect world we'd have about that much information on all of the land-falling storms, and would thus be able to turn the article into prose format, instead of a list-like point-by-point presentation. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Sounds good, I'll summarize the info and add it. Now, the question is, to the Marty storm summary, or to a separate section? Titoxd(?!?) 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: The graph for the ACE section's source is different from this NHC one. For example, the one the article cites clearly shows the 1997 season as being the second most actice, while the other graph clearly shows it isn't. My best guess as to the reason for this discrepancy is the fact that the NHC graph only uses ACE in the east Pacific proper, while NCDC one also includes the central and (possibly) western Pacific. I think the article would be improved by splitting the ACE into eastern and central Pacific portions, as is done for the current season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the source of the ACE section is the 2003 TCRs. The graph is to source the claim that the season is inactive- it does that purpose. I'm not sure about how best to split EPac/CPac ACE. My opinion is the totals should be included (so each storm can be compared). Seeing how 2003 is inactive some prose about the few storms to cross 140W giving the seperate EPac and CPac ACE values for those storms would suffice.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that it is better now. Support with the disclaimer that I have worked on this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicago BearsEdit

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is a more indepth article than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the fourth nomination attempt, and I believe that the article meets all reasonable feature status requirements. The article's images all have been tagged properly as I have personally checked every image. --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous Nominations
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive3

  •   Support as per nomination --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A took a quick glance and noticed some easy things to fix. Some images are too big, and the infobox is really wide. Change your screen resolution to 800x600 and see what you think. At low resolutions, "The 1946 NFL Championship team photo" and the infobox are really close to each other, and the picture underneath "1976-2000" takes up a significant portion of the screen. Drop that one to 250px or so. Regarding references: you know you can use the same reference more than once without retyping it? Do the following: <ref name="source">Blah Blah Blah</ref>, and then the next time you need that source, just type <ref name="source" />. Simple as that. It'll reduce the amount of text in your edit window, and will shorten the footnotes section. For example, all of the "The Honey Bears and Chicago Bears Mascots" refs will show up once. Once that's done, add more citations to the "Statistics and records" section; there's only one there and there are more numbers and details to cite. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, and looks technically ready. If I may nitpick, though, could you move the current logo above the Logo word, then make it more prominent than the previous logo? --Kitch 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Corrections: As per request, the "1946 team photo" was moved down so it wouldn't interfer with the infobox. The Payton picture was dropped to 250px, the references were redone as per the helpful tip given by Spangineer, more citations were added to the "stats" section, and the current logo was moved above the older logo and the older logo was decreased in size per the request of Kitch. Thank you both for your help and support. --Happyman22 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry for trying to spoil (could be easily corrected) your 4th and could successful attempt on getting this article being featured. I was browsing through your photos. It is probably going to be hard to have a "free" alternative (public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons, etc.,) versions of football action, but you need to cite the authors correctly. The Walter Payton picture isn't made by the Sporting News. In fact, they credited on their website as an Associated Press photo. Anyways, good luck. -- 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Another comment I also wanted to add that although I don't think it is required for to be a featured article. The images probably should have "Rationale of fair use for..." on the copyright images. For example, Image:Vforvendettamov.jpg. -- 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support, provided the fair use rationale issue is resolved. Much improved since the previous nominations. One picky comment - the Statistics and records section could do with a quick copyedit (I would do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with American football terminology). Oldelpaso 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added rationale to the Walter Payton picture and fixed the source as the AP and not Sporting News.
  •   Bear Down, Support! - I know how long everyone involved has work on this one, and it SHOWS! Excellent work! (And by the way, I have a copy of the Chicago Symphony Chorus performing the fight song. If I rip it to .ogg, can you use an excerpt? If interested, let me know on my talk page!) --JohnDBuell 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:JohnDBuell
  •   Oppose, fair use images need source information and fair use rationales.--Peta 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it but she's right. More fair use rationales are needed, particularly on the logo images. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Corrections The images have more fair use rationales added to them especially the logo images. I believe that enough rationale to each image. --Happyman22 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Continued Support: I Supported thsi article the last time around and all of my concerns were adressed last time around. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support da bears, though the fair use images should get a bit of attention as noted above, I don't think they'll pose much of a problem. However, Stephen Colbert might tell you otherwise. ♠ SG →Talk 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support, a solid article.--Riurik 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support while I would get rid of the duplicate logo in the logos section, the objection from me, which led to pile-on the last FAC has been resolved. Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Captions to photos and illustrations need to be regularized. Should all be lower-cased without random capitalization. Moncrief 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


After the first failed nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles/Archive1) many things happened. The article was rewritten once again by Druworos and me, but it faced a failed GA nomination. Me and Konstable, who was the one who did not pass the article, initiated further improvements and about a week ago the article easily passed GA nomination. Pericles in now rated as an A-Class article by three Wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) and remains, of caurse, a GA. The article has until now gone through four peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles and Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/Archive 1), 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Military history (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles) and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pericles). I thought it was the right time for this second nomination.--Yannismarou 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article had 43KB of prose as of 22 August 2006
  • Strong support. This is an outstanding article! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the combined use of Cite.php and the conventional reference label approach to separate footnotes and references. However, just scanning, I did find what looked like the work of a gremlin ("literary" was misspelt "literally"). Does anyone have time to independently copyedit this article? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This was obviously a typo. Although I've gone through the article again and again for such typos, it is inevitable to miss something.--Yannismarou 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The article has been twice copy-edited during this candidacy from Robth and Konstable. I hope these copy-edits are sufficient.--Yannismarou 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rlevse 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, --Riurik 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, all the issues from the previous nomination and the various peer reviews look to have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a great read! Gaius Cornelius 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The timeline is too wide and takes a lot of space. Could you fix it? CG 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought to hide the timeline with a navbar and remove it to "See also section", as Kirill had proposed in a previous peer-review. Do you thing that's better? If you think so, listen to that: The problem is that I probably do something wrong with the navbar and, when I do hide the timeline (replacing: div class="NavContent" style="display:none"; font-size:normal; style=text-align:center" with: div class="NavContent" style="display:none; font-size:normal; text-align:left"), I then have to hit twice on "hide" (and not on "show") in order to see the timeline. That is why I haven't yet made the edit. What I may do wrong? Am I typing something wrong?--Yannismarou 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object. This is tremendously well researched, and that alone almost brings me to support it. There are, however, a variety of problems that need to be addressed here. A list of issues I spotted follows; in several cases, I've just picked out examples of things that need to be fixed throughout:
    1. Odd cause-effect statements. From the lead: "Eager to reinforce Athenian intellectual prowess, he prompted an ambitious building project"; I don't understand how Pericles's desire to "reinforce intellectual prowess" led to the public works program, which is most commonly cited as an example of a progam intended to boost civic pride and increase employment. Several of Pericles's actions are attributed to his intrinsic characteristics, which strikes me as a little overly speculative. Someone needs to go through and make sure that all the cause-effect statements in the article are accurately describing the relationship in question.
    2. Balance of historical opinions: The arguments of critics of Athenian democracy is well presented, particularly in the case of Paparrigopoulos. There is, however, an equally active body of historians defending the Athenian radical democracy and its creators; Donald Kagan, used here as a source, certainly ranks high among that group, and others can be found easily.
    3. Accuracy issues: Some of these are just omissions of relevant events. The Peace of Callias, for instance, ambiguous and tricky issue though it is, should be discussed; the events in the Aegean in the late 450s (revolts in the empire, the Egyptian disaster, etc.) Pericles's leadership during the turmoilsome period from the Athenian defeat in Egypt to the mid 440s seems to have played a critical role in the establishment of the Athenian Empire as it existed in the 430s, so a fuller discussion of the events of that period seems appropriate.
About the peace of Callias a few comments: We do not even know if it really existed. Wade-Gray is the first historian of our century who believed in its existence and Badian has published a study as well. But most researchers do not recognize it. And if it existed indeed what was Pericles' role? Why have no clue! All I can write is mere speculations and Badian's hypothesis that Pericles broke the Peace in 450, although it was agreed in 463. You're right about the Egyptian disaster. It is a serious omission. My only fear is that the article is becoming gigantic! More and more and more information. I'll try to do my best.--Yannismarou 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I'm also puzzled by the claim that "Even after fining him, the Athenians remained true to the Periclean strategy and did not depart from it until long after his death."; this would be an unusual assessment of Athenian strategy in the 428-425 period, which was marked by the rise of aggressive leaders who broke with Pericles's strategy in a number of cases.
These aggressive leaders did not radically alter the Periclean Grand Strategy and they avoided over-extension. That is what Platias-Coliopoulos point out. This happened later after 415 BC. I quote from Platias-Coliopoulos:"It therefore becomes evident that the Atheniasn lost the war only when they dramatically reversed the Periclean grand strategy that explicitely disdained further conquests". And I quote from C. Gray: "For Sparta to succeed, Athens had to be weakened by plague, had to suffer lossed in men and prestige in the expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC) and ... then had to commit major errors in lack of vigilance in the naval campaign for control of the Dardanelles". Hence, the emphasis is in the period after 415 BC. After all, until the end of the Archidamian War Athens had the upper hand. Some modifications of the Periclean Strategy until then donot constitute a radical change. The Athenians did not attempt conquests in foreign countries, for istance. I think this is a weel-argued a citated claim, based on researchers' argumentations and I donot see why it is unusual or why it should be changed.--Yannismarou 07:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Language. Odd and awkward word choice at a number of points: "an ambivalent symbolism", "defalcation", "Thucydides predicates that..." and a number of other odd word or phrasing choices are scattered throughout. Awkward or incorrect word order is also a significant issue. Someone needs to go through this and pick all these out.
So that's what jumps out at me. This is very good as a whole, and I'm confident that these issues can be addressed. --RobthTalk 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Robth. I've already made some comments on Robth's remarks. After having implemented some of his suggestions, I'd like to give a more thorough answer point by point:
    1. You mention the cause-effect statement of the lead; hence I'll comment on that. I donot know what other speculative statements you find, but I donot think I attribute Pericles' actions to his intrinsic characteristics. As far as the lead is concerned, I rephrased and citated it, although I'm not absolutely right with you. Pericles did not promote art only for the reasons you mention. There was a real interest to further reinforce the intellectual brilliance of his city.
    2. I added Kagan's comments concernig Pericles' reforms and also Samons' reasoning for his actions. I want just to point out that, even as it was, the comments were not one-sided. One paragraph was devoted to Pericles' arguments and one to Cimon's (-oligarchs') point of view. Paparrigopoulos is critical towards Pericles only there. Hence, only two sentences ("According to Paparrigopoulos, history vindicated Cimon, since Athens, after Pericles' death, sunk in the abyss of political turmoil and demagogy. Paparrigopoulos maintains that an unprecedented regression descended upon the city, whose glory perished due to the anterior populist policies of Pericles.") consist a criticism of Pericles on behalf of Paparrigopoulos. All his other comments give an explanation of his actions, just like Samons. Anyway, I hope the relevant section seems now more balanced. I also mentioned Kagan's belief that Cimon adapted himself to the new conditions and promoted a political marriage between Periclean liberals and Cimonian conservatives.I just want to mention that during the previous nomination I faced the opposite criticism: That I am POV in favor of Pericles! I feel confused!
      • It's sometimes possible to overcompensate and present too much of an opposing view while trying to achieve balance; in any event, the current presentation strikes me as well balanced, so this issue appears to be resolved. Thanks for clearing that up. --RobthTalk
    3. I've said a few things about the peace of Callias. I just want to insist on the fact that we donot even now if such a thing existed and what was Pericles role. Grote, Wade-Gery, Gomme, Badian say it existed. Vlachos, Walker, Wilamowitz, Pohlman, Mayer and Schwartz say it did not exist! Ancient writers contemporary to Pericles do not mention it. Isocrates mentions it but Demosthenes doubts about it! Where is the historical reality?! We donot know! Anyway, I mentioned Badian's disputed claims and his reference to Pericles and I also mentioned Kagan's claim that Pericles used Callias as a symbol of Athenian unity.
      I also mentioned (in the section "First Peloponnesian War") the Egyptian disaster and its result as well as the debated role of Pericles. Kagan and Aird believe that Pericles initiated the excursion both in Cyprus and Egypt, while Beloch hold Cimon responsible for both decisions. In the section "Military achievements" I added Kagan's belief that Pericles' vehement insistence that there should be no diversionary expeditions during the Peloponnesian War may well have resulted from the bitter memory of the Egyptian campaign, which he allegedly had supported. Thereby, I connect the devestation in Egypt with the later policies of Pericles.
      During the late 450s I do not have in mind any important revolt in the League. The revolts in Euboea, Thebes, Samos and Byzantium are all mentioned. I am not aware of any other arousal in the Aegean against the Athenians during this period. After all, I created an article about the First Peloponnesian War and all the events of this war are in detail mentioned there. I think Pericles' role is adequately developped and more details will harm the whole article. I also added (in section "Prelude of the Wr") Ehrenberg's opinion that another fact that may well have influenced Pericles' stance just before the eruption of the Peloponnesian War was the fear that revolts in the empire might spread if Athens showed herself weak. The coinage decree is also mentiones and, hence, I think there is a clear image of the Athenian empire in the 430s.
      I also clarified the events concerning the revolt of Byzantium and the Pontic Excursion (Section "Samian War"). I think that the wording is also better now.
      • You're quite right about the doubts about the Peace of Callias, but its massive significance if it did exist would seem to me to justify mentioning the possibility. Events of this time period are all but impossible to pin down, and it's best to just acknowledge that. I would mention the possibility of the peace, note that there are scholars on both sides of the question of its existence, and devote a sentence or two to explaining how it would fit in to the overall picture of this period.
      As far as revolts in the empire, I was referring to the revolts of Miletus and Erythrae in 454/3, which continued down to 452/1 or thereabouts. These aren't mentioned in the ancient sources, but have been established based on fragmentary inscriptions and the Athenian tribute-quota lists. These, along with the Egyptian disaster, have been cited as possible pretexts for withdrawing the treasury from Delos, and should probably be mentioned. Keeping the article short is a good goal, but it's important not to omit significant details of this critical period of Pericles's leadership.
      The treatment of this period is coming along, but it isn't quite there yet. The magnitude of the Egyptian disaster is far from clear in the current text, and the crisis of the empire in the early 440s isn't readily apparent. --RobthTalk
    4. I've already explained why I regard Platias-Coliopoulos' position as basically correct. Nevertheless, I made clear that this is their opinion and I also referenced the altera pars, stating Ehrenberg's remark that the Athenians engaged in several aggressive actions soon after Pericles' death. I hope that now this topic is clarified.
      • That looks good now; my opinions on the subject have been largely shaped by Kagan, who considers the Aetolian campaign and Pylos/Sphacteria to be departures from the Periclean strategy, so I was initially surprised to see that statement; but, as I said, looks good now.
    5. I rephrased all the mentioned "awkward word choice". "Defalcation" was really wrong-"embezzlement" or "misappropriation" are the right legal terms. I also tried to make better a few other points in terms of prose. I hope it's now better!

I hope I have resolved most of the things that obliged Robth to Reluctantly Object. I hope he can now, at least, Reluctantly support! - I'm just kidding!--Yannismarou 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm still not quite ready to support, as my interspersed comments above indicate. I still have some qualms about the prose, but this may be a classic case of {{sofixit}}; I think I'll have time to copyedit it myself tonight. This is definitely coming along, so keep up the good work. --RobthTalk 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK! In terms of content I think I now fully understand your concerns. These are my comments:
1. I made clear Athens' disaster in Egypt and citated these remarks( Section:"First Peloponnesian War"). I also mentioned the possible connection of this defeat with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I think this topic is covered now.
2. I mentioned and citated the revolts in Miletus and Erythrae. I subsequently emphasized on the turmoil in the empire after the defeat in Egypt and the tension in the Aegean, using Kagan and Sealey as a source. I also mentioned the possible connection of these revolts with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I hope that this topic is also covered now.
3. As far as the prose is concerned, I'd just like to mention that most users agree that the article is "outstanding" and "a great read". My point is that I believe we've already achieved a very good level of prose. Nevertheless, I donot argue that I'm infallible and, hence, I'm sure that your contribution in terms of prose improvements would be valuable; especially, from a person who has already nominated 3 FA, among which one of my favorites and a source of inspiration, Epaminondas. After all, I think that it would be better for the arrticle to attempt these minor additional improvements instead of turning it down as a FA. That is why I feel convinced that you will indeed choose the first solution and you'll make the prose improvements you regard as necessary, so as to express your support.--Yannismarou 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just gave the article a run-through, focusing mostly on prose issues but also clarifying a few things and tweaking the presentation of the First Peloponnesian War a bit. This was a very good article at the start of this review and has improved even further during the review; I'm very pleased to give it my enthusiastic support. Superb work. --RobthTalk 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. --mav 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly ObjectSupport While quoting from Thucydides' orations is a neat idea, they should not be described as Pericles' without qualification. Septentrionalis 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • English usage should be followed in the use of names; for example, Josiah Ober should be spelled out.
    • Similarly, Areopagus should be so spelled; this is the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
How should the quotes be described? Your proposition? I describe them as Pericles', but in parenthesis I point out that they come from Thucydides' work. After all, the whole story about the authorship of Pericles' orations in Thucydides is described in the section "Oratorical Skill".
Thanks a lot for informing me this is the English Wikipedia. This was a valuable information. Realising that I may avoid exile to the Βικιπαιδεία. In the article Areopagus of the English Wikipedia, first line, it says Areopagus or Areios Pagos. Isn't this the English Wikipedia as well?
I'll correct the names and Areios Pagos as well (which redirects to Areopagus by the way) tomorrow morning. But are these issues so important to justify an absolute objection with no further qualification of the article?! I'm astonished. I respect the well-grounded and creative criticism, like this of Robth, but this one no!
Anyway ... As far as the quotes are concerned? What exactly would satisfy you?--Yannismarou 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If I had an obvious solution, I might have imposed it. The present text is actively misleading. Perhaps you should unwind a little and let other people think on it; and do read WP:OWN. I'm sure this will be a featured article; it's not quite there yet. Septentrionalis 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have implemented a possible solution to the attribution issue, and have changed Areios Pagos to Areopagus (Sepentrionalis is right that this the common English usage). Does this way of solving the attribution problem look good to everyone? --RobthTalk 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, Yannismarou has done most of the work on the article, but there have been other people working on this article - including me a couple of weeks ago when I did some major work on POV-language and balance issues (which caused it to fail the first FAC). I never had a feeling that Yannismarou was ever trying to own the article.--Konstable 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Septentrionalis' issue with "spelling out" names, I have went through them all and have expanded first names in all the first time a person is cited, and just left last names for any subsequent citations of the same person. What do you think of that?--Konstable 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to further clarify the attribution issue, by rephrasing the ends of the quotes like that: "Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)". Is Robth and everybody else happy with this suggestion? By the way, what Robth and Konstable did, it could easily be done by Septentrionalis, instead of objecting. I read WP:OWN. Now I suggest you also read {{sofixit}}. I strongly believe that all the concerns of Septentrionalis mentioned are now addressed:
1. The quotes of Thucydides are described as Pericles' with qualification: A further note is added by Robth in all the quotes and clarifies that "Thucydides records several speeches which he attributes to Pericles; whether the exact words are Pericles' is uncertain." Robth and I rephrased the end of the quotes as I already mentioned ("Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)"). This solution conforms also with the title of the Wikipedia article about the Funeral Oration, which is Pericles' Funeral Oration.
2. Areios Pagos is replaced by Areopagus by Robth.
3. Konstable did all the spelling out of all the names throughout the article.
Thereby, unless Septentrionalis is going to make some other suggestions then his objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of "record" in this context is an improvement, but it is still misleading; Thucydides himself disclaims the stenographic accuracy which this will suggest to a modern reader. (Pericles' Funeral Oration is English usage, even by those authors who argue that it is not Pericles' words, and that Thucydides indulged his habit of making the speakers say what was in his opinion demanded of them by the various occasions even more than usual to make the case for the war. Isn't Kagan one of these?) But I think in the interval I have come up with a solution. Septentrionalis 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The article, especially the notes, could still use a thorough proof-read. I think I know what note β means to say about Agariste, for example; but I'd be guessing. I corrected note δ, which ascribed a statement from Plutarch to Aristotle. This sort of thing should be fixed before articles are brought here; however, I would not be dealing with this sort of thing if the article had major flaws. Septentrionalis 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be unfair! Most things were fixed before the article was brought here! And you should recognize that! I think the meaning of the note β is clear for the common mind and well-citated. The note you say is not ascribing a statement of Plutarch to Aristotle. The first ref concerning Aristotle was just transferred to the end of the sentence so that it does not interrupt the reader. The ref of Plutarch comes exactly to the next sentence. Thus, checking both refs the reader does not get confused and learns what both writers exactly say. I'm happy however you decided to contribute! Keep up the good work, pal!--Yannismarou 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm, and attacking the people who are trying to improve the article, is not helpful. The note reads: "β. According to Plutarch, Agariste was Cleisthenes' granddaughter, but she was his niece, rather. " [1]"; This is not English; and this article will not be our best work until it is written in the language of this Wikipedia. Nor should the reader have to click on references to see what the article has failed to say. Septentrionalis 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No it does not say that! I have changed the wording long before you made this comment. I don't see it as making any sense on your part to quote old versions of the article and changing your comment from "Object" to "Strongly Object" after everything you have pointed out has been tended to. If you want a personal qualm with Yannismarou, go ahead and have it, but the article is not Yannismarou's regarding on what you may think. I have put a lot work into it too, so have some others. If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out.--Konstable 06:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support I would, however, like to see the Legacy subsection expanded somewhat.UberCryxic 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I enriched a bit this section with a few more assessments. But I wouldn't like to overexpand it. I think that it is OK as a closure of the article.--Yannismarou 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment people will probably yell at me but... there are too many references cited inline. The text is almost unreadable because there are so many. Can they be moved to the end of sentences where possible. Its[1] tough[1] to[1] read[1] when[1] they[1] are[1] everywhere.[1] -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I am concerned, I'll not yell at you! You're right! I'll move the refs at the end of the sentences wherever possible.--Yannismarou 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I placed almost all the refs at the end of the sentences. In the very few cases (4 or 5) I kept them within the sentence, I thought this was necessary for the accuracy of the article and the right emphasis. By the way I thought Christine for your baby!--Yannismarou 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Much improved since the last nomination. Well done. My one quibble is with the timeline at the end of the article. I'm not sure if it's customary to list events on timelines in the present tense; all those present participles are throwing me off. Other than that, great job. The Disco King 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow. Mithridates 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a good article; with some polishing, it could be a great one. I seriously regret seeing Yannismarou react to suggestions that it needs that polishing with defensiveness and claims that his vast improvements are being ignored. I don't know how much the article has improved; I haven't seen it before.
Remember, the purpose of this department is to put articles on the Main Page, where they will seen by people who have never seen Wikipedia before, and don't know or care who did what. They will judge the article they see as a finished product, and compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's.
  • I donot speak about my improvements. I speak about the improvements made by me, Konstable, Robth and Wandalstouring. It is not your obligation to have seen the article before the nomination. But you're definitely obliged to watch all the improvemnets done during the FA candidacy. Something you're obviously not doing. Otherwise, you'd have seen, for instance, that Konstable rephrased note β according to your suggestions and you wouldn't have turned your Objection to Strong Objection.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand how nervewracking this must be, but I earnestly recommend that Yannismarou take a break and walk away from Pericles. I predict that if he does, he will find the proof-reading done, and the article, with substance largely unchanged, wearing a gold star.
  • Your argumentation is is lame. In order to have a proof-reading, you must point out which points need proof-reeding. By not providing such an explanation, you're contradicting yourself and you are demolishing your own arguments.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment stands, until Pericles is polished; but I may set him an example. Septentrionalis 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment:Further to what I already remarked I must point out that I wasn't sarcastic. I really was happy you contributed and I really think you did a good job, clarifying note δ. And I really want you to contribute. Sincerely, my only intention was to thank you. If my wording was wrong or misleading, please accept my apologies. But where is the sarcasm? Hence, I donot understand why you turned object to strongly object. The problem is you took it personal and because of that (misinterpeting a comment of mine that you regarded it as sarcastic) you decided to fight against this article with all your nerve.
But, pal, this is not personal! So many users contributed to this article! Opposing it, you're not opposing me, you're opposing a great job made mainly by them. Because without them this article wouldn't be GA or A-Class. Without them, this article wouldn't have 11, if I'm right, supports.
You speak again and again and again for a proof-reading. So, do it! Instead of attacking me, dedicate your time in doing it! But you'll find nothing wrong. I bet on that.
During all these months in Wikipedia, I've never insulted anybody in Wikipedia. Neither you. And the remarks which could be regarded as offensive towards you (though they weren't), I erased them as you can see. Despite that, you keep this offensive agains me, telling I must abstain. Well, I won't. I'll keep improving this article and I expect you to do the same thing, because when I say I want you to contribute, I mean it and I am not sarcastic.
After all these, I repeat what Kontsable said: All your concerns have been addressed, "If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out." Your proof-reading argument is groundless and based on no actual examples from the article.
Your vindictive and groundless strong objection cannot be typically erased. Nevertheless, unless you are going to make some other suggestions, then this strong objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I correct: 13 supports, Septentrionalis.--Yannismarou 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see that Yannismarou's post was not intended as sarcasm, and remove the strongly. I will remove my objection when the article is polished; but I do not intend to do all of that myself. Septentrionalis 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that you accept you'd added the strongly because you thought I was sarcastic? But I had the impression that we are evaluating articles here not the level of sarcasm of the X or the Z user! Probably I'm wrong. You tell me that "we're writing for the readers" and you are right. I tell you that we are also evaluating for the readers. The readers "compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". I donot think that sarcasm is the right criterion for the evaluation of an article. We are not adding or removing the strongly, according to the sarcasm of the X or the Z user.--Yannismarou 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have spent some time on the article. I have fixed several solecisms and one downright error. (We do not know when Pericles was born, as a note admits; to say, as the text used to,[2] that he was born in 495, is therefore wrong.) All these are minor, but Yannismarou is rash to bet there are no more; what are his stakes? Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What I know for sure is that the messing up of the citations is no polishing. When I checked the article I saw you had turned a (ref name="Pl3"/) to (ref name="P13"/) for no reason and an important citation was lost because of your negligence. And since you were lecturing me that this is an English wikipedia why you placed "engonos" next to "granddaughter"? I'm Greek you know and I know that Engonos=grandson-granddaughter, so "engonos" is redundant. And one more thing; most of the polishing you did was already copy-edited by Robth. The fact that you did not like the previous version, it does not mean that it necessarily needed polishing! You have confused the personal taste with the polishing!--Yannismarou 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
When you demand a polishing, you must be the first one who is careful and avoids mistakes, which, by the way, I had to polish!--Yannismarou 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't telling you; articles are addressed to the readers. We're not writing for ourselves; we're writing for the readers, many of whom aren't Hellenists. I apologize for the Plutarch footnote; but wouldn't Plutarch, Pericles [[3]] be just as useful anyway? Septentrionalis 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is useful, you unintentionally removed it and I restored it. This is the story!--Yannismarou 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If we're writing for the readers, we are also evaluating for the readers. For instance, we are not adding or removing the strongly according to the level of sarcasm of another user! This is obviously a wrong criterion. As you told, the reader of an article "compares it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". If we want to attract him we cannot judge an article and modify our assessments based on the sarcasm of the X or the Z user. This is obviously a wrong criterion. I am afraid you want the others to write for the readers, while you donot follow the same rule, when you evaluate or reassess an evaluation of an article.--Yannismarou 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, I have proofread the whole article several times in the past, including once yesterday when I found no errors apart from some minor one-word grammatical mistakes. Apart from me and Yannismarou who haven't voted on this page, there are 13 other people here - all who have read critically through this article. You yourself admitedly don't see any errors right now, and the one you found and corrected was a minor omission that was clarified in a note anyway. Then there are the people who have been working on this article over the past week - me, Yannismarou, Druworos, Wandalstouring, and a whole bunch of minor editors. How is it even possible to get even more people to review this article? What reason do you have to think that there are more errors serious enough that this does not qualify as a featured article, when so many people have read through this article and either found no errors, or minor errors that have been fixed?--Konstable 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong; we now have 16 supports.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Telex 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Some P. Erson 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly better than many of the current FA selections. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I've adapted this article's use of quote boxes into the FA Joan of Arc. The editors of this article should feel proud of their work. Durova 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your nice words. I also feel obliged to thank you on behalf of Druworos, Konstable and Robth who have done such a great work for this article during the past months.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Kyriakos 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been reluctant to speak so far because of my minor contributions to this article. I'm not about to stand here and say it doesnt have minor language issues. Yannismarou is not a native speaker, and neither am I at that. But I'd like to urge anyone that feels confident enough with the English language to go in there and fix them, rather than complain about it. I'd do that myself (in fact I did for the first couple of paragraphs a few days ago), but I simply dont have the time to deal with the enormity that this article has become. And dont feel bitter towards Yannismarou if he gets a bit defensive. He has put so much work in to this, he should be entitled to sign his name under it. Druworos 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Druworos, Konstable and Robth (and Septentrionalis as well-he also contributed) are native English speakers, they went in and fixed any remaining issues and I think the article has no minor language issues now.--Yannismarou 06:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've given this another copyediting run-through, and cleaned up a number of small errors, particularly in the last few sections, that I'd missed on my first go-round. I also implemented a slightly different solution to the Pericles-Thucydides-attribution issue, since I don't believe that had been resolved just yet. Do these changes address all the concerns raised? --RobthTalk 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I gave the article another detailed proof-reading according to Septentrionalis' suggestion and I clarified a series of issues:
1. I clarified: a) the circumstances under which the Samian War took place, b) the circumstunces under which Cimon returned to Athens in 451 BC and the assessments of modern scholars, which contradict Plutarch's biography.
2. I added: a) the assessments of modern scholars concerning the rivalry Cimon-Pericles, which contradict Aristotle, b) more inline citations in slightly under-citated parts of the article ("Samian War", "First Peloponnesian War", "First year of the war (431 BC)", "Last military operations and death", c) more references.
After this proof-reading and since Robth has copy-edited once again and has taken care of all the minor language issues, I hope that Septentrionalis' concerns are finally addressed.--Yannismarou 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate Yannismarou's comments on my talk page; [4] and I think my comments are duly addressed. Thank you. Septentrionalis 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and strongly recommend closure. This is a great article, which has passed an exhausting review. All issues have been addressed. :NikoSilver: 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support My issues have already been solved. Wandalstouring 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having re-read the article and fixed any language issues I could find, I can safely say that the single thing I can think of that may have made this article unfit for FA has been adressed. Druworos 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, quite heartedly too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everton F.C.Edit

After putting a lot of work into the article I put it up for peer review and you can see the suggestions here. I now feel the criteria suggested have been met and it also adheres to WikiProject Football and featured article requirements. SenorKristobbal 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support whilst reading it yesterday I noted that it was to a very high standard, and fully deserves FA status Kingfisherswift 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as a non-native speaker of English, I can't really comment on the grammar, but otherwise, in terms of layout, lenght of sections, information included, referencing and other stuff, this deserves to be a Featured Article. – Elisson Talk 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    •  Support--Riurik 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • Referencing is a little flaky and inconsistent, should really use work= parameter throughout.
    • Couple of citations needed to be added by the looks of things.
    • This is the most serious objection: Needs more GFDL-licensed images. The Fair Use rationale for the Goodison Park image is probably not OK as it is possible to provide a freely-licensed photo of the stadium as contributors to Arsenal F.C. and Manchester City F.C. have done. Additionally, one of the team in action or on the pitch would be useful as well - it is worth searching for Creative Commons-licensed works, or taking some pictures yourself at the next home game you go to.
    • No criteria given for inclusion in the bulleted list of notable players. If it is not possible to agree on one, then just remove it and provide a link to the main list article. The greatest-ever XI can stay though.
    • Navbox at the bottom looks a little wrong with that trailing vertical bar on the first line. Qwghlm 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the above points and have made relevant edits to address them. SenorKristobbal 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
All my objections have been resolved, so changing vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article has transformed in recent weeks, and is now worthy of FA status. Oldelpaso 23:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Looks good. Two things I would say. Firstly, this comment - "Everton's second main rival is Manchester United. Recently crowd trouble has marred games." needs a citation. I've never heard of any particular rivalry between Everton and United fans. I'd also perhaps suggest putting the list of managers back in the main article. The size of the article wouldn't be increased in any great amount and most clubs pages have that sort of information on their main page. HornetMike 23:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The Manchester United passage you cite has been reverted due to being unreferenced. (I would be very surprised if anybody could find a credible source to support the edits made by veila# 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Can't put the whole list of managers back. Manchester City F.C. doesn't have a full list of managers and they were recently featured. The list was cut down after comments in a peer review so putting it back would be ignoring it. There is an obvious link to the managers page so its easy to see all the manager information a reader would want. SenorKristobbal 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support: Well written, concise and easy to read. Looks 'neat' - well laid out. Cas Liber 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kochi (India)Edit

Kochi is a coastal city in southern India. It is one of the important seaports of India, and the commerical hub of the state of Kerala. The article underwent a peer review in May this year, during which many issues were raised by several experienced editors, and were addressed. The article is also a selected article on Portal:India. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. I request the community's support in making it one. Thank you. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support nowRlevse 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Minor object footnotes go immediately after puntcuation with no space in between, not in the middle of the sentence.Rlevse 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Way too many pictures. Rama's arrow 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed the two gratuitous images in the Notes section. The rest seem to all be useful in illustrating the article, and it doesn't feel crowded (just colorful). —Cuiviénen 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I was closely following the article's peer review. I also read the article in its entirety before voting here (copyediting alongside) and feel that it meets the FA criteria though it could use some copyediting help from native speakers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the "Notes" section may have pictures, becoz there is no clashing text to pay attention to. There is a need to remove pictures from the main body of text - they are brilliant pictures, but they have a clustering effect with the text, which kills their appeal to an extent. You better leave the pictures to be displayed on Commons. I also agree with Sundar that there is a need for more copyediting - grammatical errors, poor sentences need fixing - please see user:Tony1's copyediting guide. Nevertheless, I think its pretty much ready for FA status. Support Rama's arrow 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update - I've moved two of the pictures to the "Notes" section. The text has also been peped-up a bit.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A detailed city map of Kochin might be something that can be added to the article as one becomes available. AreJay 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Will do as soon as a free one becomes available.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is close to FA. I would like some clarification on 2 points. In the demographics section - "Kochi is considered the safest city in India for women" - Is there any other reference than the one cited? A source giving actual data showing Kochi to be the "safest in India" would help. In the educaton section - are you sure that education there follows 10+2+3 followed by enrollment in general or professional degree programmes. That is not the case in the rest of India where it is just 10+2 followed with degree programmes. Please double check on that. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update-I've clarified the same in the article now. Please check.--thunderboltz 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - I have had another read through the article. Both my points are adressed now. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Larrys CreekEdit

Larrys Creek has been rated as a Good Article and has had a peer review (which is archived here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. The article follows most of the recommendations of WikiProject Rivers (although there is no list of tributaries, as the major ones are given in the article).

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Larrys Creek is a relatively small, but quite interesting stream and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support nowRlevse 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Object See if the name section can be expanded. Also, while a few footnotes in the intro are okay, this has too many-it's distracting. Since the intro is supposed to be a summary, it can be written so no notes are required in it. Work on this and I'll look at again. You may want to consider adding something on its pollution history/status too. Good start, though.Rlevse 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Thanks for the helpful critique. Per your comments, I have expanded the name section, removed all footnotes from the lead section (and I believe corrected all errors resulting from cutting and pasting the references), and made a new subsection on "Water quality and pollution" incorporating some material already in the article and adding one reference. I also added the list of tributaries recommended by the Rivers WikiProject. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. although I would like to see the color in the tributary map changed. The color for Larrys Creek is described as orange but appears quite brown, especially in the small size image displayed inline. Rmhermen 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Color adjusted slightly. Kmusser 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comment and thanks for fixing the color. I think the fact that it is orange with a blue line through it makes it look muddier / browner, especially on a small scale. Ruhrfisch 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 33 pin-citations. Plenty of pictures, ALL either PD or GNU-FDL. Belongs on the Wiki 1.0 CD, too. --M@rēino 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I found the article well-written and informative. --evrik 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support One of the best stream/river articles I've seen, amazing! Pfly 16:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Note: I have a small conflict of interest in that I supplied information for the "paper railroads" section. Regardless, this is a stunningly comprehensive and well-referenced article and deserves wider attention. Choess 05:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great work. Kmusser 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto-ing what others have said. Perhaps a hair over-wikified, but nothing too problematic. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- comprehensive, interesting, and informative. Do you have a source for more information about the covered bridge? Since it's on the National Register of Historic Places, I think we should have an article on it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Response I have four sources of information about the bridge, three are cited. The best is "Landis, Milton W. (October 1966). "The Larrys Creek Covered Bridge in Cogan House Township". Now and Then (The Journal of the Muncy, Pennsylvania Historical Society). XV (5): 258." which gives almost everything but the rehabilitation and National Register Information. It has much more information about the bridge, details of construction, etc. The online Covered Bridges page gives the basic data and rehab date: "Kane, Trish. "Pennsylvania - Lycoming County Covered Bridges".". The third source is a photo I took of the plaque the Lycoming County Commissioners erected when the bridge was rehabbed - it is the source for the National Register (and the photo is not on Wikipedia or explicitly cited). Here is a link to a list of Lycoming County NRHP sites, it is listed under "Cogan House Covered Bridge": [5]. The fourth source is Meginness (article ref #1), who mentions the bridge and it surviving the 1889 flood (which also wiped out Johnstown, PA - should I mention that in the article?). I would have to go back to a library that has the issue of "Now and Then" to get more details, but I could write a brief article on the bridge (I have other pictures of the bridge too - they would be GFDL). I am fairly busy now, so it could take a while. Ruhrfisch 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Diary of a CamperEdit

Self-nomination. This is WikiProject Machinima's first FAC, although a good number of its members worked on Red vs Blue (which was promoted to FA in early March) before the WikiProject was formed. Although the article is short (only a bit more than 10KB, including notes and references), there is precedent for the promotion of short articles as FAs. I feel that the length is appropriate, given that the article is about a very short (under 2 minutes) video responsible for the concept of machinima, the use of 3-D video game engines to render films in real-time. I've tried to touch on the video from all angles: from the reviews that were posted on the major Quake movie websites back in 1997–98, to the academic interest in the transition from player to performer and its perception among modern machinima authors. The article has been copyedited a couple times over, and I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. — TKD::Talk 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Consider submitting it for good article instead, which is intended for short articles.--enano (Talk) 14:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The concept of good article hasn't yet been concretely established, and this article can become FA as long as it meets criteria. I've not yet read it to make that determination for myself, but I think I should make this comment before anyone misunderstands what can and can't become FA. I'll give the article a read now and get back with a support or object soon. Ryu Kaze 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I had considered GA, but the problem is, as Ryu hinted, that some people view GA as a FA for short articles, while to others it is a less stringent form of recognition for any article. If I had felt that the article was good, but didn't quite meet FA standards yet, I might have considered submitting to GA. There has been precedent for short, well-written articles (such as Hurricane Irene (2005)) to be promoted to FA. Now, I'm not saying that a 100-second film is as notable as a hurricane, but it singularly changed the way some people thought about video games, animation, and filmmaking. — TKD::Talk 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'm a little torn on this one. I think it meets all criteria except for maybe the issue of comprehensiveness (I'm not saying that it doesn't; I'm just a little unsure at the moment, to be honest, and am looking for clarification). I want to add support, but given that the other Ranger films articles are all so short, it seems like it would be possible — perhaps best — to combine them all into a single article (perhaps the United Ranger Films article?). Like I say, it's good, and I'd like to support, but it seems like it would be most efficient to simply combine all of this information into a single article. I admit that I'm not well versed on the subject of machinama, and that this film might be notable enough in that category to warrant its own article, so I can't say it doesn't deserve to be an FA without more knowledge of the subject. TKD, could you give me a better idea of the subject's relevance to the medium, and tell me if you'd considered merging it with the other articles at any point, and why that might not have been done? That will help me decide between staying neutral and supporting. It might also clarify things for anyone else who would want to ask the same question. Ryu Kaze 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks fror the feedback, Ryu. I'm delighted that the only issue that you found was the one that I had forseen might have been a sticking point. I'm mostly a mergist myself, and I'll agree that at least three of the other four videos could probably be merged (possibly all four), but I don't believe that it would be beneficial to merge Diary of a Camper. I had indeed considered doing so, but, if anything, I would have created a new article on the history of machinima. However, given that scope, it probably would not have reasonably allowed me to go into as much depth on the actual content of the film or how it was received. The fact that it succeeded in creating a medium despite its simplicity is worth detailing.
As for merging to URF, well, I'd rather not do that because Diary is far more well-known in and of itself than United Ranger Films. (Google +"Diary of a Camper" (1,100 hits) versus +"United Ranger Films" (44 hits).) Unlike the other four films by URF, Diary established an entire filmmaking medium through the idea that the FPS perspective can become an independent camera. The other films did introduce some innovations, but Diary has received the most credit by a significant margin.
I've expanded the article a bit to hopefully clarify the film's role in this important transition from player to director. Would you mind taking another look? — TKD::Talk 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, your explanation makes more sense than I could have asked for. After taking another look, my concerns are completely satisfied. Full support from me. Great job with the article. Ryu Kaze 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Concerns satisfied. While not a behemoth in size, its scope is comprehensively addressed, and the prose is crisp. I am also now convinced that the subject warrants its own article. This is a well crafted piece of work. Ryu Kaze 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Ryu Kaze idea, I think the articles should be merged. I think all the movies basically have pretty similar concept and merging them together would be quite simple. Instead of summarizing one you can just give a basic summary of the series and compare them. By the way, what media were this films released on? If they were distributed via internet (which I have no idea if they were) then that would make me want to see this articles merged even more. If this videos were actually retail sold then I disregard my comment about merging. - Tutmosis 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've clarified that the video was in fact released over the Internet. The five films don't really form a series; the storyline of Diary of a Camer isn't really related to those of Ranger Gone Bad and Torn Apart. I wouldn't oppose merging the other four, and might actually do it myself if I have the time, but, as I noted to Ryu above, Diary of a Camper is different in that it actually made the transition from gameplay to filmmaking, and attracted serious attention from various angles in doing so. Would you mind taking a look at the recent expansion/clarification edits that I've made? — TKD::Talk 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I feel it satisfies the criteria so I think it deserves to be fa. I can see now that the video was likely the first of its kind but that brings out the other issue, the other films articles. Are they notable to merit their own article? Is wikipedia now going to have an article on every single video released on youtube or similar sites that has gained some following? - Tutmosis 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. As for your concern, the other four URF productions would probably benefit from a merge up to URF. All of them did get independent coverage from the major Quake movie websites of the day, though, so it's not as if we're lacking secondary sources, as the typical YouTube video does. They could be expanded, but not to the length of even this article. So, yes, a merge would probably be a good idea for the other four. Just as a note, we've kept an extensive archive of past machinima-related deletion discussions, prods, and speedies; the vast majority of anything whose notability is contested does end up deleted. So I don't think that you have to worry about a deluge of stub articles, at least not from this WikiProject. — TKD::Talk 01:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I find it to be quite comprehensive for such a short article. Great work as per usual, TKD.--Drat (Talk) 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! — TKD::Talk 10:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I came very skeptical to this article but found it surprisingly solid, well-cited and interesting even for those who don't know the first thing about machinima :) My only gripe is that I dislike the use of parentheses for definitions in the lead: "the first example of machinima (the art of using real-time, virtual 3-D environments, often game engines, to create animated films)." I would prefer using commas or dashes. Once the article is featured it will be read by a lot of people who don't know about machinima so this information is essential, not parenthetical. Haukur 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the punctuation. — TKD::Talk 10:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Haukur 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. While film articles usually contain long Production and Synopsis sections, I understand that a 100 sec one won't have much information. Anyway, could you upload a better picture? I haven't seen the film, but if there's a scene where protagonists appear clearly from a close prespective, it would be better than the one in the lead. CG 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the image and used a slightly brighter gamma setting. Does it look better? (Note: You probably will have to bypass your cache in order to pick up the new image.) — TKD::Talk 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
While not perfect, but it's better. Thank you. CG 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to know more about the production of this machinima. How was it done? Where did the production take place? Over the internet or in some building? Who were the people involved in it and who did what? I need names or at least aliases. Saying that it was done by United Ranger Films is like saying that Life of Brian was done by Monty Python and not mentioning Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin. --Maitch 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. Give me a day or so; I'll see what I can dig up. — TKD::Talk 16:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this edit sufficient to satisfy your request? I found real names for a good number of people involved in the film and defined roles more clearly. As for where it was done, I assume that it was created over the Internet, but it'd be OR to state that. Quake is inherently client-server, but that could mean either a local network or the Internet. — TKD::Talk 09:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the edit and I will support now. --Maitch 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is short, but it is very limited what you can say about a thing that lasts 100 seconds. I don't think this article should be merged given that it is very notable within machinima. --Maitch 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not a big fan of that lead paragraph. A lot of it seems redundant, explaining what machinima is might be helpful, but is there any need to explain what deathmatch and camping is? If you take a look at meta:Wiki is not paper, you'll see the difference between paper publishing style and wiki style, and one of those differences is wikilinks. Being familiar with Machinima, Quake movies and deathmatch in general, I'm not the best to comment on this, but maybe get some none-gamer's input on the intro. - Hahnchen 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I prefer concision where possible, but not at the expense of clarity. My experience has been that making the lead as clear to non-specialists as is feasible is the best route. With machinima in particular, appositions help people to understand the boundaries between the real world, the fictional universe established by the underlying game, and the universe established by the machinima work. The lead of Red vs Blue has been reworked many times in response to various requests for additional clarity (even well after the FAC passed). So I've learned to err on the side of providing a little extra information, even if it's covered in a wikilink. m:Wiki is not paper suggests that one need not spell out DEC as Digital Equipment Corporation, but our Manual of Style states: "Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it." Also consider Haukur's comment above, where this information is deemed essential.
Obviously, it's possible to take this overboard, but generally I've found that the single explanatory phrase works well as a middle ground. Wikilinks are definitely advantageous, but we shouldn't have to force a reader to follow a bunch of them just to understand the lead. — TKD::Talk 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
TKD's exactly right, and it's because a little of the extra mile was put into making this understandable to non-specialists (like me) that I supported it. If I had no idea what it was trying to say in the lead, I sure as heck wouldn't expect to understand the rest. Ryu Kaze 10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

New CarissaEdit

Article has been extensively copyedited in past several days, plus some new information added. Article is otherwise stable, is a GA, and has undergone a peer review. Comments were attended to, most of them minor. --EngineerScotty 22:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, all pictures are public domain and illustrate the article well. EngineerScotty has put a ton of work in, and he and I have made every effort to meet or exceed FA criteria. -Big Smooth 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and please note that this is a self-nomination. -Big Smooth 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for failing to note that. --EngineerScotty 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as I would like to have learned more about this ship's history/crew/endeavors prior to its wrecking. As the article stands, I'd be inclined to support its FA if the subject was the crash and not the ship itself. I do understand, of course, that the crash's notability may be higher than that of the ship itself, especially if you are from the United States. I don't think it is reasonable for 75% of the article to address the ship prior to wreckage, but perhaps 5 to 10% would be more appropriate—only the infobox right now speaks of information independant of the crash. BigNate37(T) 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Added section about vessel, and a bit about the crew. Before the wreck, of course, this was an anonymous freighter that nobody outside of the shipping business knew about; and wouldn't be notable if it weren't for the wreck. I'm willing to support a move to a better title, though I'd point out that there are other articles on shipwrecks which take the name of the ship. --EngineerScotty 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I like the additions about the pre-wrecked vessel and readily concede that the ship lacked encyclopedic notability before the crash. I would like to ask whether the use of the word tonnage is intended this way; perhaps you meant displacement? Also, you refer to tons but the other units you express are SI; are these tonnes, imperial tons, U.S. customary tons? I'm afraid I'm not familiar at all with non-SI units. Oh, and upon further reading I see many different sytems used for units. The engine power is in bhp, fuel in gallons (l), dimensions in metres (ft), etc. Perhaps the MoS should be consulted; would you consider the ship Panamanian for this purpose? I'm not sure what units are used there, or whether international naval endeavours use a different system. BigNate37(T) 06:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree in principle... one problem is that when discussing nautical affairs, all sorts of unit systems are used; it is still commonplace to use horsepower, tons, nautical miles/knots, and all sorts of other non-SI units. I've generally reported the units as expressed in the primary sources, converting to SI when convenient. More SI conversions can be added, but tomorrow... I'm off to bed for the night. :) --EngineerScotty 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • To add a bit more info, now that I've researched the issue some more. "Tonnage", as given here, is a measurement of a ship's cargo volume, not its weight/displacement. What sort of "ton" isn't specified; since the source for the measurement is the USGC, my guess is it's a "measurement ton", equal to 40 cubic feet, or 1.1326 m³. I could not find a source for the displacement (which corresponds to the weight) of the ship, though I've seen estimates for the weight of the remaining stern section. --EngineerScotty 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm happy to support this article for FA status; you two have put in a lot of work and it shows. BigNate37(T) 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. You have paid attention to FA criteria and it shows. Some minor comments:
    • Some main sections are short; perhaps you've already looked at options to combine them.
    • The term "motor vessel" is confusing for someone who doesn't know much about ships, but "M/V", which redirects to cargo ship, is never linked to in the article. The best place for it would be in the bold ship name, but I think that is considered poor form...?
    • "nm" is better spelled out as nautical miles. I see it as nanometres, and I thought that was an awfully precise distance from shore. :-)
    • Suggest notating PDF references as such, using template {PDF} for example.
    • I checked three references for correspondence with the article and they checked out. For the longer reference documents, page numbers would have been advisable.
    • Who knew they did assessments of the economic loss from 4-8 plovers being killed?! Outriggr 04:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I added the {{PDFlink}} template to all the citations, with the size of the files. Good suggestion. -Big Smooth 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Happy to see a nominator appears to have read the FA criteria. I'm confident that any issues raised during the FAC will be addressed. Sandy 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Sandy. Nice to see when editors know what they're doing. Special commendation for covering an environmental topic. More of that, please! - Samsara (talkcontribs) 13:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIIEdit

I'm wicked jealous — this is perhaps the best article on Wikipedia. It has nearly 140 references, is amazingly comprehensive when considering that this is the most influential video game of all time (but not the best!), and 80 percent of the work was done by Ryu; I only performed a light copyedit on this one. Speaking of copyedits, it might need a few more tweaks, but we'll leave that for you to determine. Additionally, I raised a few concerns with Ryu, and here was his reply:

Maybe it's because I'm too close to the subject (I wrote the entire article, and after almost 100kb, I guess that's inevitable XD), but I honestly can't see what we could lose from the Plot or Development sections. I mean, the thing is long as hell, yeah, but it does meet the FA criterion of staying tightly focused on the subject. Pesonally, I think if we shortened anything, we'd be losing that comprehensive overview.
I mean, looking back through the various Plot sections, I don't see anything we can lose because it's either backstory vital to understanding the rest of it, subplots that have to be touched upon in order to meet comprehensive standards, character design info that we always include and shouldn't cut just on the basis of length (it's technically shorter than VIII's character section anyway), or the major revelations and resolutions of the storyline (and we're still ignoring how much? Rufus gets mentioned one time, we don't mention any specific Turks' names, "huge materia" doesn't pop up, nor does "Sister Ray" or "Northern Cave", Bugenhagen's name doesn't even appear outside of references, all the specifics of Barret, Red, Yuffie and Cid's stories don't even get touched on, etc.). I know there's a lot of content to the article, but there's a lot of content to the game, and we don't even make note of a lot of it. More than most of them have in all honesty.
In the Development section, we're able to provide info on the software that was used in the game's development, how many people it took, how much money was spent, what prompted the leap into 3D, the initial 3D experiment (something that resulted in some criticism leveled at Square by gamers, which is mentioned later), the rationale behind some extremely notable decisions that have affected gaming ever since, the difficulties overcome in developing this groundbreaking game, and one of the most intensive marketing campaigns in the history of gaming. Again, I know we've got a lot of content, but this isn't an article about just any game. I know I'm sounding like a Final Fantasy VII zealot when I say that, but it's true. I might not personally worship the game, but it can't be denied its props. This is the World War II of video game articles. I mean, this really is the game that changed everything. Playing video games in the US was suddenly cool, "RPG" became a household name outside Japan, and you could say a game took 60 hours to finish to an awed audience instead of a jeering one.
I know there are some people who will oppose on the basis of length alone, but we both know that's not a valid objection. They would have to explain how we got off the subject in the face of us knowing why the information is relevant and able to point it out. There are actually Featured Articles longer this one, such as World War I, Polish-Soviet War, Byzantine Empire and Theodore Roosevelt.
I know you also have concerns about the References, but according to Wikipedia:Article size, only the main body of prose is supposed to be counted. Reviewers aren't even supposed to look at the references beyond making sure that they're actually referencing what we claim they are.
I really feel like it deserves its place as FA like it stands right now. If FA isn't something an article can get just because somebody says "This comprehensive and informative article on a major subject takes me more than half a second to scroll the entire length... and I'm just too lazy to scroll any longer than that" then it's not an honor worth getting. I think we should try it before cutting anything, and only cut if they provide some darn good reasoning. I usually go with your advice, and I won't consider moving the article forward until you agree with me, but this time, I feel sure of our current standing. I really feel sure. Ryu Kaze 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have nothing more to say. This is how Ryu wanted to depart from Wikipedia activity with a bang, and I think he'll get one. — Deckiller 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Co-nom/obvious support: As Deckiller said (and thank you for the wonderful comments, Deck; I didn't realize you thought so highly of the article), I did a lot of work on this one and I feel like it warrants being counted among the best of Wikipedia. I guess what he's quoted from me probably says everything that I need to or would want to say, so I'll just leave it here and await the input of all of you. Ryu Kaze 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII section could probably be shortened, with the bulk of it going in its own spinoff article. There should probably be a mention of the sequels in the lead, as well. Other than that, this looks fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Compilation section actually had its own page a couple of months ago, but we merged it in because it wasn't doing anything other than serving as a link station for the various titles that are part of the project. We felt that it made the most sense to discuss the Compilation within the article the project is based on, while providing links to the various titles that comprise it. You make a good point about the sequels. I meant to add mention of that into the lead and will do so now. Thank you for the reminder and general approval. Ryu Kaze 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm usually a jerk about references, but at 138, I don't think I have too much to complain about there. The article is long, yes. But I can't say what should be cut. There's just too much to cover- most of the sidestories are ignored or incredibly short as it is. The only critism that I have is minor- In the very end of the Compilation section, second to last paragraph, that "however" doesn't make any sense, as it's supporting the previous sentence. Other than that- well done Ryu! This is an amazing article, and the speed at which you moved it from bloated GA to FAC is awe-inspiring. --PresN 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. I'll fix that "however" you mentioned. I appreciate the support and input. Ryu Kaze 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, wait. I see what happened there. Half of the preceding sentence got cut off at some point. The "However" was supposed to point out that a rebuttle was coming to mention of the remake rumor. I'm glad you caugh this. Ryu Kaze 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, it makes much mroe sense now, thank you. --PresN 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object simply because it's 3X the recommended size. Otherwise, it's an excellent article. If this were on one of the biggest events in the history of the world, such as World War II, I could live with the article's size, but we are after all dealing with a video game here.Rlevse 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Read the nomination italics. — Deckiller 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This isn't really an actionable objection, is it? It sounds like you're saying that you're objecting based solely on the length alone, regardless of whether or not the length is needed. The category of the subject has no bearing on how many kbs are required to provide proper coverage of the subject. Some video games require more coverage than others, as some have more content than others or are more notable than others (this particular title falling into both categories). The featured article criteria makes no mention of the "recommended length" thing. That's simply a stylistic suggestion, not an actual rule, and one that openly admits that there will be exceptions to how strictly it should be considered. Few, if any, FAs would make it if there was a rule that we couldn't exceed 32kb. Ryu Kaze 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Tell that to the people that have had FACs cut down because of it.Rlevse 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • We refuse to succumb to that sort of cutting down on our FACs; I think the other FACs in question think that the objections are credible as they are, and therefore do not form a solid counterarguement. — Deckiller 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Agreed. They're simply not credible "faults" and won't be recognized as such because they aren't part of criteria. In any event, why would examples of people not recognizing proper FAC procedure in other FACs have any bearing on this FAC — which should recognize FAC procedure? I'm not accusing you of anything, but the way you worded that almost suggests that this is a case of WP:POINT. Is it? Ryu Kaze 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I've spoken with Rlevse on his talk page.[6] He's expressed that he isn't interested in coming back to explain his reasoning further and said that his objection can be dismissed. Ryu Kaze 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I'd like to nip something else in the bud: just because this article is 98 KB long and featured 140 references doesn't mean that all FAs must mimic this; most gaming articles should have about 50-60 references, but this article must be extremely comprehensive about several additional aspects than the other final fantasies, namely significance, the compilation, etc. — Deckiller 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That is something that needed to be brought up. Also, I'd like to add to what Deck said by pointing out that no other video game has had as much cruft associated with it, requiring extensive use of references here. Ryu Kaze 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, excessive use of so-called "fair use" images, most of which have nearly identically written (and insufficient) fair-use rationales. For example, almost every image says "The image is used to demonstrate the game's distinctive art style", but it's not at all clear that 11 images are required to do this, nor is the "distinctive art style" of the game ever discussed in the article. To move to specific images,
  1. Image:Ffviibox.jpg. Rationale says "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but it isn't. It's just used for decoration in the infobox. At 650x650 px, it's also hardly "low-resolution" as stated in the license tag. Also, no source is given for the image.
  2. Image:FFVIIbattlexample.jpg has no fair-use rationale at all, and no source is given.
  3. Image:Midgartechdemoshot.JPG. Rationale once again says "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but the caption just says "City of Midgar", not explaining anything about what precisely is being seen in the image. Some aspects of the city are mentioned in passing in the article, but there's no way to tell which in any of them are being shown in this picture.
  4. Image:FFVIInomuracastdesigns.JPG and
  5. Image:FFVIIsephirothdesignbynomura.JPG. The rationales for these images once again say "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but actually they both illustrate what some characters in the game look like. The characters' physical appearance does not seem to be an important characteristic of the game at all; certainly not so important that the existing text description needs to be accompanied by two images. Image:FFVIInomuracastdesigns.JPG, at 567x632 px, is also not low-resolution.
  6. Image:FFVIImeteorapproaching.jpg. The rationale includes the familiar line "The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like", but with no explanation of why the reader needs to know what it looks like.
  7. Image:FFVIIaerithrest.jpg. Same as above; why does the reader need to know what this scene looks like?
  8. Image:FFVIIneomidgar.JPG. Same as above. What crucial information does this image provide that is not already adequately covered by the text in the sentence "While the landscape had once been desolate due to Shin-Ra's operations, it is now a land of lush greenery"?
  9. Image:Compilation of FF7 logo.jpg is just the logo of the series to which the game belongs. Why is this image essential to understanding the article?

Apart from the problems with the images, the article seems to contain some original research (for example, who says "Themes of the game include environmental awareness, acceptance of self, and the nature of life, death and the spirit"? Is that the editor's own interpretation?) I notice a lot of the "references" are actually just quotes from the game, meaning primary rather than secondary sources are being used. That's not against policy, but it is discouraged, especially for claims that are open to more than one interpretation. User:Angr 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That line you quoted is in the lead section. It is explained in detail in the sections below. — Deckiller 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it isn't; I went ahead and removed it. Ryu, why did you add that line anyway? Was it the literature teacher inside you? It seems the rest of the objection is the usual fare; the primary source issue is something that has not been objected before, as it is the only way to source a plot without going to "fansites" (besides, a lot of fictional FAs don't even use sources for their synopsis sections at all!). — Deckiller 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    These are either just screenshots or pictures straight from the official site which became open source for promoting the game. MythSearcher 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Must have been said literature teacher inside me. As far as objecting to the use of the script references, echoing Deckiller, no one has objected to these before, especially on the grounds that they're not reliable (a secondary source would have a more reliable quote than the game?). Anyway, I'm going to see to those image issues now. Ryu Kaze 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • By the way Angr, I'm confused by your objections on the character designs. How are the main characters not important aspects of the game? Ryu Kaze 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, I've made several changes for the images. See my response to A Man in Black just below. Ryu Kaze 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Just so everyone's aware, on his talk page I've left a couple of requests for Angr to let us know if the imagery changes listed below address his concerns. Ryu Kaze 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — With regard to Angr's continued objection (see below), I just want it to be known that an attempt has been made to address it once again, and requests for feedback left on his talk page. While I'm sure he'll come back, just in case this gets reviewed by others before then, I want everyone to be aware that an effort is being made to satisfy any fair-use issues he has with the article. Ryu Kaze 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object - I don't usually agree with Angr on most of these objections, but the battle example does need a rationale and source, and I'm not sure what purpose the meteor image serves. The Aeris's death scene is iconic, but it would probably be better replaced with an image of Sephiroth actually killing Aeris. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    You know, this is a full-on objection; he's right about several of these. I'll handle them one by one.
    1. The cover in the infobox is fine, but it needs a caption and the source image needs to be reduced. I've tagged it with {{fairusereduce}} as such.
      Hey, I added the caption and series functions to the infobox for a reason; why not use them?
    2. The town image could stand to be moved down; on narrrower resolutions, it makes the beginning of this para unreadable.
    3. The battle image needs a source and rationale.
    4. How is that map at all fair-use? It's a substantial reproduction of one of the major features of that strategy guide. That's a map that someone is trying to sell.
    5. Why do we need a separate image of Midgar? This one is right on the cusp IMO; it illustrates both the cinematics and the city itself, but it needs a better caption.
    6. The cast image needs to be shrunk and has been tagged as such. It's okay other than that because it's illustrating both Nomura's art style and the plot summary (showing what each character looks like).
    7. The Sephiroth image seems gratuitous. We already have a Nomura character design image, and if the Aeris picture is switched, we'll have an in-game image.
    8. Not sure what the meteor image is there for; yup, it's a meteor.
    9. The Cloud/Aeris image isn't the iconic scene; where's Sephiroth killing Aeris?
    10. Why is there an image of Midgar covered in greenery?
    11. The logo of Compilation seems fine to me; this is the article for Compilation (and thus the image is useful for identification), and it's a significant departure from previous FFVII marketing materials.
    I think about four of these images (indutrial Midgar, green Midgar, Sephiroth, Cloud/Aeris) could be ditched, and replaced with the Sephiroth-killing-Aeris image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I'll address these issues. Some of the fair-use rationale problems are more a result of me worrying about so many different aspects of the article at once that I slipped up there. Thanks for the advice. Ryu Kaze 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, here are the changes I've made:
    1. Shrunk boxart image. By the way, Angr, this isn't a decorative piece. It's identifying the subject of the article
    2. Shrunk town image and moved it down some
    3. Got the fair-use rationale for the battle image
    4. Shrunk the map image considerably
    5. Changed the caption on the image of Midgar to identify it as an overhead shot of the city
    6. Shrunk the image of the main characters substantially
    7. Removed Nomura's design of Sephiroth
    8. Removed the image of Meteor
    9. Replaced the image of Cloud putting Aerith's body in the water with one of Sephiroth killing her. By the way, Angr, as MIB said, this is an iconic scene from the game. Please read the article for an explanation of why
    10. Removed the image of Midgar covered with greenery
    11. Shrunk the Compilation logo image, and extended its caption to point out that the logo is based on the original Final Fantasy VII's logo
    Is this sufficient to address all image concerns? Ryu Kaze 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    I'm still unhappy with the map image. That's not fair-use, it's just copyvio. It needs to be replaced with an image that isn't a substantial reproduction of a for-sale work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've gotten a non-for-sale replacement for it. Ryu Kaze 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Where did this map come from? Did FF Compendium scan it from somewhere, or make it themselves? Can you contact them to ask them to release their work under the GFDL? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sure, I'll ask them. Ryu Kaze 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    I tell you what: until we can get a map under the GFDL, I'm just going to remove it altogether so there's no concern over fair-use for it. Ryu Kaze 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, all of my concerns are resolved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Cool. I've sent a request for the GFDL of the image to the maintenance guru at FFCompendium, so hopefully we'll be able to use it later. Ryu Kaze 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are two sentences in the article with a whopping five citations lined up in a row (one is the end of the first paragraph in "Characters," the other in the first para of "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII"). I appreciate the desire to properly and conclusively cite sources, but it seems a bit overcrowded and hard to read. Might both of these cases be properly cited with, say, no more than three footnotes each? Alternatively, if you feel that all of the sources are necessary, you might think of putting some of them into the markup, commented-out ("<!-- Further details on such-and-such can be found in Authorname, Book Title, pages 10-12" and so on). Andrew Levine 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It's fairly obvious that you never read the article before it was turned into an FAC. As stated above, FF7 is the most cruft-attracting game ever. For an article that has historicaly been a bloated plot summary to be submitted as a ~100kb FAC, there needs to be almost epic levels of referencing to show that that is not the case here. I also disagree with putting references in markup- what's the point of references if you can't see them on the article itself? it defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. I dont' feel that they are distracting, even the 5-in-a-row ones. --PresN 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that there's no point in references that can't be seen, but I'll go ahead and just reduce the quantity to three each for the sake of readability. Ryu Kaze 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Ryu Kaze 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose/comment The compilation section has a dizzying amount of links. Between the wikilinksand the footnote links, it makes the section rather difficult to read. Kevin_b_er 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input. I've fixed it up. Ryu Kaze 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I have several complaints, but they're rather weak ones, mainly the fact that often the character section rambles on a bit about the characters' design. This is all subjective though, which is why I'm supporting and not objecting. You guys did a good job again. (When you're done, I'd like to work with me on FFIV next, and I've done a bit of starting it up, and plan to work on it a bit more, mainly because this November will mark its 15th anniversary). Sir Crazyswordsman 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. I'm probably going to be pretty busy in the offline world soon, by the way, so I may not be able to help. :( Ryu Kaze 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll definitely be around, but not in full swing once college rolls around next month. — Deckiller 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I can't really say much except I read it, it is really good, and it seems to pass FA standards with flying colors. RN 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Ryu Kaze 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Now that the image issues have been ironed out, I can safely say this is the best Final Fantasy article on Wikipedia, richly deserving to stand alongside previously featured FF articles such as VI, VIII, X and X-2 as shining examples of what a CVG-related Featured Article should embody. Yes, it's big, but it never feels like a long read: everything is (despite first glance!) actually very lightly touched upon and straight-to-the-point, without any extra fluff. It's very well written (although that pretty much goes without saying...) and is unbelievably well-referenced. In short, what was once a good article a month ago is an exemplary one now, and one of the most influential video games out there now has an article to match. Amazing work (yet again)! --NateDan 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought I'd thanked you already. My apologies. Thank you for the support. Ryu Kaze 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As the principal contributer to a FA and a current FAC I fully understand the difficulty of keeping articles down in size. It bothers me slightly that you consider this isn't really an actionable objection, it is actionable, it is simply very hard. Any FAC on a subject could theoretically be three times as long and still only cover a fraction of what there is to know about it, that is the essence of an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a book). The skill of the editor is whitteling down a huge body of facts into a succinct body of prose that covers the salient points. So here I am, wanting to support what is for the most part a very good article that falls down due to a lack of heavy red marker pen editing. The article does a good job of explaining the games importance (I LOVE it when articles explain real world importance), but the long story section is bloated and difficult to follow or remain interested in. It simply fails to be 'the best of Wikipedia's work'. I am holding off on actually objecting, I'd be interested to see the editors comments, and I would like to see this featured, I just don't think it is there yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • See, we're strongly opposed to being badgered between inclusionism and deletionism because we nearly lost a featured article last month because it didn't explain the story enough. Heck, that article's story section is nearly as long as this one, and some editors felt it wasn't comprehensive enough. RPGs are 40 hours long, and they have lenghty stories; to ignore major plot elements is not cutting fancruft, but failing to meet the comprehensiveness standard. Please understand that we're sick of the "too long" or "too short" games of monkey in the middle, and we try our hardest to reach middle ground so that we're not screwed by a faction. — Deckiller 18:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I appreciate your comments and the fact that you asked for an explanation of length rather than outright opposed. I can also appreciate that you shot for explaining your concerns with the article rather than straight out labeling them grounds for objection. Now, to be entirely honest with you, working on the story section for this one was harder than those for Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Chrono Trigger or Shadow of the Colossus. While Final Fantasy X has an unbelievably immense level of backstory, the main story that develops as you play is still relatively straightforward and — sticking to the main subplot, while briefly touching on the surrounding ones — can be done fairly easily. Final Fantasy VIII is a simple matter on both levels. VI and X-2 are a little heavier on backstory than VIII, but still nothing near X (obviously X itself serves as the backstory for X-2), while having a main storyline that's quite straightforward. Chrono Trigger and Shadow have essentially no backstory, while Shadow is extremely straightforward in its main story. CT, however, is pretty heavy on describing the actual developments of the story — mainly because, like VII, each main character has their own subplot that has to be resolved during the game. Even so, it's still not on the same level of content as VII.
VII has a ridiculus number of subplots that are introduced, developed, and resolved within the framework of the actual story. That's not even looking at the backstory, which — while not as immense as X's — is still pretty large. Unfortunately, also like X, major aspects of the backstory are revealed during the development of the game itself (specifically Sephiroth and Cloud's histories, which also requires going into the history of Jenova and bringing up Professor Gast). That requires roughly four paragraphs within the story section right there. VII is notorious for being a game where things are not what they seem, full of plot twists, revelations and "Where did that come from?" moments. Since we're required to write about the stories of fictional works in the way that the story unfolds for the player in order to maintain a real world perspective, this means that the section is unavoidably going to be long.
I love succinct, crisp descriptions in an encyclopedia article as much as anyone, I promise. To ensure that this article was comprehensive (a standard of FAC that overshadows any concerns of length), it couldn't be short. However, that doesn't mean it isn't succint. As I said in the text Deckiller quoted when nominating the article, there is a whole lot that we're still not bringing up because it's not part of the core storyline. Comprehensiveness requires that we touch on the main characters' subplots and mention their resolutions, but we don't mention any of the development of those except with the core plot. To give you some examples of the things I didn't include for the sake of brevity, read this list:
(note to Raul: this is a list of examples of how we've maintained brevity with the story aspects of the article; you won't need to read each of these if you just want to cut to whatever response follows)
  • A character named "Bugenhagen" lives at Cosmo Canyon. He's probably the most intelligent character in the entire game, with an extensive understanding of the planet and the Lifestream. He is, in fact, the character who first brings it up (it wasn't necessary to mention this, because Sephiroth's explanation of his plan is sufficient for emphasising the characters' understanding of the Lifestream). This character also pretty much raised Red XIII, and was the one who discovered that Aerith had been trying to cast Holy before she died and tells the others that Sephiroth must be blocking the spell from moving against Meteor. Before the end of the game, Bugenhagen dies from old age, being 130 years old. None of this is mentioned in such specifics.
  • Rufus Shinra becomes the president of Shin-Ra after Sephiroth kills his father. This is mentioned. What isn't mentioned is that Rufus' philosophy for running the company was in stark contrast to his father's. Instead of running the world with money, he believed he could do it through fear. People in society consider him cold-hearted and he's infamous for looking down on others as stupid, because he's extremely clever himself. In a turn of striking irony, after Meteor is summoned and the WEAPONs awakened, he takes up the position of defending the world from despair himself, and it becomes apparent that he actually cares for his people. At one point, he tries having the members of AVALANCHE executed while telling the public that Meteor and the WEAPONs are their fault. Even though he expected the world was going to be destroyed anyway, he wanted the public to feel better, thinking that someone was responsible and was being punished. Before the end of the game, everyone believes he's dead, killed in an explosion caused by one of the WEAPONs. He survived, though, and shows up alive in Advent Children. Obviously not all of this is mentioned.
  • Sephiroth cast Meteor in the crater where Jenova had landed. This crater caved in when he cast the spell and the WEAPONs awakened, revealing that the planet underneath had been hurt drastically because of Jenova. There was a chasm leading all the way to the planet's core. It is through this chasm that the heroes travel at the end of the game, but they can't do it right away because Sephiroth erected a magical barrier over it after casting Meteor. In order to penetrate this barrier, Shin-Ra moves a gigantic cannon from their military base to Midgar, hooks it up to all the mako reactors in the city, and fires a beam of pure mako at the barrier. In the meantime, one of the WEAPONs shoots at Midgar. The beam from the cannon cuts through the WEAPON, killing it, while its attack hits Rufus' office, apparently killing him. The mako beam keeps going, hits Sephiroth's barrier, breaks it, and then gives the heroes the opportunity to go after Sephiroth. Before they can, however, Hojo takes over the cannon and tries shooting at the crater again, intending to send the Lifestream's power directly to Sephiroth. The heroes go after him, and it's then that we learn that Hojo is Sephiroth's father. More stuff we don't specify.
  • There's four members of the Turks unit seen in the game. They're extremely popular characters, but we don't mention even their names (I was hoping the fact that they got their own game — as mentioned in the Compilation section — would emphasise that well enough). We don't mention that Reno (probably the most popular Turk) is the one who was ordered to destroy Sector 7. We also don't mention that Don Corneo shows up again during Yuffie's subplot, kidnaps Yuffie and Elena (one of the Turks), and that AVALANCHE and the Turks form a begruding respect for one another while working together to free their comrades. As a result of this team-up, near the end of the game, the player is given the option of not fighting the group. In Advent Children, their respect for one another is still there, and they help each other out.
  • Cid gets to fulfill his dream of going into space when Shin-Ra tries using the rocket from years earlier to send a materia bomb into Meteor. It's during this scenario that we learn that the assistant he had been verbally abusing for years saved his life. She had been examining an oxygen tank she wasn't comfortable with when it was almost time to launch the rocket. She said she'd stay in the room and die to make sure that Cid got to have his dream, but he wasn't willing to kill someone to go into space, so he stopped the launch. When Shin-Ra sends the rocket up, AVALANCHE is onboard, and as Cid runs past the oxygen tank that his assistant had been examining years earlier, it explodes, trapping him under some rubble. He then realizes that she had been right about it, and later apologizes to her.
  • Yuffie fights her father and several important people from Wutai, earning the right to carry the sacred Leviathan materia. It's also at this time that she and her father's disputes are settled when she learns why he hadn't fought back against Shin-Ra.
  • There's still a lot more I haven't gotten into.
As Deckiller explained, we seek to establish a compromise between the inclusionist and deletionist philosophies, because we don't want to be caught in the middle while they feud, wanting our work to be used as an example in their ideal wars. It's happened to us before and we nearly lost an FA over it. We've had to explain that there's no standard for length except succinct comprehensiveness (not an oxymoron, as some have argued). Sometimes more coverage is required because there's more content, but even when that's true, we shoot for brevity. I believe the mark has been hit in this case. Ryu Kaze 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply. I see. He who sits in the middle of the road gets hit on both sides as my grandmother once warned me. I didn't realise that people were demanding longer story sections. Okay, your explanation makes sense to a point - I did appreciate that the length of the RPG meant that it was difficult to condense. Please be aware that what I was advocating was not deletionism - I'm a lumper/splitter, and I was reasoning that there was scope to move large sections to their respective subpages and place briefer summaries in their place here. Ultimately I still feel that is both possible and preferable, but I conceed that I a) don't know the subject well enough to make definitive statements on that and b) the cut off point between too long and too short is subjective. It may indeed be impossible.
So I shall not be objecting. I haven't made my mind up about supporting it yet either. I am no slave to the 30k limit, (both albatross and procellariidae exceed that) this article is way beyond even what is normal for fac (45-60k) and that bothers me. But so does not recognising the obvious hard work, research and effort that went into this. So, um, watch this space. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'm surprised we haven't been opposed for not explaining the story enough. — Deckiller 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I am too. Especially by those who are fans of the side characters whose subplots haven't gotten as much coverage as Cloud, Tifa, Aerith and Sephiroth's (the main main characters). Oh, and by the way, Aerith's dad is Professor Gast. So there's another subplot we didn't really delve into. Ryu Kaze 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ryu, any luck with that FF9 ultimania? At this rate, FF9 is going to be 2/3 in universe. Do you think you could send me the relevent info via e-mail, especially if it goes into details similar to FF7? — Deckiller 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I put my reply on your talk page so that we don't get the FAC more off-track than it already is. XD Ryu Kaze 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I still feel the story section is too long but I am clearly outvoted by people who understand teh subject inside out. I have also decided that rigidly objecting or even withholding support based on a guideline is both hypocritical and mean. Most FAs break way past the 30k limit. At any rate, I need to show support for gaming FACs that try so hard to provide good information on development and real world significance (rather than a list of what the little monstermon did in manga episodes). Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Ryu Kaze 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article comprehensively covers everything one should know about the game without losing its focus in trivia or speculation. After reviewing, I noticed the article has a couple "snakey" sentences, but it's nothing notable or even gramatically incorrect. Which means this article is worthy of support! Also a Comment. Fair use isn't an attempt to "sneak something in while praying the owner doesn't sue us." As long as the images aren't decorative and provide important illustration of topics discussed, we should be protected under the law. These informal policy wars over the 'generally accepted fair-use limit' are becoming nonsensical. Like comprehensiveness, appropriate number varies by article; instead of imposing a vague, Wikipedia-wide limit, one should review articles on a case-by-case basis for having superfluous images. --Zeality 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your support, Zeality. On the subject of the fair-use images, I agree that it shouldn't be a "sneak something in while hoping we don't get sued" thing. I wish there was a more solid concept of what does and doesn't fall under fair-use. It's somewhat laughable that it's even part of copyright law since you don't know how it will be defined until you're already in court. Though my commentary is probably more fit for a discussion of US copyright law than anything else, so I'll stop with this closing statement: fair-use is a wonderful concept, but implemented somewhat poorly (note: this is not a negative criticique of how Wikipedia handles fair-use, just so no one takes it that way; it's just commentary on fair-use in general). Ryu Kaze 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is very informative, while keeping consistency and staying true to the source material. My only concern? A little too long...but there's so much stuff in the game that as it stands now I can't see any excess that can be cut, so..has my vote! Dee man45 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see anything that can be legitimately cut either, and it is very well written. Nifboy 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Ryu Kaze 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done, as usual! Well organized, written and referenced. Combination 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate it very much. Ryu Kaze 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Killer job, Ryu. I have a couple of things I'd like to comment on, although since I'm working on another article I'm restricting my comments to the first couple of sections:
    • "console and computer role-playin game"? Again, I feel that console role-playing games (also known as Japanese role-playing games) and computer role-playing games (Western role-playing games) are genre distinctions, not platform. Of course, Final Fantasy VII would fall under console role-playing game.
    • I don't see the purpose of wikilinking some of the dates. 2000s?
    • "often credited"? How about just "credited"? Less verbosity and one less peacock term. I would probably revise the sentence to read something shorter and less awkward like " credited with bringing mainstream success to console role-playing games." "Out of Japan" is unnecessary; the implication of mainstream is enough.
    • "As with the preceding games in the series, the world map may be traversed by foot, by chocobo, by airship, or by other means of transportation." I would replace "may be" with "is."
    • "At other times, pre-rendered cinematic cut scenes progress the story." Consider replacing "progress" with "advance." I think "advance" suits the context slightly better and "progression" is used in the same paragraph (thus, "advanced" won't sound as repetitive").
    • "During its turn-based battle sequences, the game uses the same Active Time Battle (ATB) system used in the three Final Fantasy games preceding it." Occurrences of "uses" and "used" very close to each other. "Utiliized" is overboard, so perhaps "...featured in the three preceding Final Fantasy games."
    • "Unlike previous games in the series, which traditionally allowed 4-5 playable characters to participate in battle, Final Fantasy VII allows for only three characters to be present in the party at any one time." The previous games in the series still (presently) allow for 4-5 playable characters (although Final Fantasy IV was the only to allow for five).
    • "Final Fantasy VII's skill system has been described as a combination of the character class system used in Final Fantasy V and the accessory system seen in Final Fantasy VI." "Has been described"? Sounds a bit weasel-wordish.

That's all I have for now. This article is truly amazing; the only criticisms I could come up with were nit-picks. Again, excellent job. :) --Tristam 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I took a lot of these into consideration during a light copyedit, although the "can be" wording is intentional, since chocobos aren't mandatory (and adding a whole sentence describing that would be redundant). — Deckiller 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to apologize if I seem a little overly frank for this FAC (and my community work in general); with lots of FA pushes comes lots of mirrored objections, so we tend to grow impatient as editors, which leads to attempts to "nip things in the bud", which can often come across as confrontational. — Deckiller 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input, Tristam, and your support. Thanks also to Deckiller for addressing the suggestions you provided. Ryu Kaze 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I am really impressed. This article has a sort of special place in my heart because it was one of my first edits while I was still known as a bunch of numbers separated by periods. Coming from someone who's played the game inside and out, I would say that the story section is barebones, absolutely as thin as it can get without slipping over a vital plot point. As Ryu Kaze has pointed out, there are plenty of things that seem just as important to understanding the story but have been completely glossed over for the sake of succinctness. I bet some FFVII fanboy out there will vandalize the story section by adding all of these things, rather than deleting. Axem Titanium 20:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. Ryu Kaze 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Length issues are rising again, this time represented by a tag on the main article. I'd like to reinforce the fact that this is already a summarized portion of the story, and further summarization will lead to issues coming from the other side. We struck a balance. — Deckiller 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article is unreadable. I consider FFVII to be among the best video games in history and I really wanted to read this entire article in order to give a thoughout evaluation. However, my sincere desire to read the entire article was defeated once I got to the Story section. This section is just much too long. Trying to review every significant point in the story is just too tedious. The full story should be moved to a separate article and a summarized version added to the main article. The summary should be 5 or 6 paragraphs at the most (the same length as the other sections). The Compilation of Final Fantasy VII section should also be moved to a separate article (as has been suggested already). The Development section is also on the long side, though perhaps it could just be edited down a bit. The writing style and referencing are excellent and I would certainly support this article's nomination if I could just read the whole thing. Kaldari 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Kaldari, comprehensivess is a criterion for featured articles. Length is not. Did you read the above discussion about this issue? The only requirement related to length for featured articles is that they stay on the subject while first achieving comprehensiveness. As you can see detailed above, a lot of the story has still been left out, though I'm sure you know this anyway since you've indicated that you've played the game.
You said "The summary should be 5 or 6 paragraphs at the most" because other sections are that long. That doesn't make sense to me at all. There's more content here than with other stories and the other sections of the article. You can't impose a standard size on something that has no standard quantity of content to begin with. Were the section to be shortened as you've suggested here, someone could object (rightfully so) on the grounds that the much more important requirement of comrephensiveness has not been met, if not on the grounds that the story summary would be incomprehensible (remember, game stories have to be summarized in the order that the information is presented to us in the real world; trying to omit info under these circumstances would make it impenetrable to an outside reader). What's the point in a reader even starting to read the article if it's not going to be comprehensive or make sense? Again, comprehensiveness comes first.
Wikipedia:Article size is just a suggestion. It's not even part of the manual of style. It is, in fact, a suggestion that openly and readily admits that there will be exceptions to how strongly it should be considered with specific subjects (from the page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information"). It acknowledges that how long an article should be is a case-by-case matter. Why are you citing it in your objection when it doesn't even suggest that there should be a strictly followed standard of length?
For that matter, the manual of style only suggests that story summaries be kept "reasonably short". How can someone put down a universal definition of what is "reasonably short" when not every story has the same amount of content? Final Fantasy VII probably has more content than any of the others, and for reasons, explained above, it is being reasonably short. There's a ton of things that don't get in-depth coverage because the focus here is on the core storyline, with only the briefest mention of subplots. I am absolutely flabbergasted that someone who has played the game would suggest that Final Fantasy VII — the Final Fantasy game that probably has more content to its storyline than any of the others — should have a shorter story section than the articles on Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X or Final Fantasy X-2. Chrono Trigger — another game with a lot of content — has a story section that rivals this one. If this article was about Shadow of the Colossus — an excercise in the concept of minimalistic storytelling — I would agree that 5 paragraphs are sufficient. But you can't suggest that a game designed to be completed in 10 to 12 hours with an intentionally minimalistic storyline should have the same summary size as a game designed to be completed in 50 or more hours, with a storyline that to this day is considered one of the most long-winded and convoluted outings in RPGs.
I feel inclined to ask if you considered the subject of the article when you made that suggestion. If so, you didn't add any mention of it to your claim. An argument for why the story section should be shorter than it is should be based on the story itself and why it doesn't require this kind of coverage — as well as how this kind of coverage could be avoided while being comprehensive and ensuring that the information makes sense — while hopefully taking into account that this is the article for the most revolutionary title in video game history. Why should it have a shorter story section than its successors?
By the way, the Compilation section would be a stub if it were an article to itself. That not only would result in ignoring coverage of this very notable aspect of this very notable game, but it would be placing that information into a spot where it wouldn't be so likely to get proper coverage. Outside of the article for Final Fantasy VII, a Compilation section isn't going to serve a purpose much greater than being a link repository. It's actually very relevant to the subject being discussed in this article, and should be described here.
Thanks for the compliment about writing style and referencing, though. Sorry if I was harsh in there at any point. I was just really floored by the suggestion you made and that you objected on such a basis. Ryu Kaze 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the entire FAC debate as well as much of the discussion on the article's talk page. I am still very firm in my belief that the story section is too long. I know that the article length guidelines are only suggestions. However, I believe that having a section that is so tedious as to be unreadable is certainly objectionable. I've read 1,000 page books, but I couldn't read this encyclopedia article because it was too tedious (despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the game, no less). To me that is a huge problem. Please explain to me why it would be a problem to summarize the story? Obviously it is already summarized, I just think it needs to be summarized a lot more. I don't think that would prohibit the article from being comprehensive. Kaldari 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you found the section tedious. I will scan the section again tonight and see if there's anything at all that could possibly be condensed, but I'm not expecting to be able to condense much. Even sticking to the core storyline, there's so much that has to be mentioned for the summary to make sense and be comprehensive too. But I will try. Ryu Kaze 21:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so the entire oppose boils down to finding the content dry? — Deckiller 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, tedious is not the same thing as dry. All that I'm asking is that you limit the Story section to only the core storyline and that you remove any extraneous details not essential to the story. Considering how complex the core story is, perhaps it is not possible to adequately summarize it in 6 paragraphs. However, I do think the section can successfully be edited down more with some effort. Kaldari 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Kaldari, but I've gone back through the Story section and I honestly can't see any way of making it shorter while preserving comprehensive requirements and the out-of-universe perspective that is also required. The only way it could be done would be to place the backstory info about Jenova's landing and defeat in the Setting section, as well as the info on Sephiroth's pre-birth enhancement, but I can't do that because we're required to present information like this in the order it's presented in-game. Since these are very important aspect of how the story unfolds, I can't move that information to the Setting section. If you must object, you just must. I cannot and will not compromise the integirty of the article — in a way that guarantees it merit objections, no less — for the sake of it being called "too long" on the basis of only "I got bored while reading it".
That seems to be more an issue of you and the content finding yourselves incompatible (or perhaps you and this particular means of presenting the content finding yourselves incompatible; you did say you played and liked the game itself). One might as well object to Theodore Roosevelt's FA status on the basis of "I got bored while reading the Assistant Secretary of the Navy section". You didn't explain to me why you believed the section was too long on the basis of the content itself. You just said you got bored. I don't see how that provides me with any constructive input, or even a basis for shortening it in the event it was too long. Ryu Kaze 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it disappointing that you would rather blame the reader than work on fixing the problem. There are plenty of areas in which the story section could be edited down without removing any vital plot informtion. I'll edit the section to give you a couple of examples. Kaldari 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
While I personally think that the article is now lacking a bit, I can accept the changes you made as long as the line "As the journey progresses, each member of the group must come to terms with personal conflicts from their past" remains. So long as that line is there, I at least feel like the article is making the attempt to acknowledge those subplots. Does this satisfy your concerns with the article? Ryu Kaze 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I trimmed the last bit of supporting cast subplot info that you missed, just so it remains consistently on the core characters. Ryu Kaze 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I still feel like the overall writing style of the Story section is too detailed, I'll give you credit for making a good faith effort (the first actual edit I've seen to address the issue, however timidly). So long as the Story section is restricted to the main storyline, I'll withdraw my opposition. Other than that issue, I think this is actually a very well done article. The references especially are extensive and I love the dialog citations from the game. There are a couple of awkward sentences, but I'll fix them myself if I can find them again. BTW, I only went through the first 4 paragraphs of the Story section to look for things to cut as an example, so I may still find some things to cut in the rest of it if I get around to editing the article again. I hope you've found my edits so far at least somewhat helpful. Good luck on the FAC nomination. Kaldari 05:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kaldari. I can acknowledge that your edits were helpful, yes. I fear we might get some flack from those who feel a little more detailis needed for the other subplots, but now that an even greater effort has been made to strike a balance, I hope that everyone will agree that most of what could be done has been done. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 13:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the changes you've made. I still can't support, but I can object less strongly than before. I'm still not seeing any discussion of "the game's distinctive art style" mentioned in every fair-use rationale. (Is the art style really that distinctive? I'm no expert, but to me it looks like every other manga/anime out there.) And I'm still not convinced that most of these images are showing important aspects of the game in a way a text description would be unable to, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. User:Angr 11:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Within the Final Fantasy series, it most definitely has a distinct art style. Though Tetsuya Nomura did the designs for VIII, X, and X-2 afterward, there were some major differences in the level of detail incorporated and even the anatomy represented (particularly with the characters' feet). It's mentioned in the Characters section, I believe, that Nomura said the game's graphical limitations caused him to restrict his actual style, making the designs a lot plainer. In an interview about the development of the next game, the art director, Yusuke Naora, said "This is how [Nomura] really draws". Thanks for returning, by the way. Ryu Kaze 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, I've expaneded the fair-use rationale for the images. Give it a look if you would, please. Ryu Kaze 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • With regard to Angr's continued objection, I just want it to be known that an attempt has been made to address it once again, and requests for feedback left on his talk page. While I'm sure he'll come back, just in case this gets reviewed by others before then, I want everyone to be aware that an effort is being made to satisfy any fair-use issues he has with the article. Ryu Kaze 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Just updating to inform everyone that FFCompendium said the world map image we were interested in using isn't theirs and they can't remember who they got it from some six years ago. That being the case, I'm going to contact RPGamer for permission to use the map on their site instead. Ryu Kaze 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - To be honest, I have been concerned about the length as well, but it now appears that much of the articles size is images, which are now reduced to a necessary amount, and has been thoroughly copyedited. I think it is an FA worthy article. Judgesurreal777 04:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- I think that the article is very complete and it has to be long because there are a lot of things to say about the game, so i don´t think that how long is an article is a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC).
    • Thanks for your support. Ryu Kaze 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE ... This article just spoiled the game for me. And it doesn't even say it has spoilers. How can you forget something so essential?
And by the way, I'm not joking. It did spoil the game for me. I'm pretty upset right now. -.-
For more info, check this out, in the article's talk page:
I wrote that comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC).
  • I think the article makes itself quite clear that it contains plot details. The Plot sections are not small, nor are the headers for those sections any more difficult to see than the headers for any of the other sections. For that matter, this is a featured article candidate (comprehensiveness being a criterion of FA) in an encyclopedia. It's going to contain plot details. In any event, a lack of spoiler tags is not grounds for opposing an FA nomination. We're not required to warn people about plot details in articles. Not only is it not part of the manual of style, but readers are supposed to assume that any article may contain them without them being singled out, as mentioned in the encyclopedia-wide notice accessible from the bottom of every page. Ryu Kaze 03:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to be rude or anything, but why on earth would anyone read an encyclopedia article on a game, an article that claims to cover the whole game and all of the important details, and be surprised when some of those details turn out to be major plot points, in a section called "plot"? Not only that, but if you've never played the game at all, even things like the names of characters would be spoilers. What's more, for someone who (on the talk page) claims to have played FFs 1-6 and 8, and can therefore be called somewhat of a final fantasy fanboy, to not know that Aeris was killed, 9 years ago in fact, is a bit odd. In short, your object vote isn't basd on anything that can really be used as the basis for a vote, and the fact that you honestly expected the article to not say anything at all about the plot at all is shocking. --PresN 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, it's me again. I'd like to point out a few things before you guys continue to bash me. 1) First things first. You might be thinking that I'm just some anonymous guy making all this stuff up because I have something personal against the article writer and don't want the article to be featured. Well, let me tell you a few things. a) I have no idea who wrote it and I really don't mind. I really like Wikipedia and I read it quite a lot. If someone ever did such thing just to prevent an article to be featured in an online encyclopedia, that person would clearly have some serious problems. It's not the case with me. In fact, I really don't care if this article becomes featured or not. Therefore, if you want, don't even count my "OPPOSE" vote. However, all I want is for you to at least CONSIDER the problem I had. b) Why am I anonymous? Well, because I'm not a member. And why am I not a member? Because, frankly, I don't think I could contribute with much (if not anything), really. Maybe only some stuff in the article about Uruguay (country where I live) and some other Uruguayan culture stuff. c) Ok I know. So you're wondering why, not being a member, I have the knowledge of how to edit stuff, and even add bold text!! (OMG!!) Well, first, I know basic HTML (I know this is not HTML but knowing how to use tags and stuff helped me here), and I can handle all this stuff with ease. Second, I'm a member of Uncyclopedia, so I learned how the Wikipedia tags and stuff work there. The only major contribution I made in Uncyclopedia in the 3 or 4 months I've been a member is in the Uruguay article. IF you want, here's the link to my user page there, which is pretty damn blank: 2) About coming here. Well I have no idea why I came - I guess I just wanted to check out the Wikipedia article of FF7. Like I already said, I really like Wikipedia and I read it a lot. However, when I came to this article, I knew it would have spoilers. I AVOIDED the parts that say "Plot" and "Story". I actually scrolled down so fast that I missed the screenshot of Sephiroth killing Aeries. However, when I was reading the Legacy (that part interested me, I wanted to read about the criticism), I saw the spoiler. And it sucked. Note: I don't think that knowing the names of the characters is a spoiler. But knowing that they die is. Let me tell you, I already knew stuff such as, for example, that Sephiroth is that last boss. I don't think that's much of a big deal. I have many friends who played FF7 and they would always tell me "Hey man you gotta play it, it rules". And I even saw one of them playing once. They'd tell me some cool stuff about the gameplay and the story but always VAGUE - like a synopsis. They never told me "Hey man, you know that girl from the intro cut scene? The first character to appear in the game? SHE DIES!". 3) I'm 18 years old and I really DID play FF 1-6 and 8. The first one on a real NES (which I still have, along with the original FF cartridge), which used to belong to my older brother. I played ALL OTHERS on a zSNES emulator (except 8, of course). I played the PC version of FF8 (in Spanish, because I couldn't find it in English)... You can tell that I'm not a very big fan of video game consoles - I just use the PC for everything. So the reason why I had never played FF7 before is pretty simple - I just never got the chance to do so. And I never really worried about playing it. I really like the FF series A LOT, but I don't consider myself a FAANNNNN, you know what I mean? Anyway, some months ago, my older bolder (who lives in London) came down to South America and gave me ALL his games. FF7 pc-version was one of them. And I decided to start it, so I could finally get to play it. <<<>>> That's all. Happy now? I couldn't have given more detail. Anyway, let me say what I came here to say: please add a spoiler tag or two. It doesn't hurt anyone. This article spoiled the game for me. It's just the right thing to do. Add one at "story" and another at "legacy" or something. ... Here's the link to article's talk page section about this: --- Thanks for reading my long post.
  • I don't recall us bashing you, nor do I see what your anonymous status or history with Final Fantasy games has to do with any of this. Spoiler tags are a stylistic option, not a requirement. They aren't "the right thing to do" in a place that promotes knowledge, not fansite courtesies, has a no censorship policy, and demands that information be presented impartially. Were we writing an argumentative essay, the attempt to influence how readers absorbed specifically-targeted information — if they were allowed to absorb it at all — would be fine (if not the entire point), but that's not what's going on here. This article is an attempt at providing a comprehensive, impartial presentation of information to further readers' knowledge on the subject. It is a fictional work with a story. Therefore, that story will be summarized and people will not be encouraged to avoid learning about it on the basis of a point of view assumption that knowledge ruins things. Once again, this isn't grounds for objecting to the article's nomination for featured article status. Please cease and desist with disrupting this process on such dubious grounds. I realize your intentions are good, but they're misplaced. Ryu Kaze 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Updating to let everyone know that the dispute with this user has been resolved.[7] Ryu Kaze 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This article meets the FA criteria and requirements. The language has a good flow and over 100 references are included (citations including notable sources such as GameSpot, IGN and several published books and reviews). — Wackymacs 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much! Ryu Kaze 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — I supported Ryu's last FAC and told him I was waiting for his next nomination. Didn't expect to see one so soon, though! And I'm glad it's Final Fantasy VII, probably the most important of the modern games in the series. Looks like you've taken care of the major issues listed above, so just a lot of support from me. ♠ SG →Talk 23:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for your support. Ryu Kaze 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. After a copyedit that I just did (please correct any problems that I might have introduced), I'm almost ready to support. The only thing is that the very last paragraph is a bit confusing, and I was unsure how to recast it; can someone try to clarify it? The length of the article is not a problem for me; the prose doesn't seem to drag on or become lost in details. The only thing that I'd caution about for future work is that the "with <person> <verb>ing..." clause formula can lead to long sentences; be wary of overusing it. Otherwise, it looks good. — TKD::Talk 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Your copyedit was performed well. I adjusted that paragraph you had concerns with (the last from the Legacy section, right?). I hope that helps it. Thanks for the advice, compliment and copyedit, by the way. Ryu Kaze 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Support. Thanks. Looks good. — TKD::Talk 15:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support...Partly. It sounds right, I did some formating to make it look better instead of all crowded together. More edits should be made though. MythSearcher 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your support, but you're not supposed to insert a forced break except in cases of very severe layout issues, and only as a last resort. As there are different monitor sizes with different screen resolutions using different internet browsers, how images appear on one person's screen aren't necessarily going to match how they appear on someone else's. I'm not sure how the inclusion of the forced break altered the layout on your screen, but on mine it produced a very unsightly white gap. Where use of a forced break won't necessarily benefit all monitors/resolutions/browsers, they're not supposed to be included. Instead, any and all other avenues are supposed to be pursued. I've moved the field map image up now (after removing the forced break), so hopefully that will make things look a little better. I know moving the image into the first paragraph can produce problems as well, but hopefully since the thumbnail is small, it won't. Ryu Kaze 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem seems to have fixed now, but another occured. The combat picture is now forcing the header "Plot" towards the right. I know it does not happen in smaller screens but it is still a little odd. I try not to add a forced break here (where it seems to be fine since it is the end of a section) and moved the picture up instead. MythSearcher 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems to work. Ryu Kaze 11:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I nominated this a while ago and it failed but since the regular editors fixed it from a decent article to an amazing one, it must be a part of the FA -ScotchMB 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. I never even noticed the previous nomination of this article (from late June, apparently). Had I noticed, maybe I would have tried improving it then. Ryu Kaze 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — This article has 44KB of prose as of 21 August 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment - as of August 22, there are: 18 Supports, 2 Nominating Supports, and 1 non-crossed out object (Angr), for a current tally of (20/1/0). --PresN 18:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work. Thunderbrand 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I no longer object, as it seems the article does not violate Wikipedia's fair-use policy. User:Angr 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for all your input, Angr. So I guess the count now stands at (21/0/0). Thanks, by the way, to PresN for tallying things up earlier. Ryu Kaze 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well... let's call it (20/0/1). I can't be philosophically opposed to the concept of FAs while actually supporting an FAC! ;-) User:Angr 06:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I must say that the quality of this article is amazing -- that's true. It is very complete, and well featured. I would give it a 10 out of a 10 -- if it wasn't for the fact that it has SPOILERS -- SPOILERS that disgraced my gameplay of FF7. After that, I would give it a 2 out of a 10. I've read the arguments in pro and against adding spoiler tags, and I found that the arguments against are mostly CHILDISH. I am not going to be part of a edit war on this, but I a "highly active" wikipedia editor, I want to make sure that I express my voice on this. I might sound a bit harsh on the "giving 2 out of a 10" thing, but no matter how good is this article, it spoiled my gameplay and further interest in the game -- and I know that I am not alone on this as I have seen other users complaining about the same. Consider this analogy: I feel that this article is as deceptive as having a date with Irina Voronina and finding out way to late that she is a she-male. I vote to REMOVE IT IS FEATURE STATUS, to avoid spoiling the plot to other users. --Pinnecco 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm... if you haven't noticed, this discussion is over and Final Fantasy VII is already featured. If you'd like, featured article review exists to reevaluate featured articles but, being only a few days after passing FAC practically unopposed by the end, I doubt the article could have degraded so quickly. Axem Titanium 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that -- But I wanted to express it anyway. Thanks for the hint above. I'll make sure to have a look at the featured article review and take this discussion there. --Pinnecco 17:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Spoiler tags have absolutely nothing to do with featured article criteria. FA status can't be removed because the article is informative. That's what it's there to do. If anything, putting a spoiler tag is making it less informative because it's telling people "Don't learn about why this game is important or I promise it will ruin any future experience with it you might have". You came to the article to learn, correct? You learned. Mission accomplished. Ryu Kaze 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, no one's going to appreciate you calling preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia "childish". You say you've read the reasons why spoiler tags aren't used here. If so, then you know why other people who feel more comfortable with their presence have even agreed that it makes more sense not to use them. This isn't "". This is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. A neutral body of comprehensive knowledge that aims only to educate while presenting information in an impartial manner. Why do you think hiding knowledge from people or warning them not to learn is part of FA criteria? Ryu Kaze 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
So the arguments against having spoiler warnings (which I found most of them childish) = "preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia" in your view? If so, you just proved my point. YES, this is a democracy. The fact that I vote to remove its feature status will probably have no effect watsoever in practive, as I am just one person voting against its feature status, when there are several out there voting in favour. But this is what democracy is all about. This article ruined my gameplay, and the last thing I want is other FF7 players to see this article featured on WP's frontpage and scream "damn wikipedia! at their monitors. My mind is made up, your mind is made up. (I am not trying to convince anyone here to change their POV). --Pinnecco 09:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Voting against its featured article status" does nothing on this page, and if you bring it to FAR based on your current objections, that's one-sided action outside of a simple talkpage discussion (hence WP:POINT), as nobody will support a removal based on the fact it has spoilers, since it's not mentioned in the FA critiera, and practically all FAs have "gameplay spoilers" and story synopses. — Deckiller 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Pinnecco, no, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I believe you're thinking of the United States (which is really a republic, anyway, but whatever). Wikipedia =/= United States. If you think things are settled on Wikipedia by way of a show of hands, you have completely misunderstood the process. Ryu Kaze 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'd like to comment that you say you don't want to take sides in an "edit war", but you have clearly taken the anti-spoilers side, and now, in your attempt to remove this article from FA status only because of that, you have begun violate WP:POINT (or, rather, you will actually break it if you try to list it for review). Additionally, 900 edits over two years is good, but not "highly active" as a general standard, but that's beside the point. — Deckiller 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Woa that's a load of BULL. Just checked the WP:POINT and I wouldn't be violating it as I will not be taking any unilateral action. Yor view of the WP:POINT is biased. Sorry, but that's what talk pages are for, to voice concerns. --Pinnecco 09:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the wording clearly. You have begun to violate WP:POINT by stating interest in featured article review. You're going to put the article up for review just days after it was featured becuase it spoiled your gameplay. Nobody will side with you on that one, thus, it would be clearly sen as a unilateral action. And, when we discuss that most FAs have such spoilers, it wouldn't be a stretch to say you'd put those up for a one-person review, as well. You haven't exactly violated it yet, but the above serves as a heads up to prevent it from happing Also, none of this should have occured on the FAC nomination page. You said talk pages are to voice concerns, so why didn't you post this on the FF7 talkpage? — Deckiller 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Pinnecco, you acting alone is unilateral action. Thus, the "uni" part of the word. Ryu Kaze 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this some sort of BS festival? To voice my concerns on a talk page is not an action against the article. This is a democracy after all It is not a democracy? Even better in this case then, as I might draw some consesus that this article might hurt other FF7 players if it is featured in the frontpage -- regardless of how many people are with me or not. I'm leaving this discussion now as it seems futile since there is some strong BIAS here. My mind is made up. But please don't take my refrain from answering your further comments as a fact that I decided to agree with you because I don't. --Pinnecco 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You're free to comment as you please, so I'll neither tell you to go nor beg you to come back, but I'd like you to find me a person who doesn't operate with bias. No one does. You're certainly not operating without it. You've made a judgement and are voicing it in accordance with that judgement. This is bias. We have done the same. The only difference is that we're looking to Wikipedia's policies, not hypothetical scenarios that involve us dancing on the edge of policy. Bias is only a problem when it's based on things like personal preference, a gut feeling, or some other such intangible matter irrelevant to Wikipedia's development. For that matter, you're talking about warning people not to learn what is one of the most important aspects of this historically notable subject (mentioned in almost every section of the article). How can people come here to find out what makes it important if you're trying to "protect" them from learning that? Knowledge isn't going to kill you, and knowledge is what this place is about.
By the way, while Wikipedia isn't a democracy, what is decided has to be based on the reasoning in arguments. Shouting "There's information in this article that was created to grant knowledge in this encyclopedia that was created to hold knowledge" (which is all Wikipedia hears since it's supposed to present the information here impartially) doesn't quite stand up to "Not only are we supposed to present information impartially, but this is one of the most important aspects of the subject. It is, in fact, common knowledge among those familiar with the medium, as well as knowledge required for an understanding of the relevance of the subject". This isn't even one of those articles that you can say people can read while avoiding plot details and then still understand the importance of the subject. Ryu Kaze 03:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. By your analogy, you would rather not know that Irina Voronina is a she-male before your date? So you'd prefer ignorance until it's too late? By the way, I have no idea who she is or whether or not that's true, I'm just trying to clarify your analogy so I can understand where you're coming from. Axem Titanium 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh, the analogy is a simple humorous way of illustrating a deception. The Russian model is not really a shemale -- I think this is the part you didn't get. Well, I hope so, because I don't know where you come from, but from where I come from we don't tend to feel a woman's crotch when we meet them for the first time. --Pinnecco 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would rather know about something such as this (a "spoiler", if you will) before entering a relationship. But that's just me. Maybe you prefer falling into traps finding out too late. Axem Titanium 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Cute answer, but a logical fallacy at the thread -- since I was the one that was complaining about not knowing things before hand (i.e.: no spoiler warnings). --Pinnecco 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Padmé AmidalaEdit

Self-nomination This is an article about a main character from Star Wars. I revised it using the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Co-nom and support — I helped Dmoon copyedit the article a bit; the prose is decent, and if it still raises a few objections, I'd be more than willing to give it a more extensive audit. — Deckiller 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... 10 fair use images. You will probably have to negotiate that down to about five. See ROTS and its nomination for an example of this process :) Haukur 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Since reduced. Haukur 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment May I know why this is a major issue? According to this webpage on Wikipedia, point number four states this: It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. I personally feel that it is not necessary to negotiate this down to five. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The images are not used for decorative purposes and what is depicted in the image is discussed in the article, per fair use rules. The article has the same number of fair use images as Jabba the Hutt, which passed FAC without objection last month. Dmoon1 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and removed two images from the "Star Wars films" section. Dmoon1 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I noticed a violation of the fair use rules. The fair use criteria state: criterium #3 "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. (...) Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." and #8 states: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." I strongly object to the use of the following images (and give the others the benefit of the doubt): 1 image should do for the Star Wars films section. Using multiple images is unnecessary (as 1 will do adequately), violates the "as little as possible" and are mostly decorative (as there is already one Star Wars films picture). Note also that the lead picture is an image from the films, which could be mentioned under this image - this would further weaken the arguments used for using multiple images;--The images of the Characteristics and the Natalie Portman sections are decorative (and thus also violate the "as little as possible") as they don't really add anything. Sijo Ripa 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (solved. Sijo Ripa 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
    • There is only on image per film, this is "as little as possible" which is a subjective expression. The pictures are not decorative, they are illustrative, which is the requirement for fair use. The image from the lead is not a screenshot, but a promotional image. The amount of images used in this article is not excessive and is supported by precedent.Dmoon1 20:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and removed two images from the Star Wars films section. Dmoon1 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, good job, Dmoon1. I still object to the picture in the Characteristics section and to the picture in the Natalie Portman-section, as they don't seem to add anything. Sijo Ripa 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I've removed the image in the Natalie Portman section as I agree that it appears to be a violation of fair use. The other one, however, does depict a characteristic of Amidala as a character and is thus valid. —Cuiviénen 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I've added a free image of Natalie to the section, to replace the removed image. -- Zanimum 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I still object because there are still two non-significantly-contributing fair use pictures left. Sijo Ripa 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
              • That's fine. You've yet to convince me that these images do not "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text." The images in the "Characteristics" and "Natalie Portman" section illustrate relevant points in those sections. The consensus of the other editors and commentators are that these images fulfill the fair use requirements, so they are not likely to be removed. Dmoon1 17:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Three fair use images have been removed. Dmoon1 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's very nicely referenced and well-written. I wondered what the "Other references" section was, and I also wondered if you could include a References section with the citations listed in alphabetical order. I wouldn't not support because of the lack of it but it would add the finishing touch. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Other references sub-section is the same thing as a Further readings section. This is third time I've explained this at FAC, so I just went ahead and renamed the section heading. There is no need to have an alphabetized reference section since all the relevant citation info (author's full name, full title, publication data, etc.) is listed in the endnote. Thanks for your input. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Having a references section is actually part of Wikipedia:What is a featured article?: " ... these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." It can be helpful because with a long list of footnotes in the order in which they were used in the text, it can be hard to see at a glance which sources you've used. The other reason for keeping it is that, if someone deletes the first one in any series of notes, the subsequent notes get broken, and it can then be difficult or impossible for other editors to know what the source was: for example, if it only says Smith 2005, p. 1. If you have a full citation in the References section, then everyone can see what Smith 2005 refers to. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:What is a featured article? says, "'factually accurate' includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations," which is what this article does. There is a reference section, it's called Notes because this article uses foot/endnotes rather than Harvard references. Only Harvard references are required to have a complete, alphabetized reference section. The example you list above is the Harvard system and is not used in this article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes for the referencing system used in this article. Dmoon1 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • The relevant guideline is WP:CITE, which the FA page refers to, and it recommends maintaining a separate References section, whether footnotes or Harvard referencing are used. See here. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • It is recommended, but not required. This is also a matter of personal preference and I think it adds unncessary bloat to the end of the article. None of the last 5 featured articles I wrote contain such a section. Dmoon1 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
              • All guidelines are just recommendations, but FAs should probably try to act on them. As I said above, I won't object on the basis of that alone, but I hope you'll consider it for the future. It really does help to have a solid list with full citations in alphabetical order in case any of the footnotes goes missing, and you know how easy that is on Wikipedia with multiple editors. Anyway, it's a very good article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Ok, but you should note that very few featured articles do this. Those that do use abbreviated footnotes (e.g., Smith, Wealth of Nations, 34) instead of full cites in the notes. Dmoon1 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment — Now that the nomination is back on the nomination page, I'll provide my input. The article is largely well-done, but I think there's a few tweaks that need to be made to its wording, as well as a few other touches:
    • I'm not sure of the necessity of Padmé's film quotes, which lend to more of an in-universe descriptive feel than you guys probably intended (though I must applaud beginning the "Star Wars films" section by detailing mention of her in Return of the Jedi first)
      • WP:WAF suggests to use quotes from the work of fiction. WAF's author BrianSmithson had me include quotes in the Jabba the Hutt article (see here), so I added them here as well. It's supposed to add to the context of the article's subject in her universe. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The introduction to the "Appearances" section is a bit bland because it has three full stops: "Padmé Amidala is a main character in Star Wars fiction. She plays a prominent role in the prequel trilogy of films directed by George Lucas between 1999 and 2005. Besides the Star Wars films, Padmé appears in the Clone Wars miniseries and Expanded Universe literature." Furthermore, the first and second sentences are somewhat redundant of one another. They should be combined or the first one simply lost
      • Revised this. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This part should be reworded: "Padmé Amidala appears in deleted scenes from the prequel films. In Attack of the Clones, Padmé introduces...". Perhaps something like "Padmé Amidala makes additional appearances in deleted scenes from the prequel films. In Attack of the Clones, she..."
      • Fixed this. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • At least one link for "Expanded Universe", as well as possibly an indication of this material's ranking in canon hierarchy
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "link for 'Expanded Universe'" (wikilink?) and I'm not too concerned about canon; this is just supposed to be an account of her appearances in major Star Wars literature, canon and non-canon (but I think all of these included in the article are considered canon). I've noticed that discussions about canon can lead to frivolous debates and arguments, so I generally avoid trying to rank works based on canon unless its status is pretty much well determined. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The caption "Depiction of Padmé Amidala from Attack of the Clones advertising as an Amazon" is worded awkwardly, and I'm not sure how appropriate it is without explanation of what is meant by "Amazon" here. I'd suggest just losing that part altogether
      • This is something that was supposed to be explained in the article; it now is. It is a reference made by film critics to the depiction of the character as a strong, aggressive woman at the end of Attack of the Clones. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Why is there an "Other references" section? Why are they not all in-line? It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious as to why they aren't uniform
      • I addressed this under the comment above Ryu's. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
These are my only gripes really. Overall, the article is well-referened, well-written, informative and thorough. It's also illustrated superbly with the various costumes (the makeup image is a particularly nice touch). If these matters I've listed above can be touched upon or explained, I'll throw in my support. Ryu Kaze 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to address your concerns, please let me know if you require anything more. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, we're good. You've addressed and explained everything to my satisfaction. Full support. Ryu Kaze 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment to full stops Full stops are perfectly fine (wihin reason) in this kind of prose. — Deckiller 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Eight "fair use" images in only 41k of text is about six or seven too many. And two of them are in a gallery, which is a definite no-no! User:Angr 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article has the average number of fair use images as other featured articles in the media category. All of the images used correspond with commentary in the text. I could find no prohibitions against galleries in the WP:FUC or WP:FU (unless I missed something). The two fair use images in the gallery are being compared with the two PD images that accompany them. The commentary that discusses these four images is in the sub-section which the gallery is located. Dmoon1 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This oppose position will likely be ignored by Raul, as it is not real supported by anything in the featured article critiera (nor has anything similar been supported in the past). — Deckiller 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It's supported by featured article criterion 4: "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status". These images are inappopriate (because they are stolen) and do not have acceptable copyright status. User:Angr 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • The images are not stolen. "Where appropriate" means that the image is used in a way to enhance the discussion and critical commentary of the article, and the images here do that. "Acceptable copyright status" refers to the correct licensing tags, and all of these images are tagged correctly AND have descriptive fair use rationales. You don't seem to understand what fair use is and should probably familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Fair use. Dmoon1 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - good article but just non-notable --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability is not a factor when critiquing FACs. (BTW, your placement of the FAC template on the main page of the article Talmud (as seen here) instead of the talk page leads me to believe that you are not aware of FAC procedure. Please familiarize youself with Wikipedia:What is a featured article?). Dmoon1 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [Edit conflict with darkliight, the comments below refer to GoOdCoNtEnT.]
  • You've been with Wikipedia for nearly a year now and in that time I'm sure that you've noticed there are various guidelines and criteria throughout the project. Before supporting or objecting to articles listed here for Featured Article status, I think it would be a brilliant idea to familiarise yourself with the particular guidelines for supporting/objecting and the criteria asked of articles to become a Featured Article - the ones you skimmed over to get to this, and every other nomination you've commented on.
Lets face it, it would be just rude to not take the time to do so, when an editor(s) have taken the time to develop an article to meet these criteria. When reading the guidelines and criteria, you'll notice that one of the very few conditions of an objection is that objections must be actionable - clearly your objection is not. You'll also note that notability is not mentioned anywhere in the FA criteria. Finally, this information will also help you to decide whether nominating an article (or several) is really a good idea in the future. Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to future contributions from your enlightened self. darkliight[πalk] 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment Please re-visit "All URLs last accessed August 5, 2006 unless otherwise stated." Wiki is not static: you could leave the article, other editors could come along and make changes, and that kind of statement doesn't work well in a dynamic environment. It shouldn't be hard just to add it to each footnote. Sandy 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Looks good. Sandy 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, this has been done. Dmoon1 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. Another great article from Dmoon1! The Wookieepedian 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rama's arrow 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. I've taken the liberty of removing the one remaining fair use image that could be objectionable. —Cuiviénen 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to me. I couldn't find any issues except some information is stated in 2 sections but I don't really see this as a problems since this information fits good into the point of this sections. Aside from this, I hope Padmé wont deteriorate in quality like the last time dmoon1 rewrote it... or maybe im thinking of something else. - Tutmosis 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I love that infobox image. Clearly shows Padmé impersonator. I was getting tired of this night shot 22 degree 20 inches of the ground shoulder blade view pictures of characters (in other words unclear). - Tutmosis 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It didn't deteriorate, that was what the article looked like when I rewrote it (it was BAD). This was the first article I attempted to rewrite when I joined Wikipedia, not having a clue what I was doing. I finally got around to revising it. Dmoon1 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I'm glad I'm not the only person who dislikes bloated notations - I find them an eyesore, so I'm glad this article keeps them brief and to the point. As for using this "URL last accessed" palaver on every citation, I find it rather annoying and am quite saddened commentators have urged DMoon1 to do this. LuciferMorgan 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • object there isnt a fair representation of images. A lot of fans remember the character for her prettier side in the second film, and i remember there used to be at least one image of her by the lake/etc in the article but they have all been removed. i know there is a limit, but maybe one of the other images needs to go in order to fit in an image of her on naboo, which is rather important. what does everyone else think? Im not sure who picked all the images, but there should be an equal representation of her character/story. Reillycnter
    • Your concern is understood, but there are a substantianal amount of fair use images in the article already. Currently, all the images illustrate key topics in the discussion/commentary, so to remove one would be more harmful (IMO) than not having a picture that shows how pretty the character is. Plus, to label a character in an image as "pretty" is sort of POV, and would no doubt lead to an argument among two or more editors as to just which picture is "prettiest"; the character's beauty can be inferred from most of the images used. The images are as representative as they possible can be within reasonable limits. Dmoon1 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for replying and i understand that. but i think you misunderstood whta i meant, regardless of whether the character is pretty or not, the article fails to show her lighter side, instead, all the images are battle/senator based. say the limitation for copyright images has been reach, i have done some research, and may have found a resolution, that could add one of the older images back: there is a no. of photos [8](here) which are under a Creative Commons license that i see works with wikipedia. the last image in the comstumes section on the Padme wiki article is copyright, why use a Creative Commons one instead, which gives us breathing space to add one of the older images. Reillycnter
        • The images at this site are blurry and none of them illustrate points in the article. The last picture you refer to is for comparative purposes with the Russian noblewoman's fashion and you're not likely to find a free replacement. The image that was once in the article is here: Image:Padme Naboo lake.jpg, but it is blurry as well. To be honest, the images aren't meant to show any of her sides (except the one in the "Characteristics" section and that's because it details the main focus of the discussion there). The point: it is not feasible to chronicle every aspect of a character through images; that is what the text is for. Dmoon1 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Images aren't really a basis for objection anyway, unless they're not properly captioned or of inappropriate copyright status. Please review Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. For that matter, as Dmoon has said, the images currently in the article are being used to illustrate aspects of the character discussed within the text, and — if someone is going to consider her pretty, not that such an issue even matters — they should make that determination from the images already present. It's entirely a POV matter in the first place as to whether or not she's even pretty. Some people might not think so. Some people might think she looks prettier with the face paint for that matter. Even if it was unanimous that she's prettiest without it, that still leaves the issue of which image she is prettiest in and why there's discussion going on over the inclusion of an image for purely decorative purposes based on the POV assumption that she's prettiest without the paint and that people need to see yet another image of her without the paint in order to make them realize that they think so too. This is just a matter of editorial stylistic preference, I think. This objection is likely dismissable on the basis of the rules for objecting in FAC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored". Ryu Kaze 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with most of the current favorable reasoning for FA'ing this article. Technically it is definitely ready. As for the fair use oppositions... well, it's Star Wars. IMHO, there's no way in Hell you're going to come up with fully CC/GDFL imagery for a Star Wars subject. I think subjects like this should allow for a slightly higher proportion of fair use imagery. --Kitch 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this meets our current standards of what's needed for featured status. Haukur 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support and editorial help. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty good, if it's going to be a FA like Jabba the Hutt I'd be interested to in a section showing the impact the char has had on culture and mass media - how was she received, how has she been portrayed in other media (particularly satire, parody etc). I conceed that she hasn't been around as long as Jabba to have that effect nor has she had quite the effect, but I'm certain I've seen her crop up here and there. (This isn't an objection, I need to read the whole thing properly before I decided how to vote). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a good point and something I discussed on the talk page and at peer review. I don't think she had the impact on pop culture that Jabba the Hutt, Princess Leia, or Darth Vader had. The costumes were put on exhibit at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising, but I think that was more for their artistic value. You don't see people walking around dressed like this because of this character. Her role in mass media is discussed in the "Appearances" section; her name doesn't appear outside of Star Wars regularly as Jabba the Hutt's. There were Queen Amidala action figures, dolls, and Halloween costumes, but I think that's as close as you get to pop culture impact, and I can't see justifying a whole section writing about the Queen Amidala Ultimate Hair fashion doll. If you can think of something else, however, please let me know and I'll see what I can dig up. (Also keep in mind that every character article is going to be unique depending on the character, so it will not be possible to use Jabba the Hutt as THE standard for every article.) Thanks for your input and taking the time to read the article. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I can see that. I kind of thought she turned up a lot, at least I'm certain I see her ridiculous costumes from the the first film cropping up a lot. At any rate, I have two further comments, first off the comparisons of the costumes to real-world royal costumes is very good but might benefit from the images being slightly larger and closer to the related text (middle of the text rather than at the bottom); and this statement bothers me...The first appearance of Padmé Amidala in Star Wars Expanded Universe literature is Mike Baron's 1998 comic book adaptation of Timothy Zahn's novel The Last Command (1993). Set nine years after the events of A New Hope, the comic features a portrait of Padmé hanging in the Imperial Palace on Coruscant. The image is based on Natalie Portman's likeness. For someone not 100% certain of the timeframes involved is this before or after ROTJ? Does the comic specifically state that this was Padme, or explain who Padme was, or was it snuck in without explnation by an artist who knew that Portman was going to be in the filum as a nod to knowing fans? A little more context might help, even if you just put the explanation in the footnote. Other than this I cannot think of any objections and am pleased to see an impressive section on the evolution of the character in the scrips and concepts Lucas had and critical real world opinions on her (as opposed to just a list of what she did in the films like so many other character FACs). Support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your support! I elaborated on the appearance of Padmé's portrait in the comic book, but I couldn't get the images to work in the costume section outside the gallery. They kept making the text look funny. Dmoon1 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice article, without the problems found in Darth Vader. igordebraga 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dmoon1 04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think "Rick McCallum, quoted in 'Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars' from is a reliable source. In fact, it seems the quoted article is a Wikipedia mirror. Surely a better citation can be found? Andrew Levine 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have contacted the user that added this quote to the Wikipedia article Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars which the site is mirroring to see if he can provide me with a specific source. Until I hear back, I have removed the quote and added a remark that official Star Wars sources do not attempt to explain the plot hole and I gave an example from a reliable source. Dmoon1 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • weak Oppose ReverendG 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You have to give a reason for your opposition so that I can attempt to address it; if you don't then your objection is not actionable. Dmoon1 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support you're right, i had no basis for objection that i can see. ReverendG 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, I'm impressed... If only we had these standards on wookieepedia... --UVnet 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support (now it would do no one any good if Wikipedia and Wookieepedia were mirrors ;) ). Dmoon1 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is great and I really don't understand the fair use concerns. There is no policy that says you are only allowed to use x fair use images. At best you can only view two images at same time on my screen, so they are not overused. --Maitch 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Dmoon1 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sijo Ripa 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerto delle donneEdit

This article has just had an extremely thorough Peer review, and I believe that the issues which were brought up have been resolved, except the image which I am going to retrieve from the library tomorrow :) I think this is a very good article on a somewhat esoteric subject. I've tried to keep it streamlined and focused on important issues, and I think that's been accomplished, and hopefully the subject's larger musical importance is clear. I look forward to some constructive criticism, and hope that this can be brought through to be an FA. Mak (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (p.s. self-nom. are there any serious ones which aren't?)

  • The article looks quite good, but there are a few strange points in the lead:
    • "late Renaissance court" - 1580 is rather after any endpoint of the Renaissance that I'm familiar with. Is there some particular source that suggests this?
    • "provoking imitations in the powerful northern courts of the Medici and Orsini" - both of these courts were south of Este, so I'm not quite sure what this is trying to say. (If it's meant to suggest that these courts were in Northern Italy, a source for ascribing the cities to that region would be nice.) Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your first point- in music the standard dates given for the Renaissance are 1400-1600. One possible source is the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians article on the Renaissance. Would you like an inline citation? This is considered standard in musical discourse. In answer to your second point - they are both in what I would consider northern Italy, but since I don't have a source and according to our articles Florence is in Central Italy, I guess I'll remove the northern bit. Thanks for your comments. Mak (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok; I didn't realize that musical history might have a different view of the Renaissance than some other fields. It's probably fine now; support from me, as this is an excellent article in all other respects. Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support from a participant in the peer review. I'm hoping that my arduous experience with the Gregorian chant FA candidacy translated into a peer review that will make this article pass readily. Only two small points:
  • There are a few red links. Can you make stubs for these?
  • Some references end in periods (Chew.) while others don't (Chew). Can this be standardized? (I know, it's so nitpicky. I'm sorry.) Peirigill 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have already made many many stubs/articles in support of this article, but I think those two should also have stubs so I'll work on that. For the refs - do you have a preference? I have no problem with standardizing. Thanks very much for your support. Also, the facsimile may have to wait a little more, the library lost my request to get the book from New Jersey, or wherever they keep them. Thanks, Mak (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I couldn't decipher WP:REF and WP:FOOTNOTE on this point. The gist seems to be that any reasonable footnote style is acceptable. Since you're the primary editor, you decide the reference style for the article by fiat. Unless some editor with expertise in footnote styles has an opinion, I'd say pick whichever you like best — a period at the end of every footnote, or at the end of none — and stick with it. Peirigill 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great. Really nicely written. pschemp | talk 05:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Really well done. I hope you don't mind, but I've added in some CSS to change the references section into three columns (won't be visible on Internet Explorer, though). If you don't like it, by all means, revert away! ♠ SG →Talk 12:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, I was actually wondering if there was a way to do that. Thanks, Mak (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Objecting to give the following comments some weight. Are there any graphic portrayals of the donne? I find the top image confusing in an article that does not deal with the Castello Estense (about which not even a stub has been produced). In order to go on the front page, the article will need a more relevant and descriptive image. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no images, (to my knowledge, and I have looked), of the concerto delle donne. The only images of the people involved which I have been able to find are either the image of Alfonso d'Este which is already on his page, or are on Laurie Stras' website, with special thanks to a specific person. Although these are probably technically PD, I don't feel comfortable using them, since I think they are in a private collection, and everyone involved would know they were taken from that website without permission. Perhaps one of the title pages of the facsimiles would be a better lead image? Or would you prefer the image of Alfonso? I'm not attached to any of the images in the article, I'm really not a visual learner, so I welcome input. I'd just like to point out that Featured Articles are not necessarily placed on the main page, so comments on their suitability for the main page aren't necessarily relevant. -- User:Makemi with login problems
  • p.s. if you're objecting because I haven't written an article on Castello Estense, I'd just like everyone to know that so far I have written 23 articles in support of this article. To expect me to write an article on architecture for a music FAC seems just a tad unreasonable. User:Makemi
I was wondering whether anyone was going to object to the lede image. I was hoping no one would complain. Since someone has, I have some thoughts:
  • Per WP:WIAFA, images are NOT required: "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." We could remove all images and this article still would deserve FA status.
  • That said, it's reasonable to request whether any pictures of the ladies are available. I don't believe any are. Every CD of this music that I've ever seen has not included an image of the ladies on its cover art. If such an image existed and were readily available, I'd have expected to find it there. None of my books on Renaissance music have an image of them either.
  • The castle is not a strong lede image. It is, I believe, a relevant and acceptable image. The castle was their performance space. It's comparable to using a picture of the California State Senate building to illustrate an article on the California State Senate instead of a photo of the assembled senators. Any confusion about the nature of the image is cleared up by reading the caption. Moreover, the article does deal with the Estense castle: "There was even a rival group in Ferrara, in the very palace where the concerto delle donne performed." It is true that the Estense castle is not mentioned explicitly in the body of the article. I'll edit it into that sentence; Makemi, it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the palace explicitly in the "Formation" or "Roster" sections. It doesn't need to be linked, and no stub needs to be created.
  • However, since this is a music and not an architectural FAC, I'd recommend using the notated musical manuscript as the lede image. You can either attach the sound sample to the image in a userbox as was done for Gregorian chant, or you can leave the sound file down in the Music section and refer the reader to the lede image either in the text of the Music section or in the sound file's description.
  • This article, whether displaying the castle, the frontispiece, or the notated manuscript as the lede image, would be perfectly suitable for the main page, and I look forward to seeing it there soon. Peirigill 11:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed the lede to include the facsimile and the music sample. It might need some tweaking, depending on your browser. I agree that the Castello Estense image was not very strong, I used it originally because I 1) Didn't have a facsimile and 2) Thought that the Castle was best at expressing something about the entire group, instead of an image just of the patron, which I thought would be misleading. I hope it's better now, thanks for the comments, Mak (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. The point was not about the need for an image. The point was that misleading images must be avoided. I've removed my objection and will fully support once I've figured out how the page can be laid out in a way that allows it being comfortably viewed on 800x600 screens. Regards, Samsara (talkcontribs) 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (Contributor as copyeditor) Very good article. Here are some comments for improvement.MarkBuckles (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Musica secreta redirects to Musica reservata. Are they synonyms? There’s no reference to the term ‘’Musica secreta’’ on the reservata page.
  • To the extent that anyone knows what musica reservata and musica secreta actually mean, yes, they're synonyms. Musica secreta is basically only used as a term in reference to the Ferrarese court, but it comes from the same mileu etc. as musica reservata and means the same thing. I've added it to the musica reservata article.
“The elite, hand-selected audience members favored with admission to performances by the concerto delle donne demanded diversions and entertainment beyond the pleasures of beautiful music alone” The word “demanded” strikes me as strange here, especially because the next sentence cites an audience member who complained of these diversions.
  • Yes, well, it was more being expected to do the three things at once that annoyed Urbani I think. They were high rollers. They wanted to have a good time. Just good music wasn't going to satisfy these hedons. I did stare at it for a long time, but couldn't think of anything better.
“To maintain secrecy, the music, composed by Luzzaschi, was not published until after the Duke's death.” This line seems out of place as the third line of a section titled “Formation”.
  • You're right, I've moved it. I was trying to highlight the secret/exclusive bit but it didn't work.
I’m confused by the section on style. There are two separate styles. Luzzaschi wrote both. Yet, then the first style is equated with Luzzaschi and the article begins to talk about his style as if his style ‘’is’’ the first “luxuriant” style. This is confusing since it says he also wrote in the seconda pratica. The section also doesn't explains what “luxuriant” means in this context.
  • Yeah, needs more work.
(vocal virtuosity) “This skill became highly prized in the mid-sixteenth century, beginning with basses.” I don’t understand what the last clause (about basses) means. I’m also unsure of its relevance.
  • I've tried to clarify this. The concerto is important in the rise of virtuosity, so I'm trying to give a super-nutshell history, saying it started out with basses, then eventually sopranos tenors and castrati became the favored virtuosic voices.
First big music section seems disorganized. It starts out discussing the composers who wrote pieces in the style, but also includes important stylistic information in strange places like the end of a paragraph (“This indicates both that male singers were probably not used after Brancaccio, and that instrumental accompaniments were a common and acceptable means of filling in the counterpoint.”) This is a big point and should be presented as such. And I think we should get the the discussion of dimunitions either earlier in the first section or in a separate section entirely. Much of this seems like it should be located under “Style”. MarkBuckles (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still working on organisation. You're right there. Mak (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I'm working on it. it just sucks that my computer with all my notes died, and I had to return my main source :( </whining> Mak (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)Edit

This is the second article I have personally brought to FAC - the first being Douglas Adams. This is also the first article I have brought to FAC since stepping in as the coordinator for the Hitchhiker's Guide WikiProject. This article has been named as a "Good Article" and I recently had it on Peer Review, where I did receive some good feedback. As a history of The Hitchhiker's Guide radio series, I DO think it meets FA criteria, and if I'm not mistaken, it would be the FIRST radio series FA, if passed. --JohnDBuell 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Rlevse 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! ReverendG 05:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could the pictures be straightened so they are actually level? --Peter Andersen 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: I could try rescanning them, but straightening is a little beyond my current photo editing abilities. --JohnDBuell 11:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They should be better now. Peter Andersen got one, and I took care of the other. - EurekaLott 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! Mollsmolyneux 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The lead seems to be lacking a little in introducing the reader to the subject matter. It should include mention of the adaptations that have followed the radio series (the main Hitchiker's page features an opening that would be more appropriate, really; something similar to that). Also, don't forget to put the article subject in bold. By the way, this is more a stylistic suggestion than anything else, but since those red links aren't linking to anything, it would improve the appearance of the page to just drop them. Ryu Kaze 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: The first and second points I've done. If anyone would like to go through and remove red links, feel free. --JohnDBuell 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done I've changed all the red links back to normal text (I assume that's what you wanted?), there is still one in the notes section that I can't seem to find. Terri G 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I guess it doesn't really matter to me. Here and in Peer Review I've long said that I'm FOR red links, as I see them as "calling out" for expansion of Wikipedia into new articles and new subjects. I've started a couple of articles myself that way. But there are a number of people who think that they detract *shrug* The one you are looking for is within the 'ref' tags in the "Music used in the series" section. --JohnDBuell 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, like I said, it's purely a stylistic suggestion. Some people like them because of the "calling out" value, while others think they're a little painful to look at. I guess I honestly see them as both, but I usually expect that someone who wants to provide info on one of the red linked subjects will attempt to do so anyway. Red text actually bothers my eyes for some reason or another if I look at it too long, so I tend to think of the aesthetic value before the "calling out" value. Again, it's purely a stlyistic suggestion, and you guys should do what you prefer. A few red links certainly aren't grounds for objection, and — as you can see just below — the other changes warranted my support already. Good work with this article. Ryu Kaze 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — The changes work for me. Ryu Kaze 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don DunstanEdit

This is an well-referenced and detailed article on a famous Australian politician. It has already undergone a peer review, and improved further as a result. This is to hopefully be my fourth featured article - I welcome your comments and votes! michael talk 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. This article is about as good as they come. Rebecca 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--cj | talk 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks like a great article. Only slight problem is red links, especially in the first paragraph of "The Dunstan Decade". Not enough to vote oppose, but definitely unsightly. Stilgar135 05:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • All those links, in time, will be blue. However, right now there's no point simply writing twenty one-sentence stubs. michael talk 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great work. JPD (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I'm one of those sticklers for WP:LEAD, in that this article should have at least a three paragraph lead section. Other than that, looks good to me! Fieari 18:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • At less than 30 000 characters, according to WP:LEAD, two paragraphs are sufficent. michael talk 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a criteria but is it possible fill out an infobox for Dunstan? I feel infoboxes add a higher level of quality and visual satisfaction to an article. - Tutmosis 14:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I did consider adding one. However, the portrait style of the lead image negates any positive impact from an infobox. michael talk 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, some of the image captions still need work.--Peta 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made some changes. If you can be more specific, I'd be glad to know how I could improve them further. michael talk 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I should disclose, as required by the new rules, that I copy-edited part of the article a while back, and had another go at it an hour ago. I think it's good, but a few sentences need ironing out. See my inline queries. BTW, flesh-pink hot pants and cooking books, I love it! PS The WP:LEAD guidelines that Fieri cites above contain proposed guidelines, not strict rules, about the number of paragraphs in a lead. I'll certainly be opposing any move to strict rules in this respect. Tony 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) PPS Please consider consistent use of "ALP"/"Labor Party" after first spelling it out. Same for "SA"/"South Australia". "Commonwealth" is a difficult word for non-Australians. Consider using just "federal", which is universally understood. Tony 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Starting image still needs a caption, but other than that this is well-written and well sourced. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 13:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision Song ContestEdit


Okay, I think this is ready! I am re-submitting this article for FA consideration, after having done a lot of work on it. Before I started, it looked like this, and was in dire need of a re-write. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch, as so. However, it was still a little sketchy and lacked references, so I worked to get it up to Good Article standard (seen here). After some more work, I submitted it for FA candidacy when it was in this state, but the nomination failed, although I addressed many of the objections raised. From this, I began to have a much clearer idea of the FA criteria, and have since understood exactly why it failed the first time. I decided to concentrate on really addressing everything possible, in order to bring the article up to standard. I made sure that all major points were referenced, and expanded on any vague explanations to make them as encyclopædic and comprehensive as possible. A peer review was carried out, in which many very useful points were raised by fellow Wikipedian Bravada, to whom I am very grateful for his input. I addressed all the addressable points raised, and the article's quality was raised enormously; thanks to his strict criticism ;) There are points which were not addressed, but to my mind they are not addressable - and only a matter of preference as to how one would write the article. I do believe that there are no remaining addressable criticisms which could knock this nomination down, based upon Wikipedia guidelines. Following the useful peer review, I have carried out many more tweaks, re-writes and stylistic edits; finally going through the entire things, word-by-word with a fine-tooth comb. I am very proud of this article, and — as I now have greater understanding of what the criteria are for an article to be featured — I do believe it is ready.

So, fellow Wikipedians, I refer it to you: please, if you have any addressable concerns with the article then mention them here and I will promptly deal with them. If you have no objections, then please support. Thank you :) EuroSong talk 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • SupportRlevse 10:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - 12 points, well structured, written and referenced. Rossrs 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support no objections ST47 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Support the rules section seems to be overly complicated when there is a separate page for them, perhaps the current rules only would be sufficient for the main page? Also I think there is a lot of jumping around in the chronology which can get confusing, perhaps a list showing the years of the main changes would help. Terri G 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is structured to be themed, not chronological. Do you think that a list of years showing major changes would be repeating too much information, or do you think it would be okay? It can be easily done... I just did not do such a thing because I thought it might make the article too repetitive. The separate rules page is not a good article at all - in fact it was created as a "break-out" article from an ancient version of this main article, and as it stands is pretty poor. It's one of my next projects to work on actually :) Therefore I have included all the important rules here in this article as it stands, and information contained in poorly-written other articles does not influence the flow or content of this article. Thank you for your (mild) support :) EuroSong talk 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Very good, all-round. Kingfisherswift 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: A better lead-off picture would help to draw in the reader. Right now, the massive amount of text with a logo that is basically text isn't friendly to my visual sensibilities. A captured image of the actual contest might be better perhaps? --ScienceApologist 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should mention this. I have, myself, been thinking this for a long time: however I have not really come up with a suitable, appropriate alternative. The article used to have a more colourful logo: the old one, which was used for the Contest from 1956–1993. However, this was replaced with this modern, generic logo.. which — although accurate — is rather bland, I agree. The problem with having a screen shot is that it would necessarily come from one particular year, and while that might be very appropriate for the invididual Eurovision year articles which exist, it is really not what I want for the main article. No single year should be given precedence – not least in the lead. Perhaps someone can suggest something I haven't thought of? Until then, I'll keep the current logo. Thank you for your comment; do you like the rest of the article anyway? EuroSong talk 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
A screenshot from Congratulations, showing a lotof different artists from different years on stage together? I have only seen some fragments of Congratulations, so I don't know whether there was an appropriate scene, but the stage and performances seemed kitchy enough to serve as an illustration for the entire ESC. Bravada, talk - 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. I don't actually have the programme with me though, so such a screenshot would have to be uploaded by someone else. However, the image of "kitschy" is something I want to get far away from. If such an image is used it should be a decent, sensible one. EuroSong talk 08:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but if its to be about Eurovision, you won't get far away from that. Bravada, talk - 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
For me, Eurovision has never been about that. It's just about beautiful music and international friendship :) EuroSong talk 12:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Important in European Culture Flymeoutofhere 12:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldryEdit

Self-nomination. This article has been through a peer review with little comment. WP:GAC suggests that articles over 20kb be submitted here instead. This article is comprehensive (history and current practice), has contemporary inline citations, and is stable. Most of the images are from Commons; the Eastern coats of arms are the only two available in Category:Orthodox ecclesiastical heraldry. The topic is perhaps too specialized for the Main Page, but "featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page." Gimmetrow 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A technical question: in printed works images are numbered and can be referenced by number. How should one image be referenced in the text of the same article? Must the caption or a description be repeated in the text to identify the image? Gimmetrow 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Object. Lead could be longer, article itself a bit short. External links section looks weird with only one link. A See Also section would be useful. No references in 'Crosier' section. — Wackymacs 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added refs to the Crosier section and two online sources to external links, and a See Also section. Thanks for the feedback! Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Question: the See Also list repeats links present in the article. WP:GTL says that is not ideal. I don't mind either way, but all the links are in the text. Gimmetrow 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Decent article, but not fully comprehensive at the moment. Jeronimo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is unclear why the article is divided in "Western tradition" and "Eastern tradition", especially since "Western" is 75% of the article and "Eastern" is rather short. It may make more sense to mix these (like Catholic and Anglican are mixed) making sections of the current subsection, adding one for mantles.
It seemed natural to divide it this way, but I see what you suggest and will give it a try. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rewritten along this idea. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How/where/when were/are the coats of arms are used? The first picture's caption gives a good example of this, but more is needed.
At one point I had found a good image of a document seal but the image was large (>1Mb) and made the page very slow for me to load. Will try to find that one image again. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Was unable to find this image again, but did add an image of Leo XI's arms. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Are there any notable differences between ecclesiastical heraldry (and its usage) and "normal" heraldry? If so, discuss, if not mention that.
That's almost exactly what this article is intended to be about: the devices that are associated primarily with church heraldry and not used much in "regular" heraldry. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rewrote lead to try to clarify this. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Catholic, Eastern and Anglican churches are mentioned, what about the other Christian churches (Protestant, Koptic)? Do they use heraldry, or if they don't, why not?
Yes, other churches use crests and coats of arms, but mainly use crosses and color/tincture symbolism to distinguish from corporate or non-ecclesiastical symbolism. Aside from the obvious (churches which don't use the mitre wouldn't use it for heraldry), literature about this is short and I'm not sure what could be said without OR. Eastern heraldry is relatively short for a similar reason - coats are often not much different than "regular" arms which use the mantle/shield form. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Eg, compare a typical Eastern secular coat with this coat from the article. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It needs to be a bit more accessible at a few places as not all (heraldic) terms are properly explained. For example, the term galero is mentioned in the lead but not explained until the section about galeros, and lozenge (Shield subsection) is not explained at all (except on the linked wiki page).
Tried to address. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you sure all the pictures can be used? Some of them have a tag that seems to indicate otherwise, but I'm no expert on this. Jeronimo 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure, but I am mainly concerned about the Eastern ones, and as they are the only two available I think they qualify as fair use. Gimmetrow 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they are fine. 2-3 'fair use' images per article is fine, as long as they have a fair use rationale. — Wackymacs 12:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Again thanks for the feedback! I've been trying to get feedback for a few weeks. Gimmetrow 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Great improvements, I withdraw my objection and support. One thing though: "In the Byzantine tradition colors have a mystical." in the "Tincture" section seems like it is missing some words. Jeronimo 09:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support a great article on a hard to find subject. Well worthy of FA status.--Forlornandshorn 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Dave Boven 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment References are in order: can you get JKelly (or someone who knows Fair Use) to check the images, and one of the copy editors to check the prose? Sandy 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is extensive German ecclestiastical heraldry, some of it Protestant; some of this is in Fox-Davies, but you may have access to a more direct source. Septentrionalis 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: A lot of work has been put into this article since I last read it fully. Well done to all involved (mainly Gimmetrow)! I have a number of comments, some about the prose, some about the content. I guess I could just make changes myself, but listing them here lets me explain my reasoning, and if Gimmetrow integrates them into the article it is less likely something else will get broken. Dr pda 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"Mainly" is understatement. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Lead:
Within the coat of arms, the shield usually combines the bishop's attributes with those of his diocese - is there a better word than attributes? Perhaps 'personal arms'? I recognise the difficulty of trying to find a synonym when both coat of arms and shield are already used in the sentence.
This was supposed to be a reference to shield composition, and the "may change" clause a reference to marshalling. I've given it a try but this seems to focus too much on marshalling, and I may change it back after time provides some distance. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Analagous customs are followed...galero in heraldry - to me this would come better at the beginning of the paragraph. That way the customs are analogous to those of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than those of the pope, schools and dioceses. (Although I can see that putting the pope at the start of the paragraph keeps the references to the RCC together)
institutions such as schools and dioceses - perhaps Church institutions... as I presume Church schools are what is meant here.
Lead restructured. I was thinking of this anyway. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a better image than Martin Luther's seal for illustrating this article. It illustrates the point that personal arms can become used as impersonal, but is not really recognisably 'armorial' (Is that a shield with a cross right at the centre of what looks like a flower?). What about Image:Archbishop_Stefan_Insignia.png, which is reasonably early (12th century), is a good illustration of the seal featuring the likeness of a person, and also demonstrates the oval shape? Or something else from commons:Category:Seals instead?
The purpose was to show another seal that may be less foreign than the medieval ones. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • History
In the first sentence do we need both the Middle Ages, and beginning in the late eleventh century?
The link between heraldry as used on the battlefield and as used by the Church on seals could be made a bit more explicit. As it stands the second sentence does not seem to have anything to do with the first.
I'm not sure it is entirely correct to say that helmets, crests, coronets etc have never been used in the heraldry of ecclesiastical bodies or individuals. I came across a book today (A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry, by John Woodward (Edinburgh, 1894) ), and although I only flipped through it, I remember seeing many examples where these elements were used, particularly on the Continent among prelates etc who held temporal authority.
I did not say they were "never used" but "found little place" - that might still be too far but the helmet/crest seems to me more a Germanic thing, probably deriving from the prince-bishops. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How about something like the following for the first paragraph:

Heraldry developed in Europe in the late eleventh century as personal badges of the warrior classes, in part as a mark of identification on the battlefield. In due course its use spread to other aspects of life, particularly on seals as evidence of the identity and authority of the person issuing, or party to, a legal document. The Church also needed to identify the origin of documents and ownership of property, and likewise adopted the use of seals. Over time seals became essential to conducting business, with the Synod of London in 1237 requiring seals for all religious authorities in 1237, and the decree of Edward I of England in 1307 that no document would be valid without one. The earliest ecclesiastical seals bore a likeness of the owner of the seal, as did contemporary seals of the nobility with the shield (displaying the heraldic insignia) included. Over time the seals of the nobility were reduced to just the shield, and clergy followed this development. Personal arms of bishops and abbots often continued to be used after their deaths, gradually becoming an impersonal seal. There was a tendency for clergy to avoid the use of the more martial aspects of the coat of arms, such as the helmet and crest, as well as symbols of temporal rank such as coronets, however, this was not always the case, particularly if a prelate enjoyed some form of secular authority. (insert example here, e.g. the German Prince-Bishops?). The galero (see below) was used instead of the helmet and crest in the arms of cardinals from the 13th century and later adopted by bishops, but ecclesiastical heraldry did not have a formal structure for indicating position within the Church until the seventeenth century, when a system for ecclesiastical hats attributed to Pierre Palliot came into use.

The last paragraph, especially the marking of buildings remains, reads a little bit oddly. What sort of community is meant, a religious one, i.e. an order/abbey?
I had in mind processional banners as in a school. Specified. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to give a translation of Collegio Araldico and Annuario Pontifico, or at least a brief gloss as to what they are.
    • Tincture
There's not really any need to introduce the terminology or, argent etc since these terms are not subsequently used. How about replacing the second sentence with

The heraldic metals are gold and silver, usually represented as yellow and white, while red, green, blue, purple and black normally comprise the colours.

An heraldic rather than a heraldic is strictly correct I think
It sounds like the colours for licence plates were chosen to obey the rule of tincture. Perhaps Most licence plates today use colour combinations which satisfy the rule of tincture for the same reason., or better The same principle can be seen today in the choice of colour combinations used on licence plates
Changed. I was not conscious of this in regard to license plates until I read that idea in every WP heraldry article on tincture. Some of those articles could use a similar copyedit. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Shield
A new bishop requires personal arms almost immediately. One of his duties as bishop is to prepare documents which must bear his own name and arms - does this refer just to Catholic bishops? Is this document just one with his name and arms, or does this mean he needs arms to seal the document to make it valid?
Specified RC. Official documents are written on a sort of letterhead and press-sealed. The arms are usually on the letterhead and definitely on the seal. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
escutcheon of pretence - I think this terminology is only valid applied to an inescutcheon borne by the husband of an heraldic heiress (he is 'pretending' to her arms)
The footnote goes to a description of the arms of a Bishop Bootkoski which uses the phrase: escutcheon "in pretense".[9] Maybe I'll footnote an explanation. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
A married Anglican bishop combines the arms of his wife and the diocese on two separate shields placed accollé, or side-by-side - this is a little unclear. How about A married Anglican bishop combines his personal arms with those of his diocese on one shield and with those of his wife on another shield, the two shields being placed accollé, or side-by-side
The caption is also a bit confusing, how about the arms of an Anglican bishop marshalled with those of the diocese (left shield) and of his spouse (right shield)
Caption changed. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I found the last paragraph rather confusing. As I understand it Anglican diocesan bishops impale their personal arms (if they have any) with those of their See. How does this differ from Catholic bishops? Also, how can official arms be personal arms? The former relate to the office, the latter to an individual; if the individual holds the office then they are combined, e.g. by impalement. Also the Anglican Church, to me, refers to the wider Anglican communion, not just the Church Of England. The Anglican church in Commonwealth countries in particular follows the same heraldic traditions. Brooke-Little, in his 1983 revision of Boutell's Heraldry says this:
Archbishops and diocesan bishops may impale their personal arms on the sinister side with those of the See. Other bishops use only their personal arms. All bishops ensign their shields with their mitre.
perhaps we could use something like that for the first sentence. The second sentence is better, I would be inclined to leave out 'for similar reasons', and possibly also 'arms of', because it is the dioceses which cannot be recognised in law. If you want a reference for this, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871 seems to be the operative act. It basically repeals the penalties prescribed by an earlier act for anyone using the titles Archbishop of X, Bishop of Y, Dean of Z except for holders of such offices in the Church of England, but does not remove the offence. (Brooke-Little says it is due to a clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, but as far as I can tell the clause although similar has since been repealed)
    • Galero
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that Anglican clergy can use hats as well. A bit of digging reveals that they can. The following passage again comes from Boutell's Heraldry, p225-6, but similar information can be found in Heim's Heraldry of the Catholic Church, in the chapter on the Church of England:

Anglican clergy not of episcopal rank, unlike the Roman clergy, have always borne arms in the same way as laymen, that is with shield, helm and crest. Recently, particularly in High Church circles there has been a movement to dispense with helms and crests, and replace them with ecclesiatical hats like those in the Roman Catholic Church. This mild agitation culminated in the Archbishop of Canterbury writing to the Earl Marshal, to say that in his view it would be proper and acceptable that those clergy of the Anglican Communion who desired to ensign their arms with an approved design of ecclesiastical hat should be permitted to do so. In response to this letter the Earl Marshal issued a Warrant on 21st December 1976, permitting the Officers of Arms to marshal the arms of those clergy of the Anglican Communion who wished to use hats in place of crests to do this, and list of appropriate hats was annexed to the warrant. The hats authorised are as follows:

DEANS: A black hat having three red tassels pendent from purple cords on either side. ARCHDEACONS: A black hat having three purple tassels pendent from purple cords on either side. CANONS, HONORARY CANONS EMERITUS AND PREBENDARIES: A black hat having three red tassels pendent from black cords on either side. PRIESTS: A black hat having one black tassels pendent from a black and white cord on either side. DOCTORS OF DIVINITY: The hat appropriate to their degree, the cord from which the tassel depends being interlaced with a skein of red. MEMBERS OF THE SOVEREIGN'S ECCLESIASTICAL HOUSEHOLD: The hat appropriate to their degree charged on the front of the crown with a Tudor Rose proper. DEACONS: A black hat without either cords or tassels

Depictions of these hats can be found here, which incidentally mentions that the hat used in Presbyterian coats of arms is a geneva bonnet, rather than a galero.
Fine, I'll work this in (given a full reference). I've been limiting the article to statements I can verify from another source, and as I noted in PR I do not have the Heim book. By the way, the Geneva hat is already mentioned in a footnote. Nevertheless many Presbyterian arms use a hat that looks (to me) indistinguishable from any other galero. The movement to use Geneva hats is a sort of heraldry current event. I don't want to quote blogs but I tried to acknowledge it by having the footnote on Geneva hat point to one of the people pushing for it. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Motto
Translation of the Latin would probably be a good idea.
I thought the translation was adequate, but I suppose the humor may be more evident now. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Papal Insignia
The book by Woodward I mentioned above gives examples of other clergy using angels as supporters.
AFAIK, no RC clergy uses supporters based on office held, except the Pope. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Chivalric Insignia
This section seems only to address Catholic orders. What about the British orders of chivalry, for example, or the Order of St John?
Main point here was that RC clergy can only use chivalric insignia from two orders - any others are not allowed on their coat of arms. Happy to add information on other orders if it has some religious connection and a reference. Gimmetrow 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two bad images. Image:CoA Husi Bishopry.jpg and Image:Serb-ch.gif have no source. There is no licensing information on either the original design or this particular rendition. Best course of action would be to just remove both; they're not essential to the article. Jkelly 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Without them there will be no eastern heraldry image. Gimmetrow 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to put in some time to help with this. Let's look for some old illustrations of Orthodox coats of arms. Jkelly 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed both images and rearranged the others for layout. Gimmetrow 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've copy-edited the first few sections (rather quickly). I wasn't entirely happy with the writing: a few of my edits were personal preferences, but most were sorely needed. Please check them, since I'm unsure of your intended meaning in a few places (like right at the top). Tony 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this refer to the hidden text around "permissible"? Fixed. I was struggling with that sentence before; it doesn't fit with the other ideas in the paragraph. I rewrote the lead a couple days ago, and now that sentence is unnecessary. Regarding shapes, clergy don't use fewer shield shapes, but rather more often use the shapes that have less obvious military connections. Gimmetrow 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; but a few suggestions. Typically we use "According to <expert>, XYZ is true" only when XYZ is subject to debate. Thus, I don't think the following sentence is optimal: "According to Guy Selvester, 'non-episcopal cardinals may not display a cross in their arms.'" I could be wrong, but it seems that this isn't controversial. Leave the citation, drop the "according to" bit. Another thing: in the sentence "No other Roman or Anglican clergy has a right to supporters unless by personal right", what does "personal right" mean? Unless that is understood by the reader, the sentence isn't worth much. Other than that, nice job. I can't comment on whether or not this is comprehensive, but it looks FA worthy. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This cardinal-not-a-bishop detail is not mentioned in other sources, but one case contrary to Selvester's statement is given in the same paragraph. I can't determine if the arms are "improper", there are different schools of thought, or Selvester is wrong.
Regarding "personal right", for clergy the use of supporters is not based on an office held (primate, patriach, etc.), except for the Pope. But if someone used them before becoming a priest (eg, in the family coat of arms, or from former military service), these could be retained.
Are periods at the end of captions an MoS rule I don't know about? Gimmetrow 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Selvester, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying "personal right". As for image captions Wikipedia:Captions suggests that complete sentences are preferable, and I've seen a number of people mention using periods on FAC. But no, it's not in the style manual right now, and it's not a big deal, but I like to see them when there are relatively long image captions. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I had decided a while back not to use periods because some of the captions are not complete sentences. Gimmetrow 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  •   Support--Riurik 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sandy 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology)Edit

I'm restarting this nomination - the old discussion was too long to parse and contained a number of no-longer applicable sections. I'd like to see more work done on addressing the issue of list-heaviness. Raul654 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. in current form. The article is list-heavy, but also extremely informative. The lists seem appropriate here, but could be improved by converting into prose. If any section needs it, the one which needs it most is "In History." Neutral in curent form, would support fully with some list conversion. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We tried converting history to list form, it made it very confusing. - FrancisTyers · 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine! I know it's going to be an unpopular decision, but I Support! RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Haha, well that was easier than I expected :) Besides, Niko took care of the history section now :) - FrancisTyers · 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As before on the basis of it not being an article, but a list. As before, looking at, for quick examples, most of the featured lists of birds contain blocks of prose as this article does but are fundamentally lists as this one is. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response: FLs that were specified before (List of Anuran families, List of Kansas birds, List of Florida birds, List of Oklahoma birds) contain extremely less prose.
    • On the other hand, there are many precedents of featured articles that also contain lists:
    • This is an article, which has the following main differences from lists (of birds or anything):
      • It has a subject: To clarify the mess and semiological confusion among terms used in Macedonia. (Birds only have identical names for everyone, which are simply listed)
      • It illustrates the controversy that created this mess (UN did't deal with birds, and different species don't quarrel over who's to be called eagle.)
      • It explains which term, under which context (referred for whom, addressing whom, and said by whom) can be considered pejorative and for what (cited) reason. (Nobody is offended when someone calls a bird by another name.)
      • The text/list ratio is 58% - 42%, including references. Compare the truncated versions I created:
      • The 'lists' that have remained, are not essentially 'lists'. They are paragraphs that have been bulleted only to illustrate semiological confusion. No other featured list contains paragraphs for every single entry (excluding the bottom part of 'terminology by group' section).
      • On the other hand, there are featured articles with greater dominance of lists (examples above), plus their lists are indeed lists and not bulleted paragraphs.
      • Three (unsuccessful) attempts have been made to remove the bullets from these paragraphs. See examples of ways to reformat the history section:
        • One by Errant: here
        • One by myself: here (note, 'history' didn't exist as a section yet, see bottom of intro)
        • Another by myself: here
      • The proof that it is not a list, lies in the fact that it was indeed formatted as prose, but then bulleted back only to illustrate semiological confusion. Try doing that in the lists of the precedent featured articles I specified above!
      • Nine users who had 'list' concerns, removed their opposition in view of the large scale additions and modifications in this article.
    • Please consider the gravity of each objection: It seems there are like 30 users who approve it as it is, 9 users who thought it used to be a list and isn't now (6 of them on top of that now support), and we are trying to deal with a veto of one or two users who just object on bullet-formatted text. The veto power of the users who objected to bullet removal, the main contributors included, was overwhelming. I request you follow user Robth's example to reconsider your votes, and go for Neutral, which will not veto the wishes of the extreme majority here. :NikoSilver: 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Veto power :) - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no idea what this veto crap is but I am still objecting on the list issue. NikoSilver has tried to argue against it instead of addressing it. Please address it since it has been a concern since the beggining and both attempts to fix it have been, in my opinion, tentative at best. Joelito (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as before. Tony 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, im still going against the grain here, although I see why people are arguing this is a list it also wouldn't make it through the FL process. In fact it definitely wouldn't and would be very out of place as a featured lists. I think the problem here is that this is an article worthy of featred status - plus it is on an interesting and controversial topic and deals with it so well!! It is a shame that it gets denied that by being too list'y but I suppose that is the way things go. In fairness to Nikosilver and Frtancis they have done a sterling job addressing all the problems as best they may so I think Joelito is being a little unfair, in truth they did experiment with more prose but they are right that it made the article more confusing.
The thing is that this is (and never was) a list - so if it's not an article then what is it. Regardless I am supporting this still simply because it is a great piece of work that both these 2 and others have spent a long time perfecting... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok. I'll try to address it, but not that it hasn't already been extensively addressed.:NikoSilver: 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Trying to understand the objections. We could view all wiki articles as a "list" of facts, especially since there is no room for original research, and we have the POV factor. Indeed, most articles consist of a list of different facts, in appropriate order, they build a picture of the same object. Here we have a list of facts describing a same noun/appelation but which is interpreted in different ways. It is that difference of interpretations that forms the core of the article, one that has preoccupied a number of academics, politicians and historians. In my opinion, several experts in the field - some of them also true experts in the ways of wikipedia - have poured over the article, debated and concured that it is an article, not a list. Therefore, I think its FA suitability needs to be evaluated in terms of a bona fide article. Politis 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to thank Errant and Politis. I too think that it may have been something close to a list earlier, but it is simply unfair towards the extensive efforts and attempts that have been made to de-bullet it, to simlply stick on the list issue and not want to discuss! The precedents are numerous and the arguments above were compelling (did the opposers read them? Why don't they respond?) I will make one more attempt, though, but I strongly believe it will be to the detriment of the article's readability. Again, please do not ignore the wide consensus of the rest of the users who support, and of those that have dropped their 'list' objections. It is simply unfair to veto this great article, without any real basis, and without any discussion! I am deeply dissappointed. :NikoSilver: 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To opposers: Please see it now, and respond if this is the direction to which you wish the article was formulated...:NikoSilver: 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody responded to this, but my opinion is it sucks coz it repeats the same thing in three places, just to include some prose: maps+text+table. :NikoSilver: 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and Support I want to express my strong disapproval of Joelito's comments. At first, I too accused Niko of not addressing that issue and trying to argue around it, but since then there has been clear and extensive improvement in that area. "Tentative" means something like "experimental," and while I'm not trying to give anyone a vocabulary lesson, the changes that Niko has implemented are very sweeping, not tentative at all. Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!UberCryxic 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For anyone wishing to verify the "clear and extensive improvement in that area" here are the diffs [10]. I still see the same lists. Joelito (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Simply eye-jogging through the article reveals massive differences, either large white spaces where none existed or new material. I am not going to document every change, but you can see that the lists in the lead were taken away. Beyond that, you haven't really addressed my point. Some of the lists are still there, but Niko has made huge strides in adding prose to what is now firmly an article. This statement by me, "Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!" holds very true with your link. Anyone can see that there have been huge changes made. At the very least, you questioning Niko's efforts to address the problem are disingenuous in light of evidence that you yourself have presented.UberCryxic 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Joelito: Point? Where exactly do you see the same lists? Also, I think the diff is so messed up, that I am beggining to think you haven't followed the article's evolution since nomination. Let me put simply:
  • Major additions:
  • WP:LEAD 1 par -> 3pars
  • Etymology: ->New section, 3 pars
  • History: 1 sentence + a list (still incorporated in lead) -> 3 pars + list, separate section + 2 subsections
  • Templatised Maps: as cool as always. Unchanged
  • Geography: 2 lists with 3 pars intermingled -> 2 lists plus 6 pars
  • Demographics: Just a list -> a paragraph and a list with much lengthier entries
  • Linguistics: Just a list -> 3 pars + 1 opening sentence + a list
  • Politics: List with sublists containing 1 par -> No list + 3 pars
  • Names in the languages of the region: Unchanged
  • Terminology by group: 1 opening sentence + 3 lists -> 3 pars + 3 lists
  • Notes (one of the most important parts): 4 essential notes -> 5 essential notes
  • References: 4 -> 73! (we even have an objection for that now below!)
  • Totals: 9 pars + 2 sentences + 9 lists + 4 refs -> 27! pars + 2 sentences + 8 lists + 73 refs
  • How can you (Joelito) not notice that and ironicaly request us to verify UberCryxic above? I think you better strike that last unfortunate comment (at least), or your opposition is likely not to be taken seriously at all. :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stop trying to dismiss anyone (attacking the messenger) who opposes you and start addressing the concerns. I have commented every time a new section for the FAC has been created so I have been following the progress. 9 lists --> 7 lists + 1 table are still too many lists for an article. If I am not mistaken only 1 of the lists has been converted to prose. I know the article has been expanded considerably (also some of my past concerns) but the list concern has not been addressed to my (and others) satisfaction. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • He is not dismissing you. He has already significantly addressed concerns like the ones you have brought up. We can certainly have a conversation regarding what degree of satisfaction Niko has given those objecting, but don't making the categorical statement that he is not addressing your concerns. That's just a plain lie. Obviously he has; you can see the article for yourself. Niko has actually proven himself to be one of the most involved and quickest FA nominators I've ever seen.UberCryxic 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006: I suppose 5 tables and 3 lists would be fine then, huh? Nobody attacked you. It is your insufficient arguments I am attacking. You have never responded on the issue. You always just post a message to keep the conversation alive. Kindly respond to every single argument in my two lengthy posts above. If you can't then you're wrong. I am certain the article is in the wrong path with the recent irrational additions. This is not Macedonia (region) we're writing here. It is Macedonia (terminology). :NikoSilver: 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • object so many references to such a small article. Needs proper development not to reference every word. Very nice and instructive maps!!! --Pedro 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that's an original! :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Too much refs isn't a reason to oppose any FAC Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Half of the article are refs, that's original! An article is not a collection of references. It seems a reference page in a PHD, not an encyclopedia article. --Pedro 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That is not very kind, Pedro. How can references be original? All articles in wikipedia are, arguably, a list of referenced facts because we do not accept POV or original research. I would say this article is an OK introduction to a PhD thesis, not its reference pages. Politis 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, I cannot satisfy you and remove references. Feel free to keep opposing. Thank you.:NikoSilver: 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i'm just saying it needs expansion and better formating and not concentrating to much on references, many of those references are not very useful, but you shouldn't remove them - That would be stupid. --Pedro 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Pedro, we can't expand it further. (a)It is already almost 50Kb, without the templatised maps. (b)We will not be "tightly focused on the subject". The subject is terminology. Why the hell should we expand further e.g. history? The parts that are relevant in illustrating the controversy and confusion in terminology are expanded more than adequately. After reading it, do you have any question on the how's and why's of the terminology? Anything you believe would apply? The fact that we have so many refs, is because we can't tolerate nationalist rant about 'unsubstantiated material'. (Greeks included). :NikoSilver: 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • changed to neutral. It doesnt look great (except for the maps that are great, it is informative enough, most important in a FA is information).--Pedro 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Closing statement: After extensive attempts to ruin the article towards the direction indicated by Joelito, without real argumentation, or any substantial responses to my arguments, I have decided to revert the article to the version before these attempts. If anyone still thinks this is not an article, then so be it. Let's put it in the Featured Stubs! Raul, feel free to close this, list it in FL, dump it, delete it or... (why not? 30 users emphatically say so!) feature it as it is. I am out. :NikoSilver: 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment A lot of work here has been done. A lot of various things have been tried. The essential problem I see is scope. This isn't a history article, nor is it a geographical article. It isn't an article on linguistics either. It is an article on terminology. The stated purpose of the article is to describe the way that the terminology surrounding Macedonia is used by various groups. Now then, people may say "but why on earth do you need that, and whats with all the lists?", the reason for the lists is simple. The principle that was decided upon on the inception of the page was to use Self identifying terms. So many other articles related to Macedonia have been edit warred into oblivion because of terminology. In fact, you can even see it in the history of this one.
The more prose that was added, the closer we got to edit warring. It really is very difficult to write an article regarding Macedonia that all sides accept. By and large everyone accepts this. Back to the lists! The lists as they are so lovingly called are imperative to keeping the content readable. When we have 6 different meanings for the term Macedonia, how else are we to present them, We have 3 different meanings for the term "Macedonian" relating to linguistics, and 5 relating to "Macedonian" in demographics.
How then should we format this, whilst maintaining self-identifying terms that it wouldn't be entirely opaque? Is it possible to have a featured article on terminology? I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.
I may be naïve, but I think that the article has the potential to improve articles about Macedonia as a whole. When a non-Balkanian comes to a Macedonia related article and sees such a large dispute going on, the first instinct is to hop it, get out of there, it isn't worth the trouble to get involved, those guys will never agree. A top class reference on terminology might help to lessen that, and get a larger number of non-Balkanian editors involved, something that the articles are in serious need of. This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this.
So, my final plea, do not oppose solely on the fact that there are a large number of lists in the article, perhaps oppose because you don't think that is some of Wikipedia's best work, or oppose because you don't think it is neutral, or there is a full stop out of place. Just not the lists. - FrancisTyers · 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the length of my reply. Feel free to remove parts you feel are irrelevant in order to keep the page more legible. - FrancisTyers · 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose Neutral - Political tensions on Wikipedia is not justification for making this a featured article, Francis. If the article is so great now in easing the flame wars that occur in Balkan-related topics, then it should be a significant help regardless if it is featured or not. Telling someone to look beyond the tangible aspects of the formatting and to support it for its spiritual merits is just wrong. If this was a "Articles that create a paradigm shift and further the cause of togetherness" nomination I would be in favor. But it is not, and so I won't vote in favor until the list issue is resolved. --Sean WI 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The article has gone through a considerable change since it was first put up for a nomination. I now see the work that has gone into transforming the article into a stable, informative, and interesting read. My prior objections to the format have been aleviated by the endless work that a select few people have accomplished. I now feel that the bullet points are an acceptable way to convey the message, making it easy for the uninformed to digest the material. This article has my support. --Sean WI 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that you didn't want to read the whole post, it was pretty long, so I'll direct you to, "This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this." - FrancisTyers · 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should better direct him to: I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.
I second your whole comment 100%. Let it burn, I don't care. I am not ruining a great article because some people cannot justify their opposition. I have presented compelling precedents and arguments in two lengthy posts above and nobody has responded to either. You can't veto something unless you have a solid rationale. Therefore, I consider all 'list' oppositions moot. :NikoSilver: 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys lets stay calm and friendly! The article has improved alot and will continue to do so over the years. I think you should forget about FA for now and wait a couple of months - then relist it and see if time has matured it enough for people to have changed their minds --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No Errant, but thanks. I sincerely believe that all 'list' oppositions are invalid. Reasoning above.:NikoSilver: 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There have been some recent additions in prose. Mainly, a new 'etymology' section, and several paragraphs in 'history' section, which was also split in two subsections. For more details, refer to my comment above under 'Major additions'. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm even less convinced now that this should go to FLC. As an article it is properly referenced and the prose is good. The maps are a great aid in understanding the subject. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, really good and illustrative maps. I didn't understand, very well, the war between Macedonia and Greece because of the name, just by seeing the maps you understand it immediately.--Pedro 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Niko, you do not have any authority to dismiss these arguments as 'moot' or 'invalid'. Okay, the scope of the article is thoroughly explained by the title itself. This is the terminology of the region of Macedonia. Maybe it is easier to make lists when explaining six different points. I understand this, too. But these reasons do not make it alright to ignore the central problem - the formatting does not agree with many people. And because the formatting is so rigid, the entire article does not have a "flowing" quality. A proper featured topic should read like a novel - there is a beginning, middle, and end (though the end is less important). This feels like a grocery list. Now I fear that some people are giving support for all the wrong reasons. You reverted all of your "in history" section (which wasn't satisfactory, anyway) and made it a list again...and this guy above me says the prose are now good? What!? I will vehemently oppose this article and try to convince others to do the same until this is solved. Perhaps this is just one article that can never be featured...or maybe it needs a slight re-write. --Sean WI 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sean WI. Here is an article: List of United States mobile phone companies. Now this is what I call a list - a collection of US companies and it does not "read like a novel", as you mention above; but then. But if that is a criterion (and under normal circumstances I would probably agree with you) where will you find a novel accessible to the editorial whims of anyone browsing the net, coming across wikipedia, and wanting to have a go? That is why wikipedia articles are a collection of information, a list of information. So how does anyone draw the line between a list of mobile phone companies, this article in question and an article on windmills or sugar? What are the criteria you espouse? I would have thought that such article would make fascinating reading as a FA; the information races along, it is varied, full of links and dynamic - those are not qualities you will find in a "grocery list". Politis 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sean: No I don't have the authority, but I have a right to express my opinion. My opinion still is that none of the 'list' arguments has a basis in the requirements. Also, opposers have not addressed any point in my rationale above, including the precedents that I listed. So, having both requirements and precedents in my side, I am safe to express that opinion: Any 'list' opposition is moot!
  • Speaking about authority, I see a very small minority still complaining about any list within the article. Kindly read User:Jimbo's page, rule #7 for inspiration.
  • Still, I have made further additions in prose. So, what about now? :NikoSilver: 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Politis. I must apologize for using the term "grocery list" to explain my position because even I know that it is absurd. I was merely a bit peeved that someone could dismiss the points of myself and others as being not relevant to the discussion. Most of the opposition (including the archived portion) has a problem with the format, and not the information. This article has come a long way from its humble beginnings. Remember, I initially voted in favor of it. However, as trivial as something like formatting seems, it can allow for a powerful voice while reading. If we take a good featured article, say Kolkata, and compare it to this one...the difference is not in the amount of information, but in the way it is presented. If the people who are most active in this article decide that they will not budge, I guess I will change my vote to a neutral like I did in the previous vote.

I ended the paragraph, but when I tried to save, I noticed the new reply, so I will address that, too. Niko, I am withdrawing my vote. You are free to make it a featured article. --Sean WI 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive approach and your frankness. Also thanks to Niko for his relentless work/ Just to point out that though I believe this is, indeed, an article - and a very useful one, I have not voted on the FA issue. Politis 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. It's certainly got enough prose to be an article, and it's most certainly of featured-quality. —Nightstallion (?) 06:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Change from Support to Object - Sorry to have to do this. First of all, I find the large quote above the image at the top of the article to be obnoxious. Second of all, I am VERY much opposed to wrapping the text around the table of contents.
Additionally though, I've re-looked over the prose/list issue, trying to really get to the heart of the matter, and I've concluded that while there have been leaps and bounds of improvement towards this being an article, it still contains too many lists to be one of our best. If this came up at Featured Lists, I would probably still support it there, as the list content is pretty heavy and still seems to be the focus of the page. Nearly all the information currently contained in lists could be re-written as prose... heck, much of it already has! Why not go all the way with the rest of it, and get rid of all these objections once and for all. Fieari 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Fieari, I just inserted those maps for editing/commenting/etc. You don't have to object to the FAC for that. We can solve it in the talk (and it is being discussed as we speak). Now for the prose, we tried to get rid of it all, three times (see above). It doesn't work, because the present format is simply unbeatable! The present format is:
[[Macedonia/n/s (foo)|Macedonia/n/s]] (as in foo) refers...
This is a hell of a way to illustrate that... we all mouse-over in our brains when we use those terms! :NikoSilver: 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a reason stability is a FA requirement... for situations like these. Fieari 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Right. Only we're not talking POV reverts here, I just drew some new maps for God's sake! You and others don't like them? Fine! I'll revert. Now if you mean stability vs prose, then I think you're right. The article's prose has multiplied. If it came up at FLC's, I'd dump it because of too much prose! :NikoSilver: 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the article now is exactly as it was before your latest objection, with two minors:
  • Changed grey maps to colorful sat-maps. This may be changed back to the originals if you feel they are too colorful.
  • Added the (attempted) intro template below in the 'Notes' section to create attention, as this section is quite important. This too may be deleted later if the rest of the editors do not agree.
Please participate in talk and state your opinion for this trivial issue.:NikoSilver: 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, I'd first discuss at the talk page, address these concerns, look for any previous replies and then, if nothing has been done, change my vote. Are you sure these are lists and not bulleted paragraphs (and they're as limited in number as possible now!), because that's what I think they are? I wouldn't ever object because I don't like the TOC and the large quote over the image too, I'd fix and make it look it the way I like it. It's a wiki. And that's just my opinion anyway :) TodorBozhinov 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a Macedonia-related article without any edit wars?? Amazing! :p —Khoikhoi 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The older maps were better, and especially the last map is completely unreadable. I'm also not sure I like the quotes above the pictures. —Nightstallion (?) 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, support, support. This one deserves to be a featured article and I won't ever let it fail because of objections I mostly find silly, childish and ungrounded ("don't like the quote above the image", "it has too many references", "liked the old maps better", "can't stand bullets", etc.) People, just have a look at this thing — it's a thorough, perfectly-referenced, neutral, well-written and informative, extremely useful, unbelievably necessary article on a topic that has puzzled and continues to puzzle Europe and the world. Consider the immense work needed to create this, think about the impact it's going to have on all related articles that are currently packed with bias and confusion, think whether your objections really sound serious compared to the article's overall quality, scale and impact, and then vote. I call upon everyone — let's not be small-minded, but instead appreciate the real value of things. TodorBozhinov 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If editors would stop dismissing the formatting objections (lists) as "ungrounded" then this would be a featured article. Stop trying to convince us that the topic is worthy of featured status and start convincing us that the article is worthy of featured status. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lists or bulleted paragraphs? IMHO the bullets only provide clarity and are actually very useful (you're using them at this very page to separate your comment from the others). The article contains as much prose as possible, but some things are actually worse as lists (for example, ever thought how messy this FAC page would look de-bulleted?). Could you please specifically say which lists exactly you're referring to, and how you would solve the problems you believe there are with them? I'm sure Niko, Francis or whoever else (me including) would be glad to improve the formatting if what you suggest would really be an improvement. Also, perphaps you've got me wrong; I've never meant it's because of the topic that the article should be featured — but its current and future impact on the topic's Wikipedia coverage is more than remarkable — take that in consideration. And that impact is because of its undispited pure quality. TodorBozhinov 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Joelito, we did our best in three attempts to meet your requirements ([11], [12], and [13]). Your approach is highly unconstructive. None of your comments has contributed anything to the article (unlike the comments of all others). You didn't even respond if you thought the third attempt was in the right path. Can you specify what exactly it is you want? Do you want maybe to push characterise the 'bird lists' as articles as well through this opposition? I see you've created many of them... :NikoSilver: 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Is the following (a) "typical list entry" or (b) "full-fledged paragraph that has been bulleted"?
  • Please respond below...:NikoSilver: 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments/Update:
      • Thanks Todor, I won't say that this is exactly the way I feel, for ...diplomatic reasons.
      • All of Fieari's concerns were dealt with in the present version.
      • Regarding new maps/templates, there are some options discussed in the article's talk. Nightstallion, Fieari, Todor and everybody else with an opinion/idea, is free to state it there. Maybe we'll end up with something even better.
    • Hope that covers it all.:NikoSilver: 12:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support -- Great article! I agree with Todor. My one comment is this: I think the Etymology section should have three bullets, as it includes one line descriptions of three separate theories. -- Rmrfstar 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha ha! Thanks. However, your proposal would make those one line descriptions look like a 'list' to some people... I'll do the opposite there: I'll join all sentences in one paragraph as it was in the beginning. These sentences were split in order to lengthen the section so that it would align with the TOC, which used to be to the left of the section text. The TOC is now above, so I'll just merge the section back. :NikoSilver: 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I objected during the previous nomination, primarily due to the lack of references and some awkward sentences, but believe that the article is much improved. I don't mind the use of bulleted paragraphs as they add to the clarity of the article. I have a few minor thoughts/comments which i'll post here:
    • Etymology: I'm pleased that you included an etymology section. "Αccording to Herodotus, the Makednoí were a tribe of the Dorians." It would help to provide an inline citation to an online English translation for the appropriate point in Herodotus Histories. Likewise for Homer.
      • Done, and done, and likewise for Aristophanes. Thanks. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In History: Was there a region or administrative area called Macedonia within the first or second bulgarian empires? It may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that the Macedonia region was incorporated into the Byzantine empire as the thema of Bulgaria?
      • No idea. Probably didn't exist.:NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In Geography: It would be helpful to know the size of Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo, and Gora and Prohor Pchinski, to give an idea of how they compare to the major sub-regions.
      • Done. Kindly tweak my wording. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In Demographics: "Macedo-Romanians" - is there an approximate figure for the number of Macedo-Romanians?
    • In Demographics: "As of 2001 the inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia, who in their vast majority self-identify as Bulgarians, are 341,245." It may be worth mentioning the number of people who identified as ethnic macedonians in the 2001 census - 3,117?
      • Done. Referenced in the Bulgarian version of census but not in the English one (!!) Thanks. :NikoSilver: 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In Politics: "The term came to be used following a naming dispute with Greece." It would be helpful to provide the year when the term FYROM came into use (1993?) and the source of the term (the United Nations?).

Good luck with the remainder of the nomination process. Jazriel 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks Jazriel. All your comments are very specific and very appropriate. We will get into them asap. I especially liked the part where you too point out that "the bulleted paragraphs add to the clarity of the article". :-) :NikoSilver: 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support, as in the old discussion. One tiny suggestion would be to outline somehow the Bulgarian flag in the terminology section, so that the top white stripe doesn't blend into the white background. Another: the Churchill quote isn't really relevant, as the article obviously doesn't deal with the entire Balkan region, just one small part, and the fact that it produces "more history than it can consume" isn't really relevant, as the article isn't (solely) about history. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ObjectNeutral Incomplete: 2b. Omits the meaning with which the 1911 Britannica begins: a district of European Turkey stretching from Salonica to Üsküb . This contained several Ottoman administrative districts, but the Western usage is clear, and became international in the Mürzsteg Programme. Septentrionalis 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that "Geographical Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers · 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No; it was treated as a political entity in 1904; also, the statement is that Macedonia was not used on maps for several centuries is extremely misleading, since it was so used as soon as there began to be maps of the interior of the Balkan Peninsula in English. Septentrionalis 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed the main issue. The point about maps may be unintentional ambiguity. If these can be resolved stably, I shall strike this objection. Septentrionalis 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My initial concerns are dealt with, for now. I see the colored map has been discused before; but who supports it? The present version is
    • a political map, not a geographical one.
    • somewhat overcolored; the boundary of Macedonia, which is the subject, is drowned out.
    • It also a has a long and complex caption, largely repeated in the article, about (Republican) Macedonian irredentism/. This is undue weight. Septentrionalis 08:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Replaced with a geographical map. Septentrionalis 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the list in the early history section could be better as prose. There is an annoying self-reference in the first caption - "For more details see the boundaries and definitions section in Macedonia (region)." - and there is still at least one "citation needed" tag. If this fac fails I would encourage running again soon at it is a very good article on a touchy subject. RN 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yikes. I supported last time and I guess that means I still do. I still think it looks great, if anything better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. Mieciu K 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, there is simply too much article here for it to ever be able to pass Featured List Candidates, so I do not accept that as ground for exclusion. Beyond that, I think it fulfills all the criteria for FA. Andrew Levine 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I would like to support; my comments are not enough for oppose, but here they are. All pretty minor.
  • I'd like to see the [citation needed] tags dealt with.
  • I believe the etymology section slightly mis-states one of the hypotheses. The main article linked to says that there is an unattested word form that is hypothesized to be the basis of the name; this is rephrased in this article to be an "unattested hypothesis". This isn't really right. Struck since I went ahead and fixed this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be good to create a stub for Crna hills, to avoid a redlink.
I would support if the citation needed tags are replaced with citations. I should add that I do not see the lists as a problem; they are a good, clean way to present data that is inherently better treated this way than in prose. Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, wow!!! However, the points made by Mike Christie above are valid. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. While obviously done by someone with a mission to 'show the facts' with regard to the region and dispute, it is featured-worthy. Extra kudos for its neutrality. michael talk 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand the objections of other users, but I must underscore that this is one of the best-constructed, best-referenced and best-worked articles I've ever seen.--Yannismarou 09:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well, the bullets in this article improves the clarity of the way the article is being presented, which makes it a vety good read. Moreover, the extensive notes and references in this article more than proves its accuracy. It is also written in a NPOV style which is comprehensive as well. This is indeed a great article and I wish to offer my compliments to the respective editors who toiled very hard on this subject. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I still think there are too many lists that need to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 14:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The "early history" does deal with several separate entities, from separate periods. Having them as a list does discourage making them into a history of "Macedonia", which would be off-topic and bring in the controversies now largely restricted to Macedonia (region). Comments? Septentrionalis 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems to have been extensively worked on before and during FAC candidacy, and the few lists I see seem to help comprehension. I learned a lot, and it meets the FA criteria. Judgesurreal777 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and Strongly recommend closure; this FAC is approaching one month now. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, and I agree with Smurrayinchester. Job well done, tired of nitpicking the little stuff. Sandy 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all contributors and to all those who made productive comments. This article has been tremendously improved since nomination. On a lighter note, maybe I should stick to having such long wikibreaks! :NikoSilver: 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chrono CrossEdit

Self-nomination. While working on Chrono Trigger, I prepared this article for nomination. I've printed a hard copy of the text out for editing (extremely useful; the fat just melted away) and several editors have stopped by for minor polishing. This editing was done after a review of encyclopedic prose standards, and the quality of the text should be a significant step above Chrono Trigger's when it was first nominated. Images are all web-resolution and justified through fair use. The article is referenced 51 times and satisfies the comprehensiveness requirement by covering major story arcs while leaving out details (such as Karsh's love for Riddel and backstory concerning about twenty other characters). As with Chrono Trigger, objections shall be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for reviewing. --Zeality 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - I helped with this article a little bit, and it is judicious in its use of images, had reliable sources, and is comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Zeality 16:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - A solid article, free of cruft. Great refferencing, and your use of pictures is perfect. --PresN 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Zeality 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a great article. — Deckiller 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Zeality 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I wanted to go with "weak support", but only because I hate RPGs. There is, in my view, absolutely nothing wrong with this article whatsoever- it's simply a great piece of writing. A big "Good show!" to everyone who contributed to it. Now if only some GTA games could reach FA status... well, at least we've already got DOOM. -- Kicking222 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hah, thanks. I'm sure FFProject and the rest of us will eventually run out of RPGs... --Zeality 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — At first I was going to just make a comment, while being this close (--> []) to giving support, but as most of what I was going to mention are so minor, I'll fix them myself. Use of imagery is really good and the fair-use rationale for them is sufficient, but the character design of Harle might need to be shrunk a little (I'll let you do this one). Other than that, there's just a few publications and games that need to have their titles italicized, a reference that needs to follow a comma, and a link that doesn't have to be capitalized. I'll fix these last few issues and the article looks good to go to me. It's well referenced and well written. Good job. Ryu Kaze 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it up. --Zeality 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Once again, great work. Ryu Kaze 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I have a couple of comments first:
    • "in which players can converse with locals to procure items and services, solve puzzles and challenges," - doesn't this sound a little too clinical? I think that the prose in this article is good, but not quite brilliant. However, you guys have done a great job of making it accessible to the non-expert, and that's most important.
    • Seeing the criticism section, I REALLY wish I had my PlayStation Magazines on hand. I remember one color-blind player writing in to PSM complaining about the gameplay's heavy reliance on colors. That would be a cool addition. :)

In all this article has become so much better. Great job. --Tristam 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, sometimes I wonder if WP:CVG should get together and designate members who have kept magazines (like my stacks of Nintendo Powers) to systematically go through the game and upload interesting information to a reference page we can draw from one working on games. As it is, it's pretty tough to track someone down for an old magazine's review. --Zeality 12:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the gameplay section: If the field is pure blue, the power of Elements of that color will be enhanced. .. As I understand it, this effect occurs whenever the field is purely one color, but blue is only one example. So it should be reworded "If the field is purely one color" or "For example, if the field is pure blue". Disregard this if I'm wrong, I haven't played CC in forever. Amuck 17:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed; thanks. --Zeality 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

German occupation of Luxembourg in World War IEdit

From a non-existent article to GA and now FAC in only a few weeks is pretty much all down to the hard work of User:Bastin8, who has put in sterling work to make this a comprehensive, well-referenced, accurate and NPOV article about an important if obscure chapter of the First World War. Has been peer reviewed, with few critical comments, and is a WP:GA. Fulfills all FAC criteria IMO, and deserves the recognition of FA status. Batmanand | Talk 08:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Author. As the author, I support this nomination, and concur that it meets fully the standards of a Featured Article (as if I could prove any integrity; last time one of 'my' articles was nominated, I didn't). However, if there are any criticisms that were not raised in PR, I'd be happy to rectify the issues. Bastin 08:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice article! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild support, mild only because I think the quote blocks with the big blue quote marks are distracting.Rlevse 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed this by changing the four short statements to normal quotations. However, two statements (by Bethmann-Hollweg and Pershing) have remained, as they are longer, more important, and deserve to stand out. Bastin 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough.Rlevse 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: normally I wouldnt bring this up here but I've been browsing wikipedia for a long time and this is the first time this has happened. This suggests to me that maybe this problem is unique to this page and its due to the code (maybe the cites) on this page. Basically I seem to be getting overlapping text as seen in Image:Overlapping text problem.PNG. - Tutmosis 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that I look at it the overlapping text is from the image mapping code, hopefully the creator of that can troubleshoot it to work properly or remove it altogether. - Tutmosis 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The same issue was raised in PR by RJH. Then, I thought it might be limited to him alone, but offered to change it to a normally-labelled map if someone else had troubles. Since you've had the same difficulties, I've changed it. Bastin 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you and I hope you dont mind it being a normally-labeled map. - Tutmosis 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I thought that it was neat idea, but the moment that it began to cause trouble was the moment it had to go. Everything is linked in the text, so it really doesn't make any difference. Bastin 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: A well-written article. Also all the images are either public domain or self-made which is very nice to see. Good luck on your future projects. - Tutmosis 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As a Luxembourgish citizen, I approve of this article. :) Phils 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article! -- Underneath-it-All 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Had to chip in here; suppport. Beautifully done. Phoenix2 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: I have a few concerns. There's usually little need to link to years, unless they are part of a full date (day, month, and year). Also, completely link full dates (including the year) so that date preferences take effect. I've fixed some of these. Another thing: The prose could use work. Examples from a randomly selected subsection ("Miners' strike"):
  • "the workers sought to use their most potent weapon, by defying von Tessmar's ultimatum and downing tools". The combination of comma and "by" doesn't work. Also, it's redundant since they didn't just seek to use their most potent weapon—they did use it. So why not "the workers used their most potent weapon, defying von Tessmar's ultimatum". Also, I've never heard of "downing tools" as a synonym of going on strike—doesn't mean it's wrong, but perhaps another choice of wording would be better.
  • Expand all contractions.
  • Phrases like "main ringleaders" can be shortened. Watch out for qualifiers like "main", "very", and "rather"; they rarely add value.
  • What does "the government resigned" mean? Is "resigned" the right word?
I haven't checked the rest of the article, but these findings from one subsection suggest that there are more problems. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention—the references for this article are fantastic. Great job researching this! --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, very well done! —Nightstallion (?) 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This educational article should appear for historical, cultural, and in the memory who gave their lives in the first World War —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Tahirih Justice CenterEdit

Self-nom. This article is about a non-governmental organization that helps women and girls fleeing gender-based violence. Read to find out more! The article received a peer review, but unfortunately there was little attention so I decided to take it here. But it was an article that received a lot of attention from other users, and to that end I'd like to give special thanks to Jeff3000 and Kirill Lokshin, whose tremendous advice and guidance in improving the article made this nomination possible. I eagerly await and appreciate all comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Thank you very much.UberCryxic 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Over the past couple days UberCryxic has added many citations for the statements in the text and the article covers the principle subject in depth, along with criticisms. -- Jeff3000 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Article looks good but subheading in history section are completely for display purposes and are just colorful words. Other sections subheading seem legit but in a way make the article look like it has little content since most subheading only have one medium/small paragraph under them. Expansion would be a good (possible) solution or a possibly merging of sections. Regarding the prose, im sure within a day or 2 there will be enough people to point out problems. 17:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I believe the subheadings in the History section are necessary because one describes a time before the organization existed and the other after. I hope that rationalization is sufficient, but I will be more than glad to change it if appears to be a big problem. I'll also take another look at other subsections. Again, thanks for your suggestions!UberCryxic 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is very informative, and is in line with the FA criteria. Sources are well-documented, and, as Jeff3000 pointed out, includes criticism. Well-written article. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support except I find the big quote with the big blue marks very distracting. Rlevse 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with you, but it is a very important statement as regards the principles of the organization, and I wrote it like that to make it stand out.UberCryxic 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - parts of the article read like promotional material for the organisation the tone needs work; a few examples:
Tahirih's care and representation of its clients is aimed at making these hopes a realization
Tahirih tries to assist clients in a holistic perspective
Tahirih believes that one of its largest and most successful public policy initiatives
Tahirih has urged governments throughout the world to take responsibility
The issues section is kind of odd, it seems to be almost entirely composed of issues that the organisation is interested in - and a short desctiption of what the organisation thinks/does. Stats stop at 2003, why? The origin of the groups name should not be in the lead, it would be better placed in the history. 4000 people doesn't seem like many - the article doesn't really convey why what this organisation does in important.--Peta 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Peta! May I interest you in making some suggestions as to what you think those four initial statements should read like? The thing is I had problems with some of those comments myself, and if a number of my revisions could not fix the problem, maybe it needs outside help? Some of the stats do stop at 2003, but not all. I was reluctant to go further because that is the latest Annual Report the organization had published. The 2004-2005 one is coming out shortly. Somehow I just wouldn't feel comfortable giving people information that they can't access, though I realize I did use the 2004-2005 Annual Report sparingly (when this does go online it will be promptly linked).

"4000 people doesn't seem like many - the article doesn't really convey why what this organisation does in important."

Mmmm...maybe. But I suppose this is subjective. Tell it to one of their clients and see what they think. Anyway, what do you think this article could do more in order to convey a sense of importance? Once again, thanks a lot for your help!UberCryxic 13:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I suggest you ask someone who hasn't worked on the article to copyedit it. The lead probably also needs work to give the reader a better idea about what the organization does and why it is important, the lead should not cover stuff that isn't in the body (that's why I suggested you move the naming stuff). If the reader doesn't get a good idea about why an organizations work is important there is something amiss.--Peta 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree about asking someone who hasn't worked on it. That's why I asked you. I will see what I can do with your suggestions. Thank you!UberCryxic 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Peta I've made the following changes:

-"Tahirih's care and representation of its clients is aimed at making these hopes a realization" --This has now been deleted because it sounded too....mushy?

-"Tahirih believes that one of its largest and most successful public policy initiatives" --Has been rewritten to "One of Tahirih's largest and most...."

-"Tahirih has urged governments throughout the world to take responsibility" --Has been rewritten to "Tahirih has urged what it believes are repressive or disinterested governments throughout the world...." Hopefully that makes it less POV.

-The first part of the holistic statement is explained in the next clause. I am not quite sure how to rephrase this without ruining the actual message.

-Origin of group's name is now in history section.

-The Issues section is designed to give people a better idea of what the organization does with women whose particular type of victimization represents a high percentage of the organization's litigation or with other issues that are high-profile (like female genital cutting) but may not represent what the majority of Tahirih's clients are fleeing from. Please let me know how you think this can be improved. Thank you.UberCryxic 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The improvements you have made are good, but the article is still written in the voice of the organization, and I don't think that is a neutral position. Take a look at Médecins Sans Frontières which discusses the work of the orgainzation in far more neutral terms. I'm not much of a copyeditor - you may want to ask User:Tony1 , User:Spangineer or User:Bishonen to take a look at it.--Peta 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm I'm debating how "neutral" their tone really is; an overwhelming part of the article is sourced from MSF material, contrasted with this article, which is about 65-70% outside sources and includes a criticism section. I may have actually objected to that article on that ground alone (too many sources from MSF). Nevertheless I am working on neturalizing the tone; the problem is that it's a little difficult for somebody who has written an article to really go back and make sweeping or incisive changes, partly because the person wouldn't know where to begin (problem I'm having now) or because they would be too worried about ruining the article's structure, or something else. But you get my point; I really need someone from the outside to neutralize the tone. Tony's copyedit yesterday was good, but he only did one-third of the article. I'll work on it myself today and keep updating you. Thanks!UberCryxic 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - reads like a tour guide and some parts are stubs that can be expanded. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will now begin the process of making this article less POV, per requests. Outside help is strongly appreciated, however. Once again, thank you.UberCryxic 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodcontent, may you please give me some concrete ideas about what to do in order to mitigate the "tour guide" effect this article apparently has? Also, which parts in particular were you referring to? Thank you.UberCryxic 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Comments. This article needs some further modifications:
    • The "Goals and organization" is pretty messy and should be presented from a NPOV, rather than from a POV quote about "wings" and things like that...
I changed a "Tahirih" to the "organization," but other than that I should note that the part you are referring to is a quote. Quotes are allowed to be "wingy," especially when they inspire the mission of an organization. Was there any problem with the other text in the section?UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking, I find the prose to be pretty thin. Especially, the four subsections in "Issues" are. It jumps straight to the organization without discussing about the subject, and they're just 1 para long. You have main articles for all of those, use them :D Too much summary style kills the summary style :)
We had a problem about this before taking it here. There used to be descriptions about the issue, but it was decided that since they are not really about the subject of the article (TJC), then they should not receive much attention.UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In "Fundraising", I don't get the $12,000 thing. What about the 3,537,900.59 revenue in the infobox? How about a chart detailing the origin of the funds or something like that. The section is pretty thin and mixed with the "Legal services" one...
A chart is coming. Should be up within a few hours!UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Fgm map should be resized so the text will be readable in the thumb.
Done.UberCryxic 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

These are, IM(NS :)HO, important matters that should be dealt with. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Minor object on a few points:
    • "No Tahirih client has ever been deported." - if their success rate for applications is 98%, what happens to the other 2% to prevent their deportation?
      That statement has been deleted.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "A basic understanding of these problems is central to understanding Tahirih itself." - irrelevant statement of opinion.
      That's gone too.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Get rid of the see-also links.
      Done, even though I prefer to have them there.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The formatting of the references is somewhat problematic; the third one, in particular, should not begin with a date. I suggest abandoning the templates and writing these out by hand. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      What do you mean by abandon the template? Can you do this for me? Not sure how to do it.UberCryxic 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      I've changed it from the template to raw text; but I've formatted them as per the CMS (as that's the style I'm most familiar with). Is that a problem? Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      Oh no that's fine!UberCryxic 03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      Okay, support from me, as I can't find any other problems to pick on ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It appears to satisfy the criteria, and has an important message to disseminate worldwide to assistance organisations and women at large. Tony 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Much improved during FAC, nice job. Sandy 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Summer of '42Edit

Self nom, support; This article contains probably ever piece of information there is availible on Summer of '42, book and film, outside of what Herman Raucher may have not revealed; a more scholary, concise, and authoritative article on the subject you will not find.Mistergrind 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  •   Support Arwcheek 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The references are rather difficult to understand, with incomplete information and 28 inline with only 12 given in the references section. Converting to <ref> tags would fix this - see Wikipedia:Footnotes. violet/riga (t) 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. There must be a better section name than "Aftermath" though. violet/riga (t) 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Comment: not one of the images used in the article has a fair use rationale. In addition, I noticed a rather extreme lack of Wikilinks - particularly in the Plot section. Another thing is the citations - I recommend switching to the superior system, as suggested above. However, a little beefing up of the number of citations should be done - I noticed some stuff that needed to be cited, but wasn't. For example:

After production, Warner Brothers, still wary about the film only being a minor success, asked Raucher to adapt his script into a book. Raucher wrote it in three weeks, and Warner Brothers released it prior to the film to build interest in the story.

In addition to being a commercial success, the film also received rave critical reviews; it counted among its fans Stanley Kubrick, who in a rare moment of pop-culture infusion into his films, had the movie play on a television in a scene in The Shining.

Summer of '42 went on to be nominated for over a dozen awards, including the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama, the Golden Globe Award for Best Director, and the Academy Award for Writing Original Screenplay. Ultimately, the film only won two awards, the Academy Award for Original Music Score and the BAFTA Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music, both of which went to Michel Legrand.

The film met with poor critical reviews and was altogether a box office failure.

In 2001, Raucher consented to the film being made into a Broadway musical play.

The play met with positive critical and fan response, and was in fact endorsed by Raucher himself, but the play was forced to close down in the aftermath of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.

Mulligan told Warner Brothers that the film could be shot for the relatively low price of a million dollars, and Warner Brothers approved making the picture.

Raucher recognized the "real" Dorothy's handwriting, and she confirmed her identity by making references to certain events only she could have known about.

Among others, such as some stuff in the lead.

Finally, I noted a bit of original research with the following:

The 1988 film Stealing Home shares numerous similarities not only to Summer of 42 but also Class of '44, with several incidents (most notably a subplot dealing with the premature death of the protagonist's father and the protagonist's response to it) appearing to have been directly lifted from Raucher's own life. - If a reliable source has commented on this, then it needs to be rewritten and cited. Otherwise, it should be completely removed.JimmyBlackwing 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Jimmy and Violet, I have looked over your concerns and believe that they should all now be addressed. I respectfully ask that you go back and take another look and reconsider your votes/considerations.Mistergrind 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I did a quick run-through of the article to take care of a few little quibbles I had, but most everything seems to be in order now. I have changed my comment to a support - good work. JimmyBlackwing 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportRlevse 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportTimmybiscool 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oceanic whitetip sharkEdit

This article has gone through peer review and been the subject of extensive rewrites and fact checking by myself and others. We now think it would be worthy addition to the list of featured articles. Yomangani 11:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as semi-co-nominator, it is already a Good Article, it was up for FA status long time ago and failed, read resons on talk page, all of those comments should be fixed by now, we have done our best to get it up to current FA status. -- Stefan 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Neutral I'm highly impressed by your list of references, but I'd like to see more inline citations to directly match facts and claims with sources. This would make the article a far better tool to be used by those doing research on the subject. Additionally, I'm somewhat concerned that it might not be comprehensive, on a simple prose size comparison with other FAs, but not knowing the subject that well personally, I can't suggest specific things that are currently left out. Fieari 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We thought this might count against it, but it is as comprehensive as it can be at the moment and unlikely to get any longer: because the oceanic whitetip is large and dangerous pelagic fish, it's not a creature that lends itself to easy study. Yomangani 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you run through the inline citations again? For example, I saw a direct quote by Jacques Cousteau without a citation, and another statement about Benchley, not referenced. Sandy 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sandy 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Both are now referenced and I've filled in some more references to hopefully address Fieari's objections. Yomangani 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Far better referencing now (even if I'd've preferred page numbers, but I won't get too picky), so I consider that requirement met. I'm going to hold off on supporting just yet since Peta (below) has noted a comprehensiveness issue. Fieari 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added page numbers for the FAO catalogue (which is the only one of the books previously listed without page numbers that I have here) and addressed the conservation issue - hope you'll lend your support. Yomangani 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Still being somewhat uncomfortable with the length, and slightly concerned with the prose, I won't support, but I wouldn't object now. Neutral. Fieari 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, it's to the point, not wordy, covers major subjects, and as for refs, several are used more than once. Rlevse 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for a vulnerable species - I think that is odd that this article does not discuss conservation status in any depth - since we have a bunch of featured animals using a similar set of headings in might be good to add a section specifically on conservation - like White's Tree Frog. I think the diet and reproduction sections are a bit too short to stand on their own. The text also seem to be a bit illogical in parts - for example in the description I would expect to be told how big the species gets before I read about the types of fins and teeth.--Peta 01:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no further conservation data - until the 2000 report the last attempt to gauge population figures was in 1969. It has been listed as Critically Endangered in these two areas as a result but nothing further has been done - if it had been we would have included it. Yomangani 01:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
However there is stuff scattered through the article - it is really useful for the reader to have all this information in one place that includes - why the species is endangered, is it a part of a gobal trend (for sharks it probably is), who recognises the species as threatened, is anything being done and so on. --Peta 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I take your point - I've added a conservation section at the end with a bit more detail on the stock estimates, status and conservation measures (basically saying stocks are falling, nobody is quite sure by how much and nothing is being done anyway!) Yomangani 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Tried to fix the teeth part, at least better now, but needs copy edit from a native english speaker I think :-). Stefan 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There's much good in this article, but it needs an audit of prose, logic and consistency. For example:
    • En dashes and hyphens used for ranges. The former are preferable.
    • No hyphen after -ly words. "lesser-used" is awkward, and probably shouldn't be hyphenated. What about "less often/commonly used"?
    • Redundant "alsos".
      • Removed Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Problems with punctuation, e.g., "It may typically be found in equatorial waters; or, specifically, between 20° north and 20° south latitude."
      • Rewritten Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "The shark spends most of its time in the upper layer of the ocean — from the surface to a depth of 150 metres (500 ft)[4] — it prefers off-shore deep-ocean areas." Remove "from the surface" (there's lot's of redundancy), and make the relationship between the three segments grammatically clear.
    • Confusion between the past and the present: "They were once extremely common and widely distributed, and a map of their habitat appears as a wide band around the world."

These problems pervade the whole text. Tony 12:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done a minor copyedit after your comments, but I'm probably too close to the article to objectively examine the style (and I'm getting a bit punchy from it now). I've removed "from the surface" but I'm not sure I agree it was redundant, as I would think somebody will reinsert it (or something similar) in a few weeks. One of the problems with an encyclopedia anyone can edit is there probably has to be a balance struck between turning out perfect prose and the chances of further 'clarification' (but that's something for discussion elsewhere). Yomangani 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You need a small team of collaborators, now. Do you know how to locate the right people? Tony 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Any clues gratefully received; Stefan has contacted other editors from WP:FISH and we've announced it on Portal:Sharks. Some people have helped out but there has been limited response. Yomangani 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd do a quick search on the edit-history page of some of the articles in this field that you admire. See who's doing the copy-editing by using the compare-versions function. Start with the featured articles, I guess, although they're not all good, as the FAR process is showing. AndyZ sometimes agrees to help, and there's the excellent Spangineer, but I hesitate to name more people who are on my secret list of good copy-editors (don't you have a list?). Tony 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not have any list, OK will contact tem, hope they offer help. Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has been the subject of extensive research and fact-checking by many Wikipedians but especially Yomangani and Stefan. They have done a magnificent job getting this article ready for featured status. I have contributed to several featured articles, and believe me, I can always find several flaws- even with the very best of the best. There is no question that this is the best shark article, and in my view, better than several current featured articles. Elevation to featured status would allow it to serve as the "model of excellence" for other shark editors.--Hokeman 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment on the prose—Hokeman, I wonder whether people here are living on different planets. Did you read the text critically? How can you say that this can serve as a "model of excellence" when the first sentence my eyes fell on was:

"These fins are noticeably larger than expected; they are also conspicuously rounded. The shark's nose is also rounded, and its eyes are circular with nictitating membranes."

Perhaps he meant a "model of excellence in everything but style"... Yomangani 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "The" is good enough, not "These": the referent is obvious.
    • Who's doing the expecting? What are the expectations in relation to? (This species? All species of sharks?) Odd expression in this context.
    • The first sentence would be nicer as "The fins are significantly larger than in other species of sharks, and are conspicuously rounded."
      • Changed as suggested Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Both "alsos" are idle and should be removed.
      • Removed Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A comma after "circular" is almost mandatory here, to avoid possible ambiguity.
      • Added Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not good enough. I note that the "-ly plus hyphen" words haven't been corrected, although I pointed them out yesterday.

I think I missed one - corrected now.Yomangani 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that thorough copy-editing will proceed. It's a good article, otherwise, but needs to be very well written to be elevated to FA status. Tony 05:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to fix some of the comments pointed out here, but my english skills are almost good enough to find the ones just hinted for here, but not fixing them. I hope someone with the right skills will help in copy-editing, I can not do much more. Stefan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've had another pass over it. Yomangani 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How can someone make observations in 1831 while on a voyage that lasted from 1822 to 1825? Punctured Bicycle 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
They were his observations on the 1822-1825 voyage, not his observations while on the voyage. Yomangani 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on why "throughout its range" is needed at the end of the lead? Isn't it obvious that fisheries would fish for it within its known range as opposed to isolated areas? Punctured Bicycle 23:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Regional protection measures and demand for derived products normally lead to differing fishery practices in different areas. For example, the basking shark is protected in US Atlantic, UK and Maltese waters but is heavily fished in the Pacific due to demand from Asian markets. I'm not sure this article is the place to discuss this, but will add something if there is a general feeling it should be included. Yomangani 23:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why the extra clarification is neccesary. If we imagine that the oceanic whitetip shark is fished for within its range, outside its range, within the law, outside the law, or any combination of these, the fact that the species is facing mounting pressure from fisheries doesn't change. Where it is fished is not relevant to the sentence; the extent to which it is being fished is what is relevant. The extent is already covered by noting that its numbers are declining and that its fins are valuable. Punctured Bicycle 00:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If I was presented with the phrase "faces mounting pressure from fisheries" my immediate question would be "Where?". The addition of "thoughout its range" indicates that the problem of overfishing and lack of protection is worldwide. Since the purpose of the introduction is to provide an overview of the themes in the article, I think it is appropriate to include it here.
The question of what is relevant in that sentence is subjective - I could split it into 3 sentences covering its decline, its importance to shark fin soup and fishery pressure, but when the 3 subjects are intimately related it seems a shame to resort to such a staccato style (although it would give it an The Old Man and the Sea feel which might be appropriate!)
I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying. Though now that you mention it, it probably could be broken down into multiple sentences. How about: "Recent studies have shown that its numbers are in steep decline due to overfishing throughout its range. Like other shark species, its meat is harvested for human consumption, especially for shark fin soup." Punctured Bicycle 01:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can think of a replacement, but I'm wary of using "overfishing" in the article (though I've used it here) as "fishery pressure" covers not just targeted fishing, but also bycatch and damage to stocks caused by shifting fishery practices (such as exceeding quotas on prey fish, trawling etc.) Yomangani 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tried variations around this, but everything I've tried reads as stilted or inappropriate. Is this a deal breaker for you lending support? Yomangani 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom - --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good article. While the writing could use some polishing, it meets my standards. I'll do some copyediting myself. -- Rmrfstar 12:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's overlinked (including common words and repetitions). It's under-referenced (see my inline queries). This sentence needs recasting; I don't know how to: "They follow boats as well, having an overriding following instinct, developed over countless millennia of baitfish migrations." I've copy-edited down to and including "Behaviour". I suspect that tracts of this are largely lifted from elsewhere, but please forgive me if I'm wrong. Can you let us know whether material from other sources has been paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim, since there appear to be no quote marks. If this is the case, there may be some tweaking required to avoid copyright issues. Tony 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit. I've reduced the number of links (to which I'd become blind) and rephrased the "following instinct" sentence. The missing references are now in the intro as well as in the body and I added a clue to the identity of Peter Benchley. There shouldn't be any paraphrasing, as just about everything comes from the original reports or more than one secondary source. Some of the measurements are direct from the FAO catalogue because there is little than can be done in the way of original prose in that area, but even these are not verbatim. There are a couple of direct quotes (from Cousteau and Lineaweaver and Backus), but these are in quote marks and attributed in the text. Yomanganitalk 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; OK, I'll look again tomorrow. It's kind of short, but I'm no expert in this area, so that might be appropriate. Tony 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • support. I didnt knew that in this area (western Iberia) was a shark area. Never found one though. never heard of any attack. --Pedro 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work on improving the conservation information. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wire (TV series)Edit

Over the past month, Opark 77, East718 and myself have been working towards improving this article. We have drawn a lot from every featured article on a TV series (especially Arrested Development and The West Wing), and used standards of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television as a guide. There was a peer review that produced several suggestions, archived here. Note on article size: The text itself is just under 40kb, not counting the references section. It looks a bit larger (57kb) in edit view because of the amount of markup. Andrew Levine 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. Andrew Levine 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.--Opark 77 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Well-written, comprehensive without being crufty, exhaustively sourced. Stilgar135 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Stilgar135. east.718 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why does Image:Season02 posterart.jpg have such strange fair use rationale? It ranges from the silly (8. See number 5.) to the irrelevant (7. It is used in an article.) to the bizarre (10. Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Pagrashtak 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no idea. Was someone trying to make a joke, or did they think they needed an even ten justifications? In any event, I have fixed it to something more reasonable. Andrew Levine 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've also tried to tidy this up a little and added the recommended introductory line from the fair use guidelines.--Opark 77 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The article is a fine example for other television articles. Sfufan2005 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the TOC looks ugly right aligned.--Peta 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  Comment. I did that, and to me the right-floating TOC looks better a screen of text that consists only of the TOC. To me, it noticeably constrains the text on the left at 640x480. east.718 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer it right aligned as well, it is quite large (although we have tried to reduce it's size) and disrupts the flow of the article in the standard position. If many editors feel that having it right aligned is a problem I'm sure we can move it.--Opark 77 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you shortened the cast list in the infobox or used colums for the cast, then a standard left aligned TOC would look fine - the only reason it looks a bit funky now is the excesive length of the infobox.--Peta 04:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The wikiproject television guideline is to list the starring cast in the infobox - everyone in the opening credits. The inofbox currently contains only the current starring cast so it would be hard to decide who to remove in order to shorten it. The infobox is long but I disagree that it is excessively long - it follows the wikiproject television standard. I am unaware of how to format things in infoboxes into columns, if someone could provide a link to somewhere that explains how I would be grateful. I notice that other featured television articles for The West Wing and Arrested Development do not have the information about the opening and closing themes that we do. Perhaps this could be removed if the infobox needs to be shortened as it is covered in the music section (although the same is true of the cast list).--Opark 77 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article gives an in-depth background and rationale for the series, and uses inline references.Cas Liber 08:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've never seen the program, but a quick glance makes me want to support the article. I think the right hand TOC is a bit unusual, but certainly not a bad thing.Terri G 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object Support The alignment of the TOC needs to correspond with other wiki articles. Not only does the alignment not match with most of wikipedia it makes the top of the page far too crowded and ugly. The other issues I have are minor. This is more of a recomendation then a rerquest for fix. I don't think themes needs to be subsectioned. You can easily and better describe the show's themes all together without each theme having its own section. Also, later on you reuse wikilinks too much, especially in the Production sections. I understand reusing them in Season descriptions (it would look to ugly otherwsie), but items like The Baltimore Sun only need to be linked once. Besides these tiny issues, its a great article. Medvedenko 20:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    The manual of style says that a specific term only needs to be wikilinked in each section once. It can be linked twice if it's in two separate sections far apart on the page, since we don't want people to have to scroll up half the page to get to the Sun article. As for the themes, I tried them without the subsections but never saved it as an edit because it looked too rambling. Try removing the subection headers and hitting Preview, you'll see what I mean. Andrew Levine 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done a quick check for repeated links and removed several that were repeated within sections but have kept those that are repeated across different sections. We have discussed removing the subsections in themes but opted to keep them because removing the headers would neccessitate improving the flow. This would only lengthen the article further. If the sections are inappropriate would it be preferable to have a longer article to improve flow? Could I ask you to clarify your thoughts on the TOC Medvedenko, do you mean the TOC should be left in the position straight after the lead (neither right or left aligned)?--Opark 77 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Help:Section#Floating the TOC gives guidelines on floating the TOC and having read them I don't think we really warrant a floated TOC in this article. At least it should definitely be after the lead section as per wikipedia:accessibility #Article structure. I'll leave it to East to change it as I know he is fond of it.--Opark 77 21:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually having gone to leave him a message on his talk page I notice he is taking a break from editing so I'll do it!--Opark 77 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it violates any of the guidelines at WP:TOC#Floating the TOC, but I'm not going to oppose the change. In fact, I think having a normal TOC breaks the flow of the article by having a dearth of text in between the lead and the first section.
What are your thoughts on a {{TOCleft}} before the Origins header? east.718 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the TOC on the right I felt was it was too distracting. When you first see an article you usually have to focus only on two things, the lead and a picture. The list of section was way to distracting, and I'm thrilled its changed. I felt only several repeated links were not needed and Opark 77 handled it well. I do not feel the Themes section would ramble if several minor changes were done to connect the paragraphs. I think it would be much easier to read this way, but as it is doesn't bring down the article. Glad to support. Medvedenko 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support With the recent changes this is now a very good article. I believe it is now ready to be a featured article. It should be noted however that my opinion is biased. I made some (minor) contributions to the article and it is one of my favorite shows.JeffStickney 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Globular clusterEdit

This is a significant general topic within the discipline of astronomy. The article has passed a PR and is a GA. I like to believe it also meets the FA criteria (much like its very nice sibling article Open cluster) so it's time to take the plunge. I'll try to address any objections that occur. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, a very nice article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: could you consider font size small (rather than smaller) on the references, for ease on the aging eyes? Sandy 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, no problem. I updated the class. — RJH (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Support -- great job. Sandy 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- excellent article and well-sourced. --ScienceApologist 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, very nicely done. My only suggestion is to see if some of the several items in parens could be taken/reworded out of parens.Rlevse 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I made a few revisions to remove some parentheses. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent job. —Cuiviénen 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Squeaky clean piece of work. As for the parentheses, I don't see any of them interfering with audio recording of the article, which would be my usual concern. Well done. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! I will smite any objections to this candidacy with a vengeance. ♠ SG →Talk 23:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very well written. The only thing I would suggest is maybe adding a paragraph (or just a few sentences) regarding a few of the searches for extrasolar planets within globular star clusters, that globulars are currently thought to be rather unsuitable environments for planetary formation, etc. --Nebular110 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay thanks. I added a paragraph and a reference down in the Composition section. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringEdit

Yes, this is an article about a department within a university. Yes, it's short (17kb including references; ~9.5kb of prose). But it's well-referenced, contains a lot of information without being crufty, and has a few good pictures. I don't think this article can get much better than it already is, so it's time for FAC. See the archived peer review from two months ago; since then I added a level two section ("Academics") and made numerous other changes. What do you think? (This is a self-nom) --Spangineeres (háblame) 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is a bit awkward for me about the founding part - I was about to make this tweak to it making it a seperate sentence but I'll leave it here instead as I'm not sure if it is correct or not (and, as it looks it seems it needs a citation for the claim):
Founded in 1908, it is the oldest industrial engineering department in the world.[citation needed] RN 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've struggled with that sentence. Here are a few options: [14], [15], and [16]. In the last one (current as I write this), I added a reference. What do you think about removing all the references from the lead? They all appear later in the text (except for the department head, but that's trivial to add). --Spangineeres (háblame) 12:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh BTW I'm leaning towards
Founded in 1908, Pennsylvania State University's Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering is the oldest industrial engineering department in the world.
Also, you probably do need the cites in the intro, since most of the exact claims are not made in the text (I didn't see any but if there are you usually don't need to cite it twice :)). RN 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice job.Rlevse 13:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support yeah, that it is a tough lead (all leads are difficult :)). If I have I'll point out a few more nitpicks, but besides that it looks good.
  1. "Penn State at the turn of the 20th century was known for its engineering curriculum, but industrial engineering was only beginning to emerge as an academic discipline"
    This is A) awkward and B) who "was it known to" - it just says "was known". More specific would be ideal.
  2. The history section maybe needs to be better summarized in the lead.

RN 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments. For your first point, my source says, "Penn State had earned a national reputation for excellence in the training of engineers". So I guess I can improve that somewhat, but there aren't many details available. I've modified it somewhat. As for your second point... I've played around with it and I'm just not sure how to add more. I can say something about the curriculum, or something about the new building, but I'm not sure that the added information is worth disrupting the lead's simplicity. I guess I just haven't figured out how to include the extra information effectively. Regarding your suggestion for the opening sentence; I'm not sure I like jumping straight to the claim of being oldest—to me it makes sense to present that separately, after introducing the topic with a simple definition. I'll keep beating this around in my head though. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is interesting, well-written, and well-sourced. SP, re: the above, you could say something like "Within the U.S., Penn State was regarded as a center of excellence for the training of engineers," then ref to the source, as it's very close to what the source says. Just a suggestion; feel free to ignore. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've repeated the citation for that paragraph directly after that claim. Perhaps it's overkill, but without the citation, it might sound unjustified. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportDeckiller 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work - that a featured article was able to be written on such a subject is impressive. Rebecca 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. concur with Rebecca - most impressive! Also, if this makes FA it will most likely be the shortest article with the longest title! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow. So short, but so solid. FA class indeed. --PresN 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments – 1. Simple question: Where is this department located? 2. Not sure why the Leonhard Building needs to be mentioned in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) Excellent point; I've added that. 2) I include it there because the image is there, and because the FAME lab is one of the defining characteristics of the department (even more highly ranked IE deptartments don't have lab facilities like PSU's). Plus, the lead's short as it is. Also, do you really like "The Technion in Haifa in Israel" as opposed to "The Technion in Haifa, Israel"? Why the extra prepositional phrase, and why use "in" twice that close together? --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Self nom. Another seabird article, another bird family (after albatross). Hopefully you'll find it better than the albatross article, well referenced and illustrated. There are a few redlinks left (individual procellariid species) that will be completed by the end of FAC. It's been to peer review and had the kinks knocked out, and I hope you can support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Question/comment why does it matter if it's jpg or svg? and I don't think that's a valid ground for objection.Rlevse 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are opposing because of an image format? Sorry but all I can do is laugh. LOL Joelito (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SVG is better because it can be resized without distortion, but it's usually not a big issue. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not the first time he does that. It is disrispectful of people's work. Although i would agree that it should be PNG or SVG. But objecting because of that... WP and Tony1 are two objection bots on FAC. ---Pedro 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I caused any offence. Images can be as important as the text in an article and SVG is recommended. WP 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is an image upload recommendation, not a FA criteria upon which to base an objection.Rlevse 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Some nice person has created a new SVsomething to replace my jpg and hopefully that has resolved that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I got the same comment on my recent FAC. It should be noted by WP and those that push this - there is a significant difference between an SVG and a JPG or PNG. SVG is based on Vector graphics and computes the image using math. This is very different from a JPG or PNG that is based Raster graphics or pixels. This is why SVG graphics resize without quality loss. This is all great if you have a vector graphics editor and want to recreate the images from scratch. You can not convert one to the other. I think opposing based on this makes no sense. It might be worth a comment if that. The PNG format does not always produce the smallest file size and in many cases JPG is a better option. It is even recommended that "only convert it to PNG if this reduces the file size without causing artifacts". See Wikipedia:How to reduce colors for saving a JPEG as PNG on how to convert for the best results. Again, this is a recommendation and should only be a comment. Converting JPG to PNG is not a huge deal. Forcing someone to create a new graphic in a completely different format (SVG) is nonsense. Morphh 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Morphh. This should not be a issue in FACs. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support : unbelievable job! Congrat! NCurse   work 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I need to finish the copyedit before I can support this, but this is great work. One issue: how can it be that the birds must be able to "run... in order to take off", and yet they can't even walk easily ("many species move around on land by resting on the breast and pushing themselves forward")? This apparent inconsistency should be addressed. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I imagine it is much easier for them to run while their wings are flapping in an effort to take off than it is to walk without any use of their wings, due to the fact that they would have to support their entire body weight. Kaldari 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The arranement of the legs far back on the body (like on a loon) is good for swiming but clumsy in walking. When taking off, though, that frantic back and forth that doesn't suit slow walking well works pretty well in running, though they are still not exactly roadrunners - they can't turn or anything, and they do indeed use their wings to support their body. It's actually quite hard to describe but makes sense if you see it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Makes sense, but is there any way to say something like that in the article? Perhaps not. Anyway, support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 06:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article, very excellent. I wish I knew why WP is so obsessed with the SVG format though. --PresN 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work! Definitely feature article quality. Kaldari 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • weak object sorry, lovely/excellent article, but species is a stub! We don't like lists, but we could have a text discussing some species and differences between them.---Pedro 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Which species? Also, consensus seems to be that FAC is meant to critique only the article listed, not any of the articles it links to—even red links in the FAC aren't a big deal. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he means the species section at the end. I think I agree with Petaholmes and Pedro and have moved it to the taxonomy section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • changed to support although that was not my idea, it think it is ok.--Pedro 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support : Looks great. Only thing is I suppose I would have not used heading 'biology' where it is but had most of the subheadings under it as headings, leaving biology to cover things like breeding and flight, with taxonomy separate (and have subeahdings of the individual groups and cladistics as it is a pretty long paragraph. However, this is a style thing and pretty minor. cheers, Cas Liber 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with a question/comment, it seems kind of odd to have a whole section on species that only includes a link to the relavant article, could this be {{main}} in taxonomy or expanded a bit to briefly describe the 8 genera?--Peta 04:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Rlevse 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. Rebecca 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article which is well referenced as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One tiny problem I spotted in reading through - in the taxonomy section, the following reference to the genus Pterodroma: "The species vary from small to medium sizes (26-46 cm), and are usually uniformly black on their upperparts and white or pale grey below", which I don't think is true? SP-KP 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess it was misleading - I have changed it now so that it talks about morphology rather than plumage. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That fixes it. Strong support SP-KP
  • Support : Cool article. Will include extinct taxa in species list. Dysmorodrepanis 23:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done! All extinct (including fossil) taxa I know of are remarked upon. As information collects, the evolution of genera could be discussed in their respective accounts, e.g. the fossil record of Puffinus has a fairly interesting story to tell (as a side note, I have chosen "Neonectris" instead of Ardenna as Penhallurick/Wick's taxonomy has been heavily criticized - Emu 105:181 -, so I wanted to be on the secure side). I also played around a bit with List of Procellariidae. If it is OK, I will as a rule of thumb include Recent extinctions in family lists and genus lists, and subrecent and earlier ones only in genus accounts, as per the two articles I have just linked. Fossil genera would go to family/order accounts though, as their importance lies in discussing higher-level taxon evolution.
By the way, Bulweria is a redirect. Dysmorodrepanis 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


More or less a self-nomination. Originally nominated (prematurely) in June, before I was actually done working on it. Worked really hard to keep any and all cruft out of the article, and to provide a general overview of the television show, spin-offs, and the resulting media properties. The original reasons for objections (lack of references, image fair-use rationals missing) should all be taken care of. --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: Very well done. Good references, great writing, and I learned a lot of interesting information about Scooby-Doo that I never knew. Some minor mistakes:

  • In "The CBS years", the third paragraph alternates too much between ghost and monster.
  • In "The Scooby clones" reference #12 should be after the period.
  • After the spoiler warning in "Telefilms and direct-to-video features", it says "only to find is actually a school..." should be an "it" in there.
  • In "Assumed 'adult themes'", reference 18 should be after the period.

Those are just very minor quibbles. You've done a great job with the article. -Dark Kubrick 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support: Very good article. I personally am pleasantly suprised since I used to be a fan as a child. What inspired you to write about this topic? - Tutmosis 14:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I used to be a fan as a child too, and I have studied animation. --FuriousFreddy 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I agree, very good, and technically-ready. My only quibble is that it seems a bit light in references for length compared to recent nominees, but I'm not that good a judge of that. It seems good to me. --Kitch 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The number of references isn't what matters; it's what's found in the references that are present. I've been seeing a lot of "citation stuffing" in a lot of recent FACs: they often don't count on the reviewers to read the article, so they stuff the article with (often non-informative) references, which often aren't even properly formatted. I made every effort here to make each reference count; this is actually the most citations I've used in any FAC I've ever worked on. --FuriousFreddy 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Scooby-Support: Just one minor concern though, should we be using Ibid for dynamic content? Adding a reference could easily break the endnotes. Other than that, well done! Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 05:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If a reference gets added, you just remove the "Ibid" and place the regular short citation. --FuriousFreddy 14:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My concern wasn't what has to be done, rather whether it will be done. I'd rather see this taken care of now instead of relying on every other editor to do this. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 14:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. If you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Television you will see that you need to have a section about critical reviews. --Maitch 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The project page says the article should include a section that should either either critique the show, or comment on its impact. A large "impact" section is already present. Nevertheless, I'm searching through the New York Times (pay) archives to find a contemporary review or two, in addition to recent reviews of the DVDs and such. --FuriousFreddy 14:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Added requested section about critical reviews. --FuriousFreddy 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Great. I have changed my vote to support. --Maitch 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What does "the reincarnation of the Mystery, Inc. gang from other comic characters" mean? It's not clear from the context. Andrew Levine 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know, and I can't pull a copy of the Sluggy Freelance comic in questi on to investigate (another user added that reference). I've revised it. --FuriousFreddy 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- good work. Jkelly 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

G. Ledyard StebbinsEdit

Biography for one the the important writers of the modern evolutionary synthesis, covers all the currently available biographical information on the subject and hopefully provides an overview of his ideas without alienating non-biologists.--Peta 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Object. The text is very thick, but manageable. I can't think of a better way to rewrite it. Anyway, the legacy section is a bit short. Very good article though. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Want to make an actionable objection :) I've moved some stuff into the legacy section, but his contribution to scientific thought is his major legacy and that is covered.--Peta 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't objecting on prose density. Even though it's dense, it can't be redone any better, so kudos to you. See, in my time zone, 05:21 UTC is 12:21 AM, so sometimes I'm a bit unclear. If the legacy section can't be further expanded, then no issues remain, so consequently, I Support. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (although I should declare that I copy-edited this one a while back). Interesting topic, nicely put together. The article says a lot about the experience of being a brilliant scientist in the 20th century. Tony 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Beautiful. Clean references, excellent lead, no link farm, concise TOC, and brilliant prose. I would like to see some things referenced, though. I can't determine which source supports the details on his personal life, school life, CV, bio, etc. If you can reference some of those statements, I'll support. And, for an exceedingly trivial comment, would you mind putting the Categories in alphabetical order? Sandy 14:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The reference point is disingenuous, and in the vein of please provide a reference that the sky is blue. There are no points of contention and only one person has written extensively on his life, and to provide 15 inline links to that article instead of one general reference is not worthwhile for anyone.--Peta 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As stated, the point was not disingenuous, and I'll be glad to support once the article is thoroughly referenced. The link you provided above results in a dead link for me, so I am unable to verify its content. As a random example from the top of the article, where do I find the reference for this content:
        • Stebbins was born in Lawrence, New York, the youngest of three children. His parents were George Ledyard Stebbins, a wealthy real estate financier who developed Seal Harbor, Maine and helped to establish Acadia National Park, and Edith Alden Candler Stebbins; both parents were native New Yorkers and Episcopalians. Stebbins was known throughout his life as Ledyard, to distinguish himself from his father. The family encouraged their sons’ interest in natural history during their periodic journeys to Seal Harbor.
      • With named refs, it is not hard to use the same reference more than once, so that the reader knows where to find specific content. Sandy 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Done.--Peta 12:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a well-written biography that bubbles along nicely, but the article skips several beats as to his private life (what happened with the three kids? his second marriage gets suddenly mentioned at his death...) and fails to summarise his relevance to science. It doesn't matter how many books and papers he published, what was the content? What was the broad picture that emerged from his research, and how does it relate to concepts that are described in more detail elsewhere in this encyclopaedia, e.g. polyploidy, speciation. For instance, reading between the lines, it seems like he provided substantial support for the hypothesis that speciation by polyploidy underlies major adaptive radiations in plants. I'm sure there's more that could be said. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I found a date for the second marriage, but to add it eariler in the article seriously disrupts the narrative - and nothing has really be written about his married life to warrant a more prominent inclusion - discussion of the children is more trivial than encyclopedic since they all must have gone on to lead regular lives.
I have added more on the significance of his book, which really was the major work of his career, and some other bits and pieces, but as I tried to make clear in the article his stength wasn't his own reseach, it was the synthesis of ideas from the work of others.--Peta 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll just pick on two examples of recent changes that you've made to explain what I mean:
In particular the book argues for the role of adaptive radiation in the diversification of the angiosperms and the usefulness of applying out current understanding of species' genetics and ecology to inform us about the evolution of ancient species.
Good because it goes into some detail, but still vague. Better would be "the book argues that".
explains how research on polyploidy, chromosome size and number can shed light on evolutionary processes in plants.
Again, you're phrasing things in a "meta" sort of way. Now we know what the paper is about, but we have no idea what it says! Suggestion: "explains howsuggested that". Does this make sense? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty here is that Stebbins can up with a lot of theories and wrote lots of reviews - to present that research as fact isn't correct. He also wrote on such a breadth of subjects here that discussing them all in a biographical article would be seriously counterproductive. I've fixed the instances you mention, but to be honest I'm not really sure what you want here.--Peta 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about presenting things as fact. Just tell us what he says in those papers. Outline the frameworks he developed. Whatever it was, tell us the content. Same example again:
explains how research on polyploidy, chromosome size and number can be used to study evolutionary processes in plants.
Better would be: established the causal connection between the evolution of polyploidy, chromosome size and number. For instance, ...
Any biography of a scientist has to clearly show his notability, his contribution to the field. Maybe he did write a lot of reviews, but clearly there are distinct ideas contained therein, and these should be described. As the article is now, I don't get a very distinct sense of what he contributed, what the commonality, the direction of his body of work was. Maybe he was just a vague dabbler who jumped on any new paradigm for a little while. If that's the case, the article should make this clear. At the moment, like someone said, it says a lot about being a scientist. It doesn't, however, say a lot about G. Ledyard Stebbins. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Another example:
synthesized the literature on polyploidy, concluding that polyploidy had been most important in developing large, complex and widespread genera.
It's woolly, and I can see that it's difficult to summarise in one sentence. I'd try something like, In examining the patterns of polyploidisation and adaptive radiation, Stebbins found large genera to contain more independent polyploidisation events than expected by chance, and ... (made some suggestions about establishing whether some plants are more prone to polyploidisation, or whether polyploidisation simply helps in diversifying? Not having read the paper, I'm just guessing that he might have discussed something along these lines.) - Samsara (talkcontribs) 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know what you want. I'm not going to make false assertions about his work. He came up with ideas based on what he knew at them time. Those ideas continue to direct how research is done - that is how theories work. I think that is clear in the article.--Peta 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm so deeply disappointed. I'd honestly hoped you might understand. It just seems so imperceivable that you would have read all of those biographies and learnt nothing. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
? Mabye, since I am clearly dense, you could either spell out the problem clearly, or help to fix it.--Peta 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object at the moment. Reading this, I still don't think it really lays out why he was notable. In the introduction, it says "who is widely regarded as one of the leading evolutionary biologists and botanists of the 20th century." but never really says why. One sentence here giving a clue about why he is regarded so highly would be helpful. Instead, one has to read all the way down to legacy to get an overview. Also, the red link in the middle of the article for polyploid complex is a little disturbing, especially if it is as important as the surrounding text and hinted-at importance of G. Ledyard Stebbins would indicate. Last, I realize this man did a lot of work. However the descpritions of it gloss over what the importance of most of it is. It says he does things, but never really makes it clear why they are or were important. Obviously this man's work is what made him notable in the first place, so better descriptions that show its importance to biology or botany would be useful.pschemp | talk 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to have missed that he 1. developed the first comprehensive synthesis of plant evolution and 2. that his book was a major contribution to modern evolutionary synthesis.; both of which are there in the lead and expanded on further in the article. Futher red links are not a criteria for FAC - but I plan to write that article later today anyway.--Peta 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Nope, I didn't miss those, I'm saying that just those phrases are not enough to make it clear. Why is the first comprehensive synthesis of plant evolution important? And why was his contribution important? You have focused almost exclusively on the details, and they need to be there, but the umbrella explaining why they are are important is missing. Just giving details later doesn't tell me why why he is important in the overall scheme of science. The overall relation is not stated explicitly, its just barely hinted at. You can't expect the reader to be able to make those kind of general inferences. Relate it to the big picture please. I'm also aware that redlinks are not an automatic disqualifier but if its important concept it just looks bad to be red.pschemp | talk 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Myself and several other commenters don't think this is an issue.--Peta 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting, well-referenced, and comprehensive. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not sure what the above objectors are missing. It seemed pretty clear to me what the claims were for fame and importance of the figure. I'm so far from science as to be a litgeek, and yet I understood that his work on speciation was pivotal to all subsequent developments. This is in addition to his work as a public educator. I understand that the chronological biographical approach puts off the major breakthrough until it actually occurred in life, and there aren't signpost phrases pointing all other achievements to it, but that is certainly not universally desirable, nor is it a matter for objection. Well done. Geogre 02:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - with a heavy heart, I must object. I don't understand "Some genera, such as Crepis, have a complex of reproductive forms that center on sexual diploids that have also given rise to polyploids; sometimes, as in Crepis, these are apomictic polyploids. Apomictic polyploids are able to perpetuate unbalanced polyploid types, such as triploids and pentatetraploids, which would be sterile if they had to sexually reproduce." - Ta bu shi da yu 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the stuff about apomixis, and unbalanced polyploid types, it's unnecessary detail. Thanks.--Peta 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, support. Great article Peta! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I get the impression that monographs and papers are similar: should they be in quotes or italicized? I see "Types of polyploids: their classification and significance" and "The significance of polyploidy in plant evolution" but The American Species of Crepis: their interrelationships and distribution as affected by polyploidy and apomixis. Also, the spacing around dashes isn't consistent. Will look at this more later. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about the convention for italics and monographs, sometimes monographs are really long papers in a journal other times, like the Babcocks and Stebbins work, they are stand alone volumes.--Peta 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's a stand along work, it should probably be italicized. No problem. The article looks fine to me. Support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for meeting all criteria (and deserving of more of them). Outriggr 23:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. :) - Samsara (talkcontribs) 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well fixed. pschemp | talk 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


This is an article about one of the major cities of India. It has undergone a long process of expansion, formatting and copyediting. There was a lengthy peer review in May. 8 experienced users had commented in the peer review and all the issues raised there have been addressed. The article is also a selected article on Portal:India. I request the community's support to make this article a Featured Article. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

SupportMinun Spiderman 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment This is another example of how the incomplete use of cite web obscures the references. Please use cite news for articles from news sources, and please expand your footnotes to include full bibliographic entries, including the exact publication date in newspapers. Should the online sources become unavailable, a reader should be able to locate the news article. The reader shouldn't have to click on every reference to understand the quality of your references. If you've used a legitimate news source, highlight that. If your cite web is to the official town website, include the name of that site in your reference, please. I'll have another look at the article as soon as the references are clear. I found some instances where inline citations are needed (example, Kankaria lake, located in the neighbourhood of Maninagar, is an artificial lake developed by the Sultan of Delhi, Qutb-ud-din Aybak in 1451.) Sandy 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It would also be useful to link to also provide a link to these online articles on archival sites. Should the original links go dead, there will be another link to follow. --Oldak Quill 15:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have significantly expanded all the refernces in the article. Please tell me if anything more is required. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Update very close! Can you look at a few minor points: "Further reading" should use a consistent style. Can you make it last name, first name, and in alphabetical order? Also, are you aware of how to use named refs for references that are used more than once? Jeremy Smith is used at least five times, and should be combined to a named ref. (If you don't know how to do that, let me know, and I can help.) Also, my random reference check from above (Kankaria lake, in the neighbourhood of Maninagar, is an artificial lake developed by the Sultan of Delhi, Qutb-ud-din Aybak in 1451.) has still not been addressed. Can't specific statements such as this one be referenced ? Sandy 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply - I have taken care of all your points. The "Further reading" section has been fixed and arranged in alphabetical order (by last name). The "Jeremy Smith" references have been combined. Reference from the Ministry of Tourism, India has been added for the Kankaria lake comment. Do mention if more references are required for any sentence. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sandy 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support Rama's arrow 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Well written and comprehensive in content. AreJay 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; my objections have been resolved satisfactorily. Object. British English vs. American English confusion: examples of "centre" and "center", etc. Lack of citations in several level two sections (only one in "Culture", nothing for the end of the geography section nor the economy section). Inconsistent dash use: I suggest using &mdash; exclusively, with no spaces, to separate clauses—like this. Prose problems as well: missing comma in "He, and many followers marched from his ashram to the coastal village of Dandi, to protest against the imposition of tax on salt"; basic grammar in "Madhupura is famous for it's traditional mojri footwear", "Ahmedabad has many institutes which promoting classical music and dance", "the use of bicycles, motorcycles and scooters, are popular", "The Ahmedabad Management Association, also founded by Sarabhai was established", etc. And I agree with the inline comments that the prose is often choppy. Cleanup and a good copyedit would be helpful. --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please check this out. I've fixed most of your objections. If there are fresh or lingering points, please let us know. Rama's arrow 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's and Its can be confusing, but the difference is simple: use the contraction (it's) if you're actually contracting something (it is), and use its when you want to express possession (none of the other possessives—his, hers, theirs, mine, yours—have apostrophes either). Currently it's is misused throughout the text. Be wary of using search/replace—"itself" was changed to "it'self", which I don't think was intended, and a few noun plurals were changed as well (limit's, exit's). Also, an apostrophe was added to a link, which probably messed it up.
The prose is better, but could still use work:
  • Bicycles and motorcycles are the most popular medium of transport with most young people and students" ("most" used to qualify twice; avoid redundancy)
  • "A popular cultural event in Ahmedabad is the classical music festival organised by the Saptak School of Music on 1 January of every year, where vocalists and instrumentalists from across the world are invited to perform" --> "Musicians from around the world perform each year at the classical music festival held by Ahmedabad's Saptak School of Music". Half as many words and no important information lost.
  • I count 23 uses of "also" and 10 uses of "as well as". Excessive use of these suggests that the prose doesn't flow well. Reorganize paragraphs and sentences so that these poor connectors aren't needed.
Again, not bad, but more work is required. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Again I've addressed your fresh points. Rama's arrow 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, no you haven't. "It's" is still misused throughout, and all I see in that diff is systematic elimination of the words I mention, but not much of the "reorganize paragraph and sentences" nor eliminating redundancy. It isn't realistic to proofread a 40kb article in 25 minutes—the idea of FA status is quality, and that isn't attained by quick fixes. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to get testy. I wasn't attempting quick fixes, but you see, I think that the prose is good. While I've asked for help from other copyeditors, I need you to give me more specific clues as to the problems you want solved. Rama's arrow 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Didn't mean to come across as testy; just as rather surprised that you considered my objection resolved. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Has this objection been resolved? AreJay 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about the delay. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I have also performed a copyedit to address the issues raised by Spangineer - see [17]. However, there are some red links that need to be filled in. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - Thanks for the cpedit. At the time you made this comment, there were only 2 red links. I have linked Laddu to the respective wiki article. I don't have sufficient knowledge about Gujarati literature and hence am not able to de-red link it. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. After going through the entire article (copyediting on the way), I feel that the prose is good and up to the FAC mark now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update - I have had yet another relook at the prose of the article. I found some cases with unnecessary use of words like "major". I couldn't find any place where the word "its" was misused. I used the test mentioned in this link to test the use of "its". Here are the changes I have made to the article. Do mention if still more work is required to be done. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I just did a brief copyedit of one section: things like "A popular story about the creation of Ahmedabad is that" can be replaced by "According to tradition", and "this has in turn raised serious challenges regarding the city's infrastructure and power supply" can be replaced by "this has challenged the city's infrastructure and power supply". There's more to be fixed. Check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a; it's awesome.
There's still tons of hodge-podge information. This is probably worst in the history section, but I haven't checked the other sections. Try naming the topic sentence of this paragraph:
Ahmedabad became the capital of the new state of Gujarat after the bifurcation of the Bombay State on 1 May 1960. A large number of educational and research institutions were founded in the city, making it a major centre of higher education, science and technology. Ahmedabad's economic base was diversified with the establishment of heavy and chemical industries in its vicinity. In February 1974, Ahmedabad occupied the centre stage in national politics with the launch of the Nav Nirman agitation - a protest against a 20% hike in the hostel food fees at the L.D. College of Engineering that snowballed into a mass agitation to remove Chimanbhai Patel, then-chief minister of Gujarat, on charges of corruption.[7] There were two major anti-reservation protests in 1981 and 1985.[8]
First, the city becomes the capital. Then institutions are founded. Then the economic base is diversified (this one is somewhat connected via "major centre of... technology" == "chemical industries", but not really). Then there was the Nav Nirman agitation (hostel food fees? what?). Finally, with no attempt to connect the thoughts, there were two protests. How is all this stuff related, other than it happened in Ahmedabad between 1960 and 1985? A timeline is better suited for that; an encyclopedia article should do more. Was the Nav Nirman agitation related to the anti-reservation protests? Were the protests a result of the increased technology? The increased industry? The fact that it was now the capital? Surely there are books out there that analyze this period in the city's history and make conjectures about this. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made changes to the above mentioned paragraph. I feel that I have adressed your point. The paragraph flows better now. I will look for more cases like this. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-Assuming that Spangineer's critiques will be acted on, I must say that I was delighted with the standard of this article. Well written and well organised. Congratulations, and I hope that other India-related articles to follow will equal this one. I've done a light copy-edit. Just a few comments:
  • It's way overlinked with dictionary items ("sport"?); I've removed a lot of those links.
  • Usually avoid "as well as".
  • multiplex? I'm unfamiliar with this term.
  • lakh sometimes within, sometimes outside parentheses.
  • "mildly chilly" weather-awkward expression.
  • "corporators"?
  • Inconsistent use of Oxford commas; I'd avoid them except where it would be ambiguous (nowhere in this article, I think).
  • "textile and garment" industries? Garment = clothing?
  • "artisan corporation"-unclear.
  • "Far East"-that's from the British perspective; I've changed it.

Nice. Tony 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support, Tony. We'd strive harder to make future India-related articles this good. Multiplex is a complex of moview theatres in numbers fewer than what a megaplex typically has. And the word is linked for anyone to check. Also, multiplexes are becoming popular in India and I haven't heard "megaplex" before. "Corporators" are elected members to local administration bodies like municipal corporations and corporations. I leave the other issues for others to handle. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the support. I will strive to get Spangineer's support too by the time this FAC ends. - - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Update - The usage of lakh is now consistent throughout the article. Mildly chilly has been corrected. Textile and garment are separate industries. garment=clothing and textile=cloth. Atrisan corporations was a wrong usage. It should have been mercantile corporations and artisan guilds. I will address the issue about serial commas soon. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Further update - I did not realise that you had embedded more comments in the text. I have edited the article accordingly and also addressed the issue of serial commas - see [18]. Thanks once again. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - Lots of hard work and improvements in this one -- Lost(talk) 10:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - a good article, any minor corrections that need doing, let me know on my talk page. --TheM62Manchester 10:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: for the sake of consistency, please decide whether or not to put spaces on either side of mdashes, and stick to it the whole way through. Not a big deal though; I've switched to support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for all the help. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - landmarks are poorly addressed --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate a bit on that object. I don't understand for what you are objecting. One or two examples of which landmarks you are talking about would help me. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment:I have looked thoroughly at the article and couldn't find any landmarks to be poorly addressed. As you have not replied to the message I left on your talk page and also to the above comment, I am clueless as to what you want and why you objected. I feel that landmarks have been sufficiently addressed all over the article. Be it important bridges, roads, lakes or gardens. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what he means is that if you have one landmark, maybe it is not clear where in A'bad it is situated. We talk about Bhadra, Maninagar, etc., but maybe its not clear where Shahibaug's Moti Shahi Mahal, or the Ashram Road lies in all this. Rama's arrow 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But I don't think it is within the scope of this article to do that. That is why you need to go to the articles themselves. Take Ashram Road for example. If you click on the article you immediately know that the Ashram Road runs parallel to the Sabarmati and that the Sabarmati Ashram and the City Gold multiplex are important landmarks on that road. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportGujarati literature could do with a stub. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    Done. How can I ignore a request by you? - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Being a major photographic contributor to this article, I have closely observed its evolution to something that exemplifies Wikipedia's finest work. I held off from supporting till all the suggestions made were implemented. But now that the article has been satisfactorily improved according to the comments, I strongly support its FA promotion. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (cell)
  • Support A well written article about one of India's non metro cities. Does deserve to be a featured article. --Ageo020 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


A town in the lower Himalaya in India, known for the Darjeeling tea produced in the area, the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Darjeeling Himalayan Railway and also as a tourist destination. The article underwent major edits since April this year and a peer review. Please help to make this article a Featured Article. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support excellent and comprehensive article. Rama's arrow 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support same as Rama. --Shane (talk/contrib) 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written & comprehensively referenced. Does qualify as Wikipedia's best work. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Nothing happened until the 19th century?! In an area where civilizations exists thousands of years, I don't believe in that. --Pedro 19:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply. "Before the British arrived, the forests of the region, still preserved to a certain extent today in forest reserves, were home to a handful of Lepcha woodsmen."[19]. Not signicant. Civilization existed in India for thousands of year, true. But not all over India. Anyway, we'll try to find out if anything significant happened before the British came, from respectable sources. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Dwaipayan. Darjeeling, as with cities such as Bombay, Calcutta were mainly developed by the British. Darjeeling itself is a hill station, meant as a refuge for British soldiers. Prior to that, there were a few villages in the area. Rama's arrow 20:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • changed to weak support.--Pedro 11:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. A thorough copy-edit is needed. I looked at the very beginning of the History section to see about the claim made above, and I saw this as the opening sentence: "Till early nineteenth century, the area around Darjeeling was part of the kingdom of Sikkim." 'Till' is not an English word in this sense (it's a contraction for 'until'), and an article was missing. If the very first sentence I see in the article has two grammatical errors, I must object on the grounds of poor grammar. (I am also skeptical of the claim that nothing happened there before the 1800s, but I'll leave that out of this objection.) —Cuiviénen 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see this. I've copyedited the article and fixed your objections. Rama's arrow 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. As someone totally unconnected to the article, till is not a contraction. Estrellador* 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply. That was an interesting link. History of till and untill. Anyway, does the usage in the article sound ok now? "Until the early..." Hope it is grammatically correct. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you're right. I was wrong. However, it was still missing an article. That said, I trust that a copyedit has now been done, so I'm removing my objection. It looks like a good article otherwise. —Cuiviénen 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good article; well-written and interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SV, the place is also very good. In case, you come to India, you should surely visit this place. --Bhadani 11:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautifully written with great pictures. A copyedit won't hurt, but quite good nevertheless. Some minor nits to pick:
  1. In the lead "Western-style public schools" should probably be "British style...", public school means something totally different in US, for example.
  2. "Darjeeling receives almost all the television channels that are received by the rest of the country." -- The sentence makes little sense until one sees that Darjeeling recieves very few radio channels, and the contrast between radio and TV is the information here. But the radio statement is made much later.
  3. "According to the Bureau of Indian Standards, the town falls under seismic zone-IV, (in a scale of I to V, in order of increasing proneness to earthquakes)[14]", but the reference provided seems to cite the Director of Nuclear Science Centre.

--ppm 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply "British-style" and Radio-TV contrast done. The reference of Director of Nuclear Science Centre states that Darjeeling lies in zone four, while wikilink of seismic zone-IV will take one to the article Earthquake hazard zoning of India where the whole matter is discussed in detail, with necessary references. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not bad, but I have a few minor points: Jeronimo 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why is "Education and Media" not split up? It is basically two paragraphs, one on Education, one on Media. The same can be said of "Economy and Transport", "Government and Utility Services" and "Geography and Climate".
    • The population is listed as "1,07,530". Should it be 107,530 or something else?
    • The external links list could be better annotated, and perhaps be shortened.

Reply - Breaking up those sections will make them too short and throw the format out of order. They have been grouped on basis of similar topics - "Government and utilities" are closely linked, as are "Geography and climate," "Economy and transport." I've fixed the population notation and shortened the external links. Rama's arrow 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

      • Sorry, I still think these section should be separated. They're not too short on their own, and if they were, just throwing short sections together to make it appear long is bad practice, and a proper system of sections is one of the FA requirements. The other fixes look good. Jeronimo 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your points have been addressed [[User:Rama's
Great, support. Jeronimo 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arrow|Rama's arrow]] 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Well written and comprehensive.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—needs a thorough copy-edit. I wonder whether the reviewers above who are gushing about it have read the text closely. Fresh eyes are required to work this prose up to FA standards. There's quite a way to go. Let's take a look at the first paragraph, which should be your showcase.
"Darjeeling is a town and hill station in the Indian state of West Bengal. It is the headquarters of Darjeeling district, situated in the Shiwalik Hills (on the lower range of the Himalaya) at, at an average elevation of 2,134 m above sea level. Once ruled by the Kingdom of Sikkim, the Darjeeling region was converted into a hill station by the British East India Company in the 1800s, and came to be known as the "Queen of the Hills". The name Darjeeling is a composition of two the Tibetan words – Dorje ("thunderbolt") and ling ("place"), thus translating as the "Land of the thunderbolt."
    • "It" could refer to West Bengal or Darjeeling.
    • "Region"—It's introduced as a town and hill station; a region is much larger than this.
    • "1800s"—Can you narrow it down from a whole century?
    • "Darjeeling" when at issue as a term should probably be in quotes.
    • "Composition"—do you mean "combination"?
    • Remove the hyphen.
    • "Thus" is wrong here—there's no logical connection, so just remove it.

It's such a wonderful topic. Please do something about it. I have a secret list of copy-editors who are interested in India-related articles; haven't you got one too? Tony 12:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply 1800s could not be narrowed down, because the process started in 1830s and continued to late 1800s! Other comments have been addressed. Thanks Tony for the comments. We'll be waiting for further comments and will copyedit in the mean time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The quality of prose is now better and seems adequate for me. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support I am sorry to say this but all the meshed up sections like "Education and Media" make little sense to me. Their has to be a better way to present this information. Can this be changed? --Blacksun 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your points have been addressed Rama's arrow 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for incorporating the suggestions. I went ahead and moved a section on forestry into Georgraphy from Climate. --Blacksun 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: This is excellent, I've learnt a lot, I love the tea but am ashamed to say I had never given the place much thought . I love the photographs on these "Indian" pages as they bring the whole page to life. Well done. Giano | talk 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - one of the best articles i have ever seen. i would love to see it on the front page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Yes, as I, too, said before, there's a lot of good about this article. But if it met Criterion 2a, it would not be easy to locate poor sentences. Here are further examples, this time not from the lead, but the first section.
    • "In 1828, a delegation of British East India Company officials on their way to Sikkim halted in Darjeeling and found the region suitable to be a sanitarium for British soldiers." "Halted" is not the right word. The rest is problematic. Try: "In 1828, a delegation of British East India Company officials on their way to Sikkim stayed in Darjeeling and decided that the region was suitable as a sanitarium for British soldiers."
    • Caption under map: "Darjeeling's proximity to Sikkim, Bhutan and Nepal is showcased in this political map of Sikkim." "Showcased" is the wrong word here. "Highlighted" is possible, but why amplify? Just use "shown" or "illustrated".
    • I see "nineteenth century" and "19th century" a paragraph later. Choose one form and use consistently.
    • Awkward repetition: "the Company, the Company"
    • "That by 1856 became"—"had become".
    • "acts and regulations of the British Raj did not automatically come into force in the district in line with rest of the country"—Remove the last seven words as obvious? More importantly, "come into force" suggests only the onset—and only new acts and regulations from that time. What you need, I think, is simply "apply".
    • "An increasing number of well-to-do Indian residents of Kolkata (then Calcutta) also began visiting and touring Darjeeling." "Also"? Is this another act or habit of well-to-do Indians? (No.) Are they in addition to other visitors to Dajeeling? (No.) Why "also"?
    • "The town did not see any particular political activity". Awkward; try "The town did not see significant political activity".

Now, I haven't got any further, but something tells me that it will be the same: every second sentence is faulty. Please fix the whole text and I'll be pleased to review again. I love the topic, and when the prose is "compelling", it will make me want to go to D. Tony 12:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check these changes. I've fixed the problems I saw and found across the article. I don't think there are other problems, but please let us know if there is anything else. Rama's arrow 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – I agree with Tony, it could do with some refining... I'll try and copyedit tomorrow. The high elevation and lower temperatures in the summer made it attractive as a hill station -- reads as if high elevation is a necessary factor for building a hill station. Instead how about "temperate climate"? ; and neighbouring countries --> name them at least in the =Education=' Climate section needs to be merged with =Geog= or be promoted. Englishmen would be incorrect.. I'm sure there were Scottish missionaries too. Why is 'Sadar' italicised? Will review later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object – I've got to object. The article needs some more work with a copyedit and MoS. Some points:
  • I've embedded some comments in the text. Please go through them
  • Chogyal -- why italics?
  • Campbell became the first superintendent of the sanitorium in 1839 -- why this information?
  • the latter annexed the Darjeeling -- when?
  • Tea estates developed all around Darjeeling -- why?
  • rapid communication --? Rapid would be slow in today's terms. I'm sure the invention of the telegraph would have made communications faster.
  • Non-Regulation District -- why?
  • ...described by the British as the "Darjeeling disaster. Sentence is an anticlimax
  • who visited Darjeeling every summer -- cpedit
  • The population growth of the area was slow in the first half of the 20th century -- choppy prose; flow with the text
  • ... Darjeeling became a part of the state... -- Darjeeling was merged with the state of WB
  • 6,982 ft. or 2,134 m -- metric units first
  • Sadar -- italics? why?
  • looming over the town is a famous sight -- -touristy prose
  • barely crossing -- "barely"? rarely would be a better word
  • see temperature -- cpedit
  • drop below freezing, inducing snowfall -- the temperatures need not drop below freezing at ground level to induce snowfall. It can snow even at warmer temperatures.
  • two police stations, at -- comma unnecessary
  • collected from them -- from them is redundant.
  • a nearby small perennial creek -- creek by definition in India is usually a tidal estuary
  • as well as neighbouring countries -- would that be Sri Lanka?
  • "tough" competition?
  • crafts of Sikkim and Tibet. -- reduce overlinking
  • a three hour (approx. 90 km) drive -- use distances not time.
  • Imperial units lacking for many metric units throughout the article
  • Walking, biking, ... the monsoons due to landslides. -- cpedit needed
  • ICSE and CBSE are known by their acronyms
  • Remove external links not pertaining to the town.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply. Thanks Nichalp. I've addressed most of your comments. See this, this, this and this changes. However, the following is not done/partially done: effect of the "Darjeeling disaster" (trying to find out references);copyedit of temperatures; and "Walking, biking, ... the monsoons due to landslides" copyedit. Please help. One question: is it necessary to merge Climate with Geography because of the brief content of the "Climate"? Though WikiProject Indian cities states that Climate should be merged with Geography or could be a stand alone section, there are examples where cilmate is a subsection under Geography (eg Chennai, Kolkata). Regards, and thanks a lot. Thank god you are back!--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. smooth communication between -- I don't think it's necessary.
  2. This scheme of administration was applicable to less advanced districts in the British Raj -- can be merged with previous
  3. Darjeeling disaster" was...population is bland. Rewrite as: In 1898 Darjeeling was rocked by an earthquake..killed..(is the magnitude given?)
  4. Last few sentences in +Transport is choppy.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Smooth communication"..removed. "scheme of administration"...merged (please see). "Darjeeling disaster"...changed. Transport...changed (please see). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I also have a few comments. First, the name of the city is written as "दार्जीलिङ" in Hindi, shouldn't it be "दार्जीलिंग". The Sikkimpolitical.png map requires time and effort on part of the reader to locate Darjeeling. Is it possible to highlight Darjeeling using some different colour scheme (this may require creating another map). There is break in continuity of sentence flow when one reaches the "Darjeeling disaster" part. It comes out of the blue without introduction, inherently assuming that reader is aware of it. A better structure would be: "An earthquake in 1898 (known as "Darjeeling disaster") caused considerable damage to the young town and the native population." The article mentions that Darjeeling was merged with West Bengal after partition, but I couldn't find any mention of its status before, and that may require mention (I may have possibly missed the mention). Repetitive wikilinking of measuring units should be avoided. The article uses endashes where emdashes would be more appropriate. I find it odd to find that there are only two police stations at Darjeeling and Jorebungalow. "110231 lb" needs to be changed to either "110,000 lb" or "110,200 lb" according to WP:MOSNUM. Why is Satyajit Ray (as a director) singled out? Such references are usually needed only when there are multiple movies of the same name. The "55" in NH-55 can be linked to the list of national highways. Rest looks fine. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
reply History image changed. Darjeeling disaster...changed. The status of the region before 1947 has been mentioned. Over-wikilinking of units removed. Yes, there are 2 police stations (as the reference says). WP:MOSNUM has been followed now. Satyajit Ray removed. NH 55 linked. More will follow. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the Hindi is correct. The Bengali uses a final anusvara (nasal sign) so it would be correct to use ङ over ग. In addition, a Google search has way more results for "दार्जीलिङ". Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reluctantly struck my objection; I'll be keen to see this text polished over the next few weeks. I still see a few uncomfortable constructions, such as the following examples in the lead:

"Darjeeling is noted for several British-style public schools attracting students from many parts of India and neighbouring countries." These two ideas would be integrated better thus: "Darjeeling is noted for several British-style public schools, which attract students from many parts of India and neighbouring countries." Among other things, this avoids momentary confusion over the grammar ("schools' attracting")—or is it "Darjeeling's attracting" of those students? Maybe both, but your grammar should be clear in choosing one, unless you want to reword. And please don't tell the readers what to note. ("Darjeeling has several ...")

What does "Over time" add in the second para? So vague, so remove, because we know it must have taken time to occur, or specify the time frame in a way that is useful for the readers.

"Led to it being developed as ..."—Ungainly construction. Try nominalising it: "... led to its development as ...".

"a few villages of Lepcha woodsmen"—There were womenfolk, presumably, so let's be modern and reword ("woodspeople"?).

Some commas are a matter of personal preference, but I think on close reflection that most people would be happy with a few more judiciously placed commas.

It's borderline. Tony 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead sentences changed. Hopefully copyedits by others will improve the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilary PutnamEdit

The old nomination was virtally incomprehensible to me. The article looks pretty good to me, so I am restarting this nom. Raul654 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • By the end it was around 20 supports, but yeah, it was incomprehensible. Longest FAC ever? Gave even Bulbasaur a run for its money. Anyway, support; all my objections were taken care of in the previous nom. Only thing I can think of is reducing the size of the Turing machine section, but not a big deal. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Spangineer. — Deckiller 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Sandy 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; apart from the massive improvements in referencing and prose, the new images lift it. Tony 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous entry. Outriggr 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great job by everyone! InvictaHOG 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Gimmetrow 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is remarkably well-written, and the fact that it's so comprehensible to people with a non-philosophical background is particularly impressive. Rebecca 04:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as far as content goes, one of the best philosophy articles I've come across on WP. Much improved in technical aspects (footnotes etc.) since originally nominated, too. Sam Clark 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before. Very good article, nicely referenced, interesting to read. Any sign of a licence for the Putnam image? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. But I have a question for the copyright folks. Is this sort of thing permisible- W.V.O. Quine- under fair use?? The book-cover photo,I mean. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about using a book cover, but I see no reason that you couldn't use a fair use one e.g. from his website until you have the status of the one he sent you sorted out. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no thanks!! I got nailed on Website images with the Fodor article. I need the experts in here.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly is a good person to ask. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I just got an email from Dr. Putnam, explicitly releasing the image under CC-BY-SA-2.5, so we're set. I've added it to the article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations and good work. Jkelly 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Supporting, as before. Well written, well edited, and greatly improved from when the nomination process began. It's certainly FA quality, and with the massive collaboration that's gone on, it definitely exemplifies some of our best work here at Wikipedia. It's got support from me all the way. Ryu Kaze 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as before, to the extent that I understand what an FA is supposed to be, the discussion on "what is an FA?" is almost as incomprehensible to me. Bmorton3 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - this wiki made me like Hilary Putnam, so it must be good. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before --PresN 16:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support an article that should have sailed through the process. Banno 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before. --Ori.livneh 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A well-written article. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, it looks like a featured article. Ashibaka tock 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. There are too many purely decorative and non-informative images in this article. The images of Rudolf Carnap and Kant certainly don't belong, and the PLP symbol is borderline.
    2. In an image caption, don't write about the image; write about what it depicts and how this is related to the article subject. (If the image doesn't actually contribute any information, remove it per #1.) The captions "Artistic representation of a Turing machine" and "Illustration of brain in vat and mad scientist" are both hideous. (Are we showing them because Putnam drew them, or what?)
Fredrik Johansson 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Just so I can keep track here. This has been addresed. Images removed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. I think your complaints are valid actually. I threw the Kant, Carnap and PLP images in because they are basically the only ones I could find related in some remote way to Putnam and/or his philosophy. If you the consensus wants them out, then they're gone. I'll think your caption objection, on the other hand, is self-contradictory: "captions should explain what it the photo depicts" and "the captions...are hideous". Those captions clearly decsribe what they depict. In what sense are they hideous? None of the are really subtantive MOS objections, BTW. That is, this is the kind of complaint that should be described somewhere of it is a requirement for FAs. NO?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an important difference between the image itself and what it depicts. "Illustration of X" is about the image and "X" is about what it depicts; the latter is better simply because the former is obvious and redundant. (But my main objection to those captions is that they don't establish why the pictures are relevant.) The featured article criteria say: "complies with the standards set out in the style manual". The relevant section is Wikipedia:Captions, which says:
There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption
1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
2. is succinct.
3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
4. provides context for the picture.
5. draws the reader into the article.
6. is either a title, like the title of a book or else consists of one or more complete sentences.
See that page for more details. Fredrik Johansson 09:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Fredrik, again this is fair enough. My only conern is that I will now have to delete all of the pics (except for Putnam himself) and then somone will come along and protest about the lack of pics!! I have removed Carnap, Kant, PLP. I really can't think of anyway to link the brain-in-a vat or Turing machine photos into the text (excpet in the redunant way your described), so I am going to delete. I will thereny have addreddes your objections. I will leave it to others to try to iluustarte this thing, if it possible. OK??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine now; note that I've re-added the Turing and brain-in-a-vat images with tweaked captions which I think are fine. Objection struck. I can't support since I haven't read the text in full, but it looks fantastic; good work! Fredrik Johansson 10:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Period. Don't want to fill this page up like the last one.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • support finnaly we get to see his pic. No doubt he is a he. lol. --Pedro 10:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely understandable and readable for someone who doesn't know anything about philosophy (me). Andrew Levine 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous support. It's great that we got a picture of him now, but I really feel that it is a shame that the "brain in a vat" illustration looks so amateurish. If anybody with some drawing skills are reading this nomination, would you be willing to make a better version of the illustration. That is one that don't take two minutes to create. I don't agree with people saying that this nomination should have sailed through the process. Look at the version before the nomination and you will see that it was not FA material. Nominating an article without references should not be permitted. --Maitch 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. I didn't know this was permitted, but here it is FWIW.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as before. - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - With a current tally of (22/0/0), I think this one might pass. --PresN 04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Fanatastic article; yes, this will pass. Poor Yorick 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Banksia browniiEdit

There is no single published source with more information about this particular species of Banksia. Every published source to some extent has been utilised to compile this article. Gnangarra 07:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Fully-formed and meets all criteria. One more lead paragraph might be advisable, if possible, but that is minor. Outriggr 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as co-nominator. Snottygobble 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as 2nd co-nominator (well, I didn't do that much editing but I did take the photos :).Cas Liber 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for a well written, comprehensive, and properly referenced article which, if the nominator is correct has now become an important reference source. Also, its the right length and has nice clear photos. I can't think what could be done to improve it. Well done editors. -- I@n 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild object Agree with Outriggr, lead should have another, even if short, para. Fixed minor formatting for you.Rlevse 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    thanks for the edits, I'll work on the lead. Gnangarra 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong support now, changed my vote. Rlevse 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if the lead is extended beyond one paragraph. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lead is too short. It should be at least 2 paragraphs long. CG 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, lots of work has been done to make this a very comprehensive and well written article. I disagree with the lead coments, for the length of the article the lead is the right size (according to WP:LEAD and to fit in the box on the main page), the only thing that could be added would be the average height of the bush, that there are two forms and when in flowers (if its seasonal or induces by some other factors).--Peta 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • To quote WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article..." – it is on that where it falls down for me. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead has been expanded as requested. Gnangarra 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Rebecca 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice. I am curious, however, in the conservation section mention is made of all threats the species faces (which seem considerable) but little of the conservation actually being undertaken; it's kinda tucked away in the disease section - is this all that is being done? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately yes, there is no specific action to protect this species only the general ations taken to protect the regions as a whole. Gnangarra 07:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Pity, if perhaps unsurprising. It might be worth mentioning that in the article. Otherwise, excellent work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The conservation section does mention legislative measures. I will also think about how to insert a mention of the fact that the Stirling Range populations are afforded further protection by the fact that they occur within the Stirling Range National Park. Snottygobble 02:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the ToC is lopsided as it has a L3 heading; I suggest you promote =Conservation= to a L1 heading and the other two to a L2 heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks. Snottygobble 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: A good job well done. (BTW, I just corrected the spelling for two words in the article, "unforeseen" and "extreme".) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, very clear, well-written, well-referenced. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great work.--cj | talk 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very impressive!! It's always good when the best resource on a particular subject is Wikipedia! -- Samir धर्म 08:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Toledo WarEdit

Self nomination, This article, already a GA, was a failed FAC about two months ago, and since that time, it has undergone a large amount of rewriting and has gone through several cycles of copy-editing. A second peer review was also conducted, with positive feedback. The result, I believe, is a much improved article that meets and exceeds all of the standards presented at WP:WIAFA. I hope this can become a featured article, and I will gladly address any of your comments or concerns. Thank you.

Latest peer review: Peer review
Previous nomination: Archive1

  • Support, per nom. Hotstreets 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportRlevse 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Footnotes are references, please merge.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I was following WP:CITE, which said that maintaining a separate References section in alphabetical order might help readers. However, since all sources in this article are footnoted, I would have no problem at all with removing it you still wanted me to. Thanks -- Hotstreets 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support of course, a fine article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well-written and comprehensive Stilgar135 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article.--Alabamaboy 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very pleased to support this excellent article. MarkBuckles (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good job. I have no criticisms to mention. Lovelac7 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of MoscowEdit

An article about one of the most epic and bloodiest battles of World War II, when German Panzers were less than 30 kilometers from the Kremlin. This article, embarassingly short so far, was overhauled by the Military History Wikiproject. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - very good article about a very imprtant event abakharev 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. UberCryxic 15:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work on the article! -- Underneath-it-All 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great stuff. One line bothers me, The battle was also one of the largest during World War II, with more than 1 million casualties on both sides. This reads either that both sides lost over a million men or over a million men total. Other than that a very nice FAC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. KNewman 19:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. 1) Can use more hyperlinks (per WP:BTW), for example in the lead the words to be linked include Soviet, counter-offensive, invasion of the Soviet Union, binoculars, etc. 2) Footnotes are references, please merge and moved unused references to further reading.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Very good point about the links. I linked several more important concepts in the lead. It's because a lot of people said I wikilink too much, so now I guess it's the other extreme... :P
    • As for the second one, I must admit I do not quite understand it. Yes, footnotes are references, and references are just a way of summing up all books used for footnotes. Quite a lot of recent FAs (for instance Battle of Rennell Island or Battle of Bicocca) use exactly that system, so I'm pretty lost here... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. It's quite standard to provide a summary of the works cited under a "References" heading, quite separate from the footnotes (see WP:CITE#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"), as this allows the footnotes to omit a lot of the publication information that would otherwise need to be included directly. In any case, labeling works that are actually the sources for the material in the article—even if they are not cited directly—as "further reading" would hardly be a model of intelectual honesty. Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. The only thing I might add is that "aftermath" might be expanded a little bit- how do people remember it today, etc. Still, that doesn't change the fact that this definitely deserves to be a FA. Stilgar135 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. per nom. —dima / 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Ghirla -трёп- 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Kuban Cossack   00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Elk Salmon 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Eupator 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not enough sources used. Also, as Irpen once noted, soldiers taking part in battles seldom see the entire picture, while the article was written mostly with Zhukov's and Guderian's memoirs. Other than that, I believe the article is well-written and could be promoted one day, but not just now. //Halibutt 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? Halibutt, was not that you who vigorously dismissed that argument of mine, brought two supporters of your POV and expelled me from the article then? Interesing memories. --Irpen 07:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Certainly, I did dismiss that argument since I do not consider it serious. However, since it was you to adopt it as a rule of thumb, I thought reminding you of such double standards would be a good idea. However, it was not me to "expel" you from that article, it were the common sense and a wiki consensus. Anyway, I withdrew my opposing vote so there's no need to discuss it any more. //Halibutt 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Reply. Most of the article is written based on Glantz's When titans clashed and a post-1991 encyclopedia released on 850th anniversary of Moscow. And it's based on Jukes too, who is a well-known British historian. It's just that its references are multiple, so it looks like they take like only 2 or 3 lines, giving you the impression they're not used but they are (Glantz's refs are 15 but grouped on just 4 lines). This is just a visual impression.
    So no, the article is NOT written on memoirs. If I would remove the memoirs, the article would be a collection of raw facts - totally accurate but not showing the full situation at that time. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    This isn't really an actionable objection unless you know of other sources that should be used here... Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    Any of those would be nice. Come on, the topic is pretty well covered in a plethora of books, why not use them. But of course I might be wrong and perhaps using just four or five is enough. //Halibutt 08:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising (1794)Edit

While less famous then it's more modern counterpart we FACed two years ago, I think this nicely represents progress in quality and reliability (inline cits!) we have made since then. I believe this article is comprehensive, neautral and easy to read; we also have pictures and maps. Your comments are as always much welcome. Partial self-nom. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, very good article; all the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good article! A minor comment however: is this really necessary to have a "History" section with all these subsections? Why not move them one level up? (It's just a proposal, I don't insist on it). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've heard of this uprising, as part of the reaction to the second partition, but never before have been able to read so much detail. Excellent work. --JohnDBuell 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent: very interesting to read, well-written, and well-referenced. One quibble: I'm not keen on the inline/general distinction you make in the notes/references section. If the three general ones weren't actually used as sources for material in the text, they should be in a further reading section. But it's a small point and if you prefer to do it that way, fair enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I do agree, this is the same issue I am raising when people list actual inline references as footnotes and further reading as references... I will take a look at that issue here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, I don't see any problem with this. It's perfectly possible, with a reasonable level of footnoting, for a work to have been consulted but never directly cited. Considering that it may very well be the source of certain points in the article, I think that listing it as a reference is the appropriate course of action. Kirill Lokshin 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One small comment: It's not mandatory but it's common practice in war articles that the image in the infobox be a scene of the conflict/war. Could you replace the map? CG 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: lead needs to be totally rewritten if this is going to be a FA. Currently, it merely briefly retells the plot of the development of the events. Instead it should tell what it was, what was the result and what was the significance of the uprising. The details on who and when did what belong to the body of the article. --Irpen 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose TONS of redlinks, to the point where it would be embarassing if this were on the Main Page. Some of them, especially those on individual people are perhaps allowable, but (for example) the Revolution Association sounds like it deserves at least a stub, as do the various infantry regiments. Also, falls far short of beautiful prose. Some mistakes are very elementary (there was a it's/its error, which I fixed). Others:
  • "the presence of Prussian and Imperial Russian garrisons on Polish soil was almost permanent." Awkward. Maybe change to "continuous"
  • "Polish king Stanisław August Poniatowski was opposed to the idea of the uprising, and together with the Permanent Council issued a declaration on April 2, condemning the uprising. " How could he condemn if it didn't begin until the 17th?
  • "He also ordered the increase in surveillance of suspected supporters of the uprising" - shouldn't than be "an increase"?
  • "On the Polish side, weakened by the arrests of some of its leaders,[8] both the radical Polish Jacobins and the centrist supporters of King Stanisław August Poniatowski began preparing plans for an all-out attack on the Russian forces to drive them from Warsaw, still, in theory, the capital of an independent state."Awkwardly structured and a borderline run-on.
  • "General Mokronowski repeatedly begged his cousin, King Stanisław August Poniatowski to support the uprising." Should read something like "begged King Poniatowski, his cousin to"... You don't use the full name along with the title on a second reference.
They're plenty more. I'd suggest getting a copyedit at the bare minimum.--Pyroclastic 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Red links are a problem related to other articles, not this one. We are constantly writing relevant articles, but there is only that much we can do. As for copyedit, the article was written mostly by non-English native speakers, so by all means, if you can help us with brilliant prose, please do so - we simply can't deal with that alone.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support interesting Gdarin | talk 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was trying to give this article a good copyedit and came across these sentences: "In such situation, the Russian forces prepared a plan to seize the most important buildings in the city and secure it until further reinforcements are drawn from Russia. General Johann Jakob Pistor suggested that the barracks of unsafe Polish units be surrounded and the units unarmed, and the Warsaw Arsenal captured to prevent the revolutionaries from seizing arms." I'm afraid I don't understand how to proceed editing it. What does "in such situation" mean? Can it be dropped from the sentence? Can "until further reinforcements are drawn from Russia" be accurately re-worded as "until further reinforcements could arrive from Russia"? Why is "unsafe" italicized, or are those meant to be quote marks? Is "unarmed" intended to mean "disarmed", or are they saying the Polish units were already unarmed? Andrew Levine 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say use your best judgement, if you make a mistake, we will correct it, so far I think your suggestions are right on target.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as the author of most of the article ([20]-[21]) I should not be voting in favour of my own work, but I would like to assure you that I really did my best and I believe this is one of the best articles I've written in English. Sure, English is not my native tongue and there might be lots of errors, but there's nothing that could not be fixed :) As to specific issues raised here: SlimVirgin, those were indeed used in creating this article. However, as these are monographs, I could either list them in whole, or go again through them and add the reference in dozens of places in the article, pretty much the same way I did with Bartoszewicz. As I got tired, I chose the earlier option. Pyroclastic, I fixed all the issues you raised. If only people were as helpful during the Peer Reviews... Anyway, I also reduced the number of red links by more than half. If the rest's a problem we could safely remove them, but I'm sure one day someone would write an article on, say, Fyodor Gagarin and it would be nice to have the link already there. Andrew Levine, you got it right :) I corrected that already. Piotrus - why the hell didn't you let me know you're nominating it? :) //Halibutt 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bricker AmendmentEdit

Completely rewritten version of this article on a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. Was previously on peer review here and here. It had a prior featured article candidacy here. Has been designated a Wikipedia:Good article. Thoroughly researched with notes and illustrations. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has 47 KB of prose as of 4 August 2006. (This note was added by User:Maveric149. This ID added by PedanticallySpeaking 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC).)
  • SupportRlevse
  • Support. Written to a high standard, and helpful to non-US residents. Deb 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Most excellent article to come to nomination in a while. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object: what exactly are the works listed in the "Bibliography" section? Are they references for the article, in which case the section should be renamed, and should include all references? Or are they merely further reading, in which case they should be called that, and moved out from under the "References" header? Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The section is called a "select bibliography" and there I have the note "this list contains only works with significant content related to the Bricker Amendment." Many works cited in the notes have only background material on isolationism and American history but are not about the Bricker Amendment. I thought it best not to list every single work cited—and believe me if I did that, I would get an objection to that practice—but instead offer a list of "where to start" for those who want more on the subject. PedanticallySpeaking 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Meh, I think it's quite confusing, but that might just be personal preference. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Merovingian - Talk 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object As a non-American I have read the lead text twice, and found several stumbling blocks, including: What's the ABA (an unexplained abbreviation)? And this sentence doesn't read easy to me: The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–54, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution. And added to this very tough read, I find that the article is 80 kbyte large (that is more than double the recommended good size) on a VERY difficult topic. Perhaps less in-depth information may be just as good? And lastly, I find several non-compliance issues with standard wikipedia guidelines such as how to write dates and how (not) to wikilink years. I left details of these on the talk page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
User:Kaisershatner has kindly gone through and given the article a copy-edit and reworked parts of it, a service for which I am grateful. Does that mitigate any of your concerns? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Have fixed the ABA issue (I noticed this also). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. The "tough read" that my colleague refers to above is in the overly long sentences, IMV. In fact, this nest of snakes provides excellent material for the exercises in controlling sentence length that I'm preparing. Take the opener:
    • "The Bricker Amendment is the name applied to a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s which would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the United States." Why not split it, and while we're at it, trim a bit of fat: "The Bricker Amendment was a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the Senate in the 1950s; they would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the U.S."

Can you go through the whole article to split the long ones? There's a lot of them. Make it easy for our readers. Tony 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead has been redone courtesy of Kaisershatner. Is that an improvement? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Nicely-referenced. The long sentences are very hard on the reader, but there are some other prose problems as well, example: Likewise, executive agreements were found to be subject to the Constitution in Seery v. United States. There the government argued that an executive agreement allowed it to confiscate property in Austria owned by an American citizen without compensation. Sandy 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Kaisershatner has gone through and edited this. Does that help? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Better! Struck my objection above. Sandy 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive, well-cited. I did a full copyedit, the sentences are still long but I think I caught most of the typos. Some minor comments: did Stephen Johnson Field not capitalize "Constitution", can the mention of protectionist tariffs/Hawley Smoot be deleted on the grounds that economic isolationism is a wholly different subject fit for its own article and need not reflect the political isolationism referenced in this article, in one of the older versions wasn't there something about the adoption of the UN Genocide Charter coming with provisional language specifically noting the primacy of the Constitution? But nice job- if anything, it could be cut down, but to me it's just pushing the boundary of overkill on the early US history without quite crossing it.Kaisershatner 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw my object, but next time, please consider making the sentences shorter on average—in any register. It's not entirely free of problems (e.g., spot the redundant word in "Once hostilities were concluded"; there's a wrong upper-case letter in a title—I'm sure there are more). (This comment added by User:Tony1. This ID offered by PedanticallySpeaking 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Support. --Matthew K 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the length of the article is appropriate given the subject matter, and as a non-U.S. reader I found the "Historical background" very informative. Well researched and referenced, and nice arrangement of the inline citations. Great work. Extraordinary Machine 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most genuinely impressive articles I've read in quite some time. Rebecca 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written and interesting article. Just what I'd want to be greeted with on the front page.GiollaUidir 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Atomic line filterEdit

This is not a very important topic; however, it is an interesting article and meets the criteria. See the Good article review and peer review. This is a self-nomination. -- Rmrfstar 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support A comprehensive article that fits the criteria well. -Shrinkness 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is almost entirely one author's work, and that author is the same person who proposed it as a FAC. I would like to see more review and broader participation in the editing of this article before it is considered as a Featured Article.--Srleffler 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Isn't that exactly what this process is supposed to do? -- Rmrfstar 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. Sandy 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I left the simple peerreviewer script output on the talk page for recommendations for improvement. The things pointed out are not minor, but can of course be worked on. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC).
    • I believe I have now dealt with all of them. I have even shifted around the last few sections that the TOC may be in proper order. Now, however, the spacing of the three column bit at the end is not as good. Is this version really better? -- Rmrfstar 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Good improvement! A thorough check of spelling (I happened to stumble on supressed in the lead), and (as pointed out by tabushidu) the move all references from the lead to the main text (the lead is merely the summary of the article, see WP:LEAD) remain actionable. And if you remove the lines in See also that are already mentioned in the text (see WP:GTL), then you won't need the multi-column output. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
        • Spell-check completed, and I have lessened the number of refs in the lede, (it was admittedly excessive before), but according to WP:LEAD, "should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text,". Oh, and I followed your advice on the See Also, also ;).-- Rmrfstar 21:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll be on wikibreak from now on, so I just assume you'll keep copy-editing that lead, until all refs will have disappeared, and the text will be superbly fluent. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
          • I have removed my object, but will not change it to support for the current text version: I have read it through in full and done some copy-editing. Definitely this copy-editing must continue to improve the phrases and the general text, and to remove superfluous vague words (sometime, maybe, etc). Really the Tony1 text does give good read. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Srleffler's comment is not actionable. Tony 02:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A very well referenced article with good writing, good use of images, and a good scientific tone. I evaluated the article for GA status recently, was pleased with it (and passed it accordingly), and have since put a little energy into it, mostly formatting and copyediting. It may be a largely single author effort, but it has had a lot of fingers in it recently, including the GA review, and the author has a good track record. Phidauex 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a copyedit to make sure that all wikimarkup is OK (I noticed at least one instance of a mistake). Also needs to have less references in the lead section. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I checked all of the wikilink wikimarkup and removed two inline references from the lede. How is it now? -- Rmrfstar 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Much better, but can't support or oppose as haven't read it thoroughly. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent scope, range, and references in this page serve as an example for other pages especially, but not limited to scientific pages. -- M0llusk 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Diagrams should be in SVG. WP 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Will do, as soon as I can crop them. -- Rmrfstar 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have cropped the SVGs, but they're not working quite right. The SVG version of Image:ALFConcept.png is Image:ALFConcept.svg, and though I set the background to be opaque, it still appears transparent, and the arrows are appearing as little squares. What can be done? I'm using Inkscape by the way. -- Rmrfstar 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Make sure that you save the images as proper SVGs instead of "Inkscape SVG" (changeable in the "Save as" dialogue). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I did try that. -- Rmrfstar 04:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone maybe download them, replace the arrows and white background and upload them again? I've tried everything -- Rmrfstar 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: In order to keep this FAC moving, I linked the current images to the svg versions, so that if someone wanted to, they could use the SVG version. While I was try everything else, I hope that this can still become a featured article. -- Rmrfstar 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Fixed: The two diagrams with possible SVG replacements have been repaired. Explanation of repair left on User:Rmrfstar's talk page. Phidauex 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; looks pretty good to me. Extremely well referenced. Some formatting and prose touch-ups are in order, however: remove all bold from the article body (everything below the lead), and eliminate redundant words like "very". Looks solid though. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed all but one "very" and most of the bolding below the lead: that which I thought was not necessary. -- Rmrfstar 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article which is well referenced. The usage of images enhances the article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

FA Premier LeagueEdit

This article was previously nominated (see here) but failed. Since that time a number of editors have working to bring the article up to FAC standards. The use of lists has been vastly reuced, the article is well-written and far more informative than it once was, and the content is complete and written from a NPOV. - Pal 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - per nom. - Pal 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — "The decision to go with pay TV is still criticised by many, particularly with reference to the cost when compared with other pay TV platforms around Europe that offer coverage of live top flight domestic football." is not supported by a reference; it also contains what some may consider to be weasel words ;) — Deckiller 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've junked that sentence. I'm working on referencing or eliminating any other unreferenced statements. Oldelpaso 09:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Jeronimo 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Norwegian picture is hardly illustrative or relative. Furthermore, it requires people to zoom in to even read what it's about, and read even further to understand what's going on. Instead, I would expect some pictures of relevant players, coaches, clubs, etc. There are many available in Wikipedia.
    • A lot of the article is very listy, without any prose. The all-time table is nice, but I'm not sure it belongs (in full form) in this article. Similarly, the "current season" get's a lot of detail, but the other seasons don't. The article should be a good overview of the entire history, not just today. Make it a separate article (if not already present).
    • The article needs more references to the previous league system; and I think it may even be better to join the article with Football League First Division, as it is basically just it's continuation under a different name.
    • The media section has a tiny bit on "worldwide", but it is supposedly one of the most internationally followed sports leagues. More must (and can) be said about it. The media section also completely focuses on TV, but there are other media. We'd also like to know more figures on numbers of spectators throughout history (not just the 2006 figure) to get a better perspective.
Could you clarify point two please? On one hand you say the article is too list heavy, yet including more details on prior seasons would likely necessitate inclusion of more lists in order to show participating teams (a list of this type was actually removed recently). Or perhaps your referring to the "team movement" section? Because that really could be removed. Thanks. - Pal 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a two things in my second point: 1) Long lists or tables are best avoided, unless they're essential to the article. Replace it with prose and a part of the table/list, while referring to a separate "List of" article if necessary. 2) Don't include a separate section on the current season, the article is about all of the League's history, not just next season. Put the stuff in a separate article and refer to it. - However, I think the crucial point for me is #3. Jeronimo 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion to merge FA Premier League and Football League First Division is an entirely erroneous one, as they were separate competitions and ran side-by-side between 1992 and 2004. See Talk:Football League First Division. Qwghlm 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to Jeronimo: In regards to the list of teams in the current season, I feel strongly that this info should not be split off from the article. This is not an article only about the FAPL's history, but about its present as well. And as there can be no FAPL without the clubs, I think this is a case where a list is useful. In other words, it is not really a section that focuses on the current season, but rather on the format of the competition. The only reason a reference is made to "current" is due to promotion/relegation issues.
The all-time table could probably be split off, however. - Pal 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

*Object - incomplete, some POV. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? - Pal 13:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Too much focus on current events and games. Not enough comparison information (comparing rules&regulations to other Premier Leagues, showing popularity of FA Premiere League compared to other Premier League). Then the history section talks about Football in England in general rather than the premiere league in specific. And the whole article just seemms lacking. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Issues were fixed. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- After reviewing the article I have some points and questions,
  • Of these, the most successful are Manchester United and Arsenal, who have won the title eight and three times respectively -- This stat doesnt need mentioning in the lead. Just mention the most successful ie "Man.U who have won eight, the current Premier League champions are...."
  • in Origins ...consider leaving the Football League in to capitalize on the ... has something been removed or left out.
  • UEFA and FIFA should be linked on the first instance. I would prefer to see these acronyms in full at first instance.
  • the Bolton, Fulham match image should have the horizon tilt corrected or does the game get played on an incline.
  • decide which it is -- TV deals, television rights(TV rights), television agreement, broadcasting agreement. It doesnt matter which terminology you use but use one and be consistant.
  • League corporate structures, is this an independant league, or part of a governing body, how does it work with in the these structures. An overview of club ownerships, can I create my own club from sctratch, do I need to buy a license to become part of the league. Affiliations does the league have input to a UK body or direct input to FIFA or UEFA.

Not being from Europe I dont know how all these leagues are related to each other, its something that should be covered in this type of article, at least from this leagues position within it. Gnangarra 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Points 1-3 should be taken care of now. I'm not sure what to do about the picture. There seems to be a lack of images relating to the PL available in Wikipedia, and it makes sense to have one relating to the competition, even though the slant is kind of annoying. I can see your point on the final two points. I'll try and work on that. Thanks for the feedback. - Pal 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I rotated the image 2 degrees then cropped to square. Image quality was poor rotation degraded it a bit more, horizon is level. Remember to refresh your cache to view Gnangarra 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! - Pal 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
unchanged vote, my concern about the Acronym if consensus can be reached I'll support. saying you should know it, or be able to guess from the article isnt sufficient reason... Gnangarra 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Thankyou for addressing the concerns I'm now happy to support this nomination Gnangarra 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • The "Competition and structure" section should be split; the middle "Competition" part promoted to a single section, while the finance-related paragraphs either side merged into a single section (e.g. 'Finances and Turnover').
    • Remove or correct the Title Holders graphic, it is currently misleading. Arsenal do not play at home in yellow, nor do Blackburn play in all-white.
    • FIFA and UEFA do not need to be spelt out in full.
    • The Jack Walker picture should not be used, I don't believe the Fair Use rationale is strong enough. Try delving round other club articles to find Premier League action shots (there are some; alternatively, try searching Flickr for any with an appropriate Creative Commons licence).
    • Change "last season" link in list of teams to "2005-06" so as to be more specific.
    • All-time table and all-time scorers table both need references.
    • Trim "See also" section. The gulf/Curse of Christmas arguably deserve to be described in their own paragraph on how far the PL has pulled away from lower divisions. Remove all links without the phrase 'Premier League' in them, and if any of the remaining ones have been already linked to in the article, drop them too.
    • Web citations need 'Retrieved on' need dates on all of them.
  • There are also some minor content issues but I will probably edit them myself in due course. Qwghlm 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • All of the above have been solved, but I have one final additional objection - the percentages of foreign players in squads is not referenced, nor the methodology explained; how is it measured consistently across different teams with different sized squads. For example, do you count youth or reserve players or not? Or loaned-out players? (Arsenal's figure goes down if you take them into account, though I won't deny it's still quite high:) ). I would recommend deleting it unless a satisfactory source and methodology can be supplied. Qwghlm 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Last objection has now been resolved, so changing vote to full-hearted Support. Qwghlm 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find a source so I just removed those lines; it wasn't real important anyway. - Pal 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Why dont FIFA and UEFA need to be in full at the first instance not everybody is familiar with these acronyms. to quote WP:ABBR Acronym usage in article body The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable. There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK). Gnangarra 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Wikipedia article on FIFA is entitled FIFA and not Fédération Internationale de Football Association. It is known worldwide by its acronym FIFA. I'm a well educated English football fan of 26 years, and although I understood exactly what FIFA was, I didn't know what the letters stood for before clicking a link on Wikipedia. No-one calls it by it's full French name. The same is true of the Union of European Football Associations.
Quoting from WP:ABBR:
  • Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples).
If one truely doesn't know what the acronym stands for from general knowledge or the context it is used in, one can click through to its main page. I don't see how including a long French phrase helps either article flow or anyone's understanding. There are certain times when the rules you state are not needed, and I would argue strongly that FIFA and UEFA are two of these cases. aLii 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, this is really a request for comment. As I see it, there are several issues where there is some dispute as to what should be done to improve this article to FA status. Feel free to post comments immediately after each item (or even add more). Thanks. - Pal 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Origins" section - Some say this shouldn't include any info (or just a very brief mention) of the PL's predacessor, others say there is not enough.
  • Only the immediate past where events affected the formation of the PL. Gnangarra
  • The current members section. If most feel that there is too much info about the current clubs (and in fact, the info is already contained here), perhaps a simple table (like this one) would be more suitable?
  • Whats there is the maximum you would want. Gnangarra
  • Do you mean on the FAPL page or the sandbox page? - Pal 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FAPL article Gnangarra 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether to use the fullnames of FIFA and UEFA still seems to be an issue.
  • I come from a country where the only game we here about is the cup final so the acronyms are meaning less. Gnangarra 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What if, instead of the full names (which still might not be entirely clear since FIFA's is in French), we instead gave a brief description. I.e. in the first reference to UEFA, the sentence would read "UEFA, European football's governing body, lifted the ban on English clubs playing in European competitions in 1990..." - Pal 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be a fair compromise Gnangarra 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FIne by me too.
  • Support, good well written article, though I dont know if it has already been included somewhere else, if so, just tell me where, but a reference to what seem to be known as the "Premier League Parachute Payments" I dont know where to put it myself, I thought maybe Premiership-Football League gulf but then its relevant to all clubs not just newly promoted and relegated ones. Philc TECI 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that "parachute payments" refer only to the payments made to relegated teams in their first two seasons out of the PL (here's an article for reference). These payments come out of the PL's television revenue, but it doesn't seen they are directly relevant to other clubs, so I'd say it could be included in the "Premiership-Football League gulf" section. - Pal 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeh I know, but the gulf section is about how newly promoted teams are relegated often straight away, whereas any clubs recieve parachute payments, not just those who are relegated in their first season, they could have never been relegated from the Premier league before in which case the gulf would be somewhat irrelavent to them.Philc TECI 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article. --Kitch 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Roy of the RoversEdit

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article for a number of months now, in tandem with some extremely useful work from ChrisTheDude (who has also put in a load of work creating spinoff articles on some of the comic's more popular backup strips). It now, as far as I can see, represents a thorough and comprehensive overview of one of the UK's most popular ever comic book series, making use of just about every available reference and resource that exists online and in print (which, despite its popularity at its height, sadly isn't a huge number, particularly with regards to what's available online).

  • I've worked hard at the prose and section editing so that I think it flows as it should, including a concise and informative lead.
  • All images contained in the article are copyrighted, but they all have fair use rationales and each serve a separate purpose in illustrating distinct eras of the strip and comic - and I've spoken to the person who runs the official ROTR website, from which a number of the images come, and he states that as Wikipedia is a reference tool, he considers the use of the images to be fair, so long as copyright is correctly attributed to Egmont (which it is). He's also contributed information himself by posting it on the official site as requested (and has even used the WP for reference).
  • It's listed as a GA, and has been through a peer review, although the only comments it attracted were automated.
  • It's NPOV, and while it does make statements about the strip's popularity, I've tried wherever possible to show evidence of outside sources - newspapers, magazines - commenting on it. It goes without saying that it's stable, since it rarely receives edits from anyone other than myself and Chris.
  • In addition to external references and citations, it contains a number of footnotes that expand on certain information without clogging up the body text.

In just about every way I can see, then, it seems to meet the criteria, but I've held off for a while so as to find as much info as I can, and tweak it here and there (and read it a hundred or so times to check for typos and the general flow of the text). I think it's just about ready to run the gauntlet now, so here it is. Seb Patrick 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support—Nicely written, except that there are a few snakes that need chopping up, such as "As such, it holds a unique place in British football folklore, demonstrated most clearly by the phrase "real Roy of the Rovers stuff" commonly used by football writers and commentators when describing displays of great skill or results that go against the odds, a reference to the dramatic storylines that became the strip's trademark". I've removed a few "alsos". Tony 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, that sentence has been copyedited a few times in the last day or so. I did chop it into two sentences, but it got put back together, and as a good faith edit I didn't want to revert it. But I'll take another look at it, as it's still a bit awkward. Seb Patrick 06:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
(and thanks for your comments. I'm aware of the fact that I constantly overuse the word "also" when bridging points together, so it's good that someone's gone through with a fresh eye and had a look at that!) Seb Patrick 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Extremely well-written. CloudNine 10:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - beautifully-written piece, informative, concise and thorough. --IanIanSymes 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well-written and well-illustrated with excellent referencing and notes. -- Alias Flood 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I must say that the quality of prose is quite good. But still, I see some problems. First of all, citation templates are not used in references(both inline and overall). Also, most of the references turn out to be notes from the author unsubstantiated by any reference. In a quick inspection, it is clear that a lot of them do indeed need references, and author notes won't do. If "overall references" are used, they should be provided inline. If possible, separate the references from the notes (i.e. use different sections). Dashes need to be fixed per WP:DASH. Reference no. 11 (ref-10) is self-referential. External link need to be eliminated from text as it can easily be provided in the external links section. There isn't a very good reason to have a list in "Spin-offs and merchandise" section. The "Others" section in "Regular features" looks too much trivia. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, to address your concerns :
  • I didn't realise that citations had to use the template. As far as I can see, this isn't a required criterion for FACs. As the criteria request, however, <ref> tags are used. I thought that the template was an optional way of compiling references - and since the notes section (as outlined below) does not simply consist of citations, it's not really workable to use it.
  • I wouldn't say that "most" of the references are notes from the author. Counting them, of twenty-four footnotes, six (#s 8, 11, 12, 13 and 19) are explanatory notes that expand upon the text, explaining information in such a way as to not intrude on the article with unnecessarily lengthy chunks of text. Some of the other notes do consist of quotations from articles, but when this is the case, they are also backed up with full citation of the source. Likewise, some of the citations (2, 3, 7 and 10) contain notes that explain what is being cited, but they're still citations.
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean by "it is clear that a lot of them do indeed need references". Do you mean that you've found statements in the article that require citation? If so, please feel free to elaborate on that - but also bear in mind that I have pretty much exhausted every available resource in terms of professional writing about the series (at least in terms of what's available online, and one newspaper article from 1993 that I was able to find and date).
  • If "overall references" are used, they should be provided inline. Just about every article listed in the "References" section is indeed mentioned in inline citations. The main exception is the Playing Years book, which was largely used to provide information on the plot history of the strip (as it was a compilation of fifty-years' worth of strips). If I cited every single instance that the book was used (i.e. most sentences in the "Plot" section), the citation list would edge towards the hundreds!
  • As far as I know, it's not possible to have two sets of <ref> tags in the manner that you describe - hence the explanatory notes cannot be separated from the references. However, I don't feel this is necessarily problematic - certainly, I've read (and written) essays and theses that use this format for footnotes.
  • I see what you mean about the dashes, and that's a copyedit issue that clearly needs sorting. I'll see what I can do.
  • Done.
  • Reference no. 11 (ref-10) is self-referential. I really don't understand what you mean by this. Or, rather, I don't understand why it's a problem. The note is there to explain why the article refers to both "Division One" and "Premier League" for those unfamiliar with the structural changes in English football, without imposing on the article for those who are familiar.
  • I see your point about the external links; in both instances, however, it's simply that they are companies that are identifiable by name but do not have Wikipedia entries to link to. However, I take your point, and I'll remove the links and place them below.
  • Done.
  • I agree that the list of books could probably trimmed, with the more notable ones incorporated into a paragraph of prose. That's something else I'll get onto.
  • Done.
  • The "Others" section really isn't trivia, I don't think. The thing is, the article is about both the *comic strip* Roy of the Rovers, and the weekly/monthly comic *publications* of the same name. Most of the article is spent discussing the strip itself (the one that began in Tiger and finished in Match of the Day, running through the life of the comic), but I think it is worth spending time discussing the other strips that were published in the comic, particularly as some of them rivalled RotR in terms of popularity. And I think that the succint information outlined for each means that, while it is a bulleted list, it just about breaks free of being simple list format.
  • Actually, you're right, I've turned this into a handful of prose paragraphs instead. Seb Patrick 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't gone through the improvements you have made, so please don't mind if I missed something. First of all, citations are not only used for completeness of references, they are also used to enforce consistancy in citation styles (so that other editors don't have any problems in adding citations later). Also, citation templates allow structured querries to be carried out by any SQL engine. See Persondata to see how that specific template can be used to extract specific info. Citation templates provide similar flexibility. Now, there is a basic difference between citations (references) and notes. The former provides proof, while the latter only an insight. When the number of notes increase a lot, it is advisable to separate them from references section for clarity. As an example, Rabindranath Tagore does that. This is not a requirement, and just a suggestion, as the way it currently makes it appear that the article is more referenced than it actually is. Oh, sorry for being not very alert. I meant reference number 11 uses another article as reference (dunno how I wrote that self-reference, which it isn't). Will point out the required references soon, as soon as I have the time to go through the article again. If I don't, my objection wouldn't count, right? And yes, give inline references from overall references also. It helps in clear understanding of the article. Inline citation is a strong requirement of the current FAC standards. BTW, seeing your response, it is clear you have fixed most issues. Good work. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Going through the article, I see that most of the work has been done, so I am striking off my objection. However I would still suggest the editors to use separate notes and citations as Rabindranath Tagore does. Incidently, that article also has references for notes, something this article also needs. Also, please standardize the citation formats. Its really important. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll look into the standardisation of the format, and into separating the two kinds of footnotes, as you outline, when I get the chance. Seb Patrick 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nicely written, interesting, good length, well-referenced. Just one fiddly thing: in the References section, you have commas after the names instead of periods/full stops. It means you end up with things like: "Acton, P, Jarman, C.M," where it's not completely clear (not at first glance) that there are two authors. I went to change it, but I don't know what style you prefer to use, so I'm leaving this comment instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. That would simply be the way I was taught to write bibliographies at Uni. I always found it a confusing way of doing things myself, but it was so drilled into my head as the "right" way of doing things that I simply carried it over here. If separating by full-stops, semi-colons or anything else is acceptable on WP, then please feel free to change it. Seb Patrick 07:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Violates fair use criterion #3. Seven "fair use" images in only 44k of text is five or six too many. User:Angr 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see what you mean, but I think the amount of images is justifiable in this article. There's no definite limits in the FUC (excellent abbreviation, by the way), just the vague "as little as possible". Other than the main annual pic at the top, all the images are small and low-res, and there's only ever one picture in a section, and not all the sections have one. I think removing "five or six", as you suggest, would be detrimental to the article. I think a compromise could be reached fairly easily, though. --IanIanSymes 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - in addition, I have - as outlined above - spoken with the webmaster of the official site, from which almost all the images derive, and sought his approval - on behalf of Egmont - to use the images. As I don't have written confirmation from Egmont themselves, it doesn't constitute full permission, but I think that, since there's no objection to their being used in a reference work, the fair use is clearly validated. Also, while I don't generally like playing the "yeah, but look at this article" game, I would ask you to look at how overwhelmingly Final Fantasy VIII was recently passed, and the number of FU images there as opposed to here. Seb Patrick 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
(I have, however, removed two of the images, reducing it to what I think is a more acceptable five. Also, the only images now contained in the article are ones that Egmont Fleetway hold the copyright for.) Seb Patrick 10:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that, so long as those images have valid fair use criteria, this is OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Night (book)Edit

Night is an autobiographical novel by Elie Wiesel about his time, as a teenager, in Auschwitz and Buchenwald with his father during the Holocaust. It is told in the first person singular. In quoting from the novel, I've put the narrator's voice in an ordinary font when he is talking to the reader, but in italics when anyone else is talking, or when the narrator is talking to someone else or to himself. Sometimes I use blockquotes and a smaller font; sometimes not, depending on what seems appropriate. It was nominated once before by Wetman, but it was still undergoing a rewrite at the time, so it didn't get far. This is mostly a self-nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that anything from the novel itself is in the present tense. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
MusicalLinguist tells me that the blockquotes are the same size text on her browser as the rest of the text, so I'm just noting here that they are meant to be smaller (currently at 92 percent) for ease of reading. I'm going to find someone with technical know-how so I can work out how to make them look smaller for everyone without being too small. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of fiddling with percentages, I've been advised to write <small>, so hopefully everyone will now see the text in blockquotes as smaller than the rest, which should make it easier to read. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, this is an excellent summary of the book and its journey to publication, but I was surprised to find nothing about its critical reception (other than the brief mention that critics received it), and its role as one of the most widely known books on the holocaust. There's really no critical analysis of the book at all, or anything directly about it's importance. In fact I'm not really sure that someone reading this article who hadn't heard of of the book would really get the idea that it was particularly important or influential, other than through inference that someone had spent a lot of time on the article for some reason. See Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, The Old Man and the Sea or even Starship Troopers for FA's about books that deal with critical responses, controversy and the overall importance of the works they cover, which honestly should be a key feature of articles on important books. --W.marsh 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, thanks. Jayjg has pointed me to some good sources for the above, so I'm going to try to add to the article today. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WM, I've expanded it to include more information about the critics' response, and a bit more about how it first came to be written. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like an excellent effort has been made to address my concerns, so my oppose is withdrawn. At a glance though it looks like it's a bit lengthy now, but that's not something I'd oppose over, for a few reasons. Will consider changing to support, still thinking. --W.marsh 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article about a book whose importance cannot be overstated.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article...very descriptive and well-written. Michael 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support The material currently in the article is very good but a summary of the critical reception, as detailed by W.marsh, is a must for a comprehensive article. --Allen3 talk 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The addition looks good to me. --Allen3 talk 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a
    • This should be split into two sentences: "Having lost his faith in God and humanity, for ten years he kept his story to himself and contemplated suicide, but during a meeting in Paris in May 1955, Wiesel was persuaded to start writing by François Mauriac, the French novelist and Nobel laureate." So should this: "Wiesel was born on 30 September 1928 in Sighet, a village in the Carpathian mountains in northern Transylvania, annexed by Hungary in 1940, and now part of Romania. With his father Shlomo, his mother Sarah, and his three sisters, Hilda, Beatrice, and Tzipora, Wiesel lived as part of a close-knit community of between 10,000 and 20,000 mostly Orthodox Jews." Not only are the long sentences a problem; I find the word order and the placement of commas awkward in much of the article.
    • "Over the next 18 months, restrictions on Jews gradually increase." Now, for some reason, it switches to present tense. I hope that the relationship between in-universe and out-of-universe worlds is handled well here.
    Needs considerable work. Tony 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, Tony. I'll go through it and try to tighten the writing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, I've gone through and tried to find and tighten any awkward sentences, and I think I've made sure the tenses are used consistently. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you've pretty much cleaned it up, SlimVirgin. Tony's personal views are interesting, and I'm sure he's trying to be helpful, but his vague, subjective, and somewhat idiosyncratic take on things represent, at best, his personal preferences, not any sort of objective guidelines for good writing. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and well written. AnnH 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. With the addition of the "Memoir or novel" section, this article has moved from Good to Excellent. The author of this article is not afraid to tackle controversial issues in a nuanced and NPOV way - you won't find this kind of discussion in the CliffsNotes version, or on Oprah's website. This is exactly what a Wikipedia article should be. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that it is common practice to notify WikiProjects when an article related to them is up for FAC (or AfD) nomination. --Tim4christ17 03:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is an excellent synopsis of the book (which is one of my favourites) and its history. I was surprised to find such a detailed article on it. I would support its candidacy as a featured article. Ziv Goldstein 07:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Would like some more material on the reception of this seminal work; it has received some criticism, for example for suggesting that experiencing the Holocaust should of necessity lead one to lose faith in God. JFW | T@lk 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article - better than several others I've seen as Featured Articles. --Tim4christ17 03:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Another great article from SV. The maps and illustrations are a good complement to well-written and informative text. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support pe above. It is a fine article. And we should neve suggst that featured aticles ae perfect. No Wikipedia aticle should ever be held to that standard, we are and should constantly be looking for ways to improve any article, including featured ones. user:Slrubenstein
  • Support! Amazing work, especially the choice of photographs. Wow. --Masamage 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - well done, except it needs more historical background. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it more than meets all criteria. I like the precise and compact writing style of the plot synopsis, that seems to echo Wiesel's own sparse style, and which is in contract to the style of the rest of the article. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I think that is beautifully done. (as is the entire article). Rossrs 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As per above Masterhomer   07:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: A nice article about a wonderful book by a Peace prize winner. The book records a dark chapter in the history of humanity, and this article reflects it with all sincerity. While reading the page, I remembered my rendezvous with an abridged version of these memoirs. --Bhadani 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. This will set the benchmark for all book FAs to come. Rebecca 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article for an excellent book! The Wookieepedian 20:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Story with the Rabbi in the Reception section is totally misleading. The Rabbi is discussing ALL of Mr Wiesel's writings NOT the book in discussion, Night. Out of contaxt and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Chrono TriggerEdit

Self-Nomination. Article has been almost completely rewritten and sourced with almost 50 notes and 7 regular references. Images now have strong fair use rationale and fancruft / weasel words / POV have been cut out. Excess sections have been split to sister articles. Main article is now stable with no major contributions coming in. Article assisted by expert contribution. Any OBJECTs will be dealt with swiftly and zealously. Thanks for commenting. --Zeality 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Well-written, It's hard to condense that plot into three paragraphs. The only thing, and this is cosmetic, is that there should be a spolier warning above the plot. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 07:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It was removed due to discussion at CVG (Spoiler Tags). I haven't read it myself yet; I'll check it out. --Zeality 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I was hoping that this would be as well written as Final Fantasy VIII below, but no such luck. Please find someone to copy-edit the whole text thoroughly. Here are examples from the top.
  • "Chrono Trigger was developed by a group named the "Dream Team" by Squaresoft". What is "Squaresoft"?
  • "composer of Final Fantasy games". Should there be a "the" somewhere here?
  • "Traveling place to place is accomplished through the use of a "world map", which depicts the lay of the land". "From" needed somewhere; I think it's "lie of the land", but perhaps a more formal word, such as "landscape" or "topography" would be better (not sure).
  • "... role-playing gameplay. Players ..." "Play..." occurs three times in three words.
  • "... can converse with locals to procure items or other services ...". "Or" should be "and". This is the second sentence in this para that finishes with an "other" phrase, which is vague.
  • "Many tools exist to help the player, including weapons, armor, helmets, consumable items, and accessories that provide a special effect in battle". Clumsy start to this sentence; why not "Players are assisted by tools such as weapons,..."? Surely "a special effect" should be pluralised.
  • " For both player and enemy, each attack reduces the hit points of its victim; they can be restored through potions or spells". ", which" would be better than "; they". And it's "the store/number of hitpoints", isn't it?
  • "... must be restored from a previous saved chapter." Surely "previously"?
  • "... and progress through the plot until a final battle with the strongest enemy occurs." Last word redundant. Tony 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • These points have been taken care of.
      • Just to update, the article has been massively copyedited since then. --Zeality 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Strange. I thought I had responded here already. Anyway, as Zeality said, the entire thing has now been copyedited from top-to-bottom (even the External Links), and various changes have been made throughout. Please give it another look. Ryu Kaze 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Just so everyone's aware, we've left a couple of requests on Tony's talk page for additional comments, but I guess he's been unable to respond so far. Ryu Kaze 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I performed a minor copyedit, but the prose still needs some work in the plot section down. Good things to watch out for are excessive compound sentences, short sentences, and awkward wording caused by an attempt to compress information. I agree with tony; it needs a minor to moderate copyedit from someone different. — Deckiller 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • After another minor copyedit, I change my vote to Support. — Deckiller 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. The nom is a bit premature. There is still some redundancy. I'll see what I can do, and if I see something, I'll change my vote. I really want this featured as you know. Crazyswordsman 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote to Support after fixing prose up. Crazyswordsman 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Edit conflict; I'll see if some of this no longer applies) I don't want to object, given that there's lots of good information and signs of effort here, but I can't offer support either at the moment. There's various things that need to be retouched throughout, particularly where the prose is concerned. At times, wording just doesn't flow smoothly (ex: "Contact with enemies causes a battle, in which players must defeat the monsters or the game ends...") and has some redundancy.
Also, there's not really a lot of exposition for gameplay elements. The description of the world map, for instance, doesn't allude to what this means where landscape-to-town scale is concerned. The same is true of the Techs. Obviously you want to describe how these concepts are implemented, but you want to balance that with what the concepts mean and how that relates to this overall concept of standard RPG gameplay.
The Story section needs to be more comprehensive, and shouldn't be rushing itself quite as hard as it is. As thing stand, it's moving at such a breakneck pace that it would be very difficult for someone who is unfamiliar with the game to follow it. Also, lose the parenthetical notations (ex: "they challenge this man (named Magus)..."; "This kingdom (named Zeal)..."). Touch on all of the game's major story arcs and their resolutions. In doing so, the pacing should be a lot more comfortable and you wouldn't have these sentences that sound like they're trying to include everything in a single breath, which leads to the inclusion of parenthetical notations, and the like.
I know you're probably concerned with length, but being comprehensive is more important than length. Don't try molding the article to fit some imaginary standard of length. The only standard of length is that it cover everything important and do it with clarity without going into the territory of detail that only fans would look for.
To give you an example of how you could rework this: "After defeating the Heckran, the party learns that a powerful sorceror named 'Magus' apparently created Lavos during the Middle Ages. They then travel back to 600 A.D. to defeat him before he can create the creature, and soon learn of a legendary sword called the 'Masamune', said to be required to defeat Magus. After discovering the broken pieces of the weapon and acquiring the ancient mineral needed to repair it, they recruit Frog, who is now revealed to the player to have been the friend of its former owner, Cyrus. Etc."
Chrono Trigger's story isn't even very long by RPG standards (and a heck of a lot easier to describe than Chrono Cross'), so you can easily fit a comprehensive summary in. Also, you're going to probably want to introduce the Characters section first to give readers some familiarity and backstory before getting into the thick of the "main event". Think of it like that: preliminary bout(s) and main event. You want to introduce enough material previously for the reader to know who you're referring to when you bring up a main character in the Story section. By the way, you shouldn't bold the character names. It's somewhat distracting to the reader and not terribly necessary. You really don't want to use bolding on more than the primary title and its other names (when it has some).
There's some good information further down, but some of it is a bit trivia-ish and therefore expendable. You could probably retain a good bit of it through compression (ex: "It also featured an 'extras' mode. Each ending reached unlocks more of the following: all 10 of the added anime movies, 69 songs from the game including the extras menu songs, statistics on all the monsters, a list of all of the endings with a screenshot from each, an art gallery with 16 anime-style drawings of characters, a list of all characters' techs, descriptions of the bosses with strategies, and a "treasure map" which shows the locations of hidden items"-->"It also featured an 'extras' mode, including an anime cutscene viewer, concept art gallery, music box and enemy bestiary"), while other bits should be dropped altogether (ex: "Nearly half of all auctions at a given time label the game rare, though around thirty copies are constantly available. The misconception of rarity is probably created by the game's comparatively high price to other SNES titles'. In a study lasting a week, cartridges were found around $36.00 while full games netted around $90. A range of other games, mostly sold in lesser numbers, usually sold under the $10.00 mark.[13] Confirming the findings is the Digital Press rarity guide, which lists the game as common"). Really, you could condense the different releases info by as much as 30%, though you should keep mention of the notable fan-attempted remakes and how SE put a stop to them.
The Reception section contains too much use of the game's title and doesn't have enough critical response information. I know some of that can be difficult to get given the game's age, but if you can at least find how various magazines scored the game at the time of its release (do include rerelease scores too, particularly how X magazine rated it then and how they rated it later) and anything that might have liked or disliked about it, that would help a lot.
Finally, you could pretty easily condense the sequels section. Each part doesn't need to have its own header. The OVA should be set to itself (perhaps at the end), while the Satellaview entries (which are only a small paragraph) should include Radical Dreamers, which would then logically lead into mention of Chrono Cross and the fact that the latter used elements of the former and superceded it in canon hierarchy. From there, you could logically lead into future developments of the series (or the lack thereof, as the case happens to be). You want sections to flow into one another smoothly and reasonably. As it stands, the list-style is not only unnecessary and aesthetically unappealing, but it simply doesn't flow well.
Anyway, there's a lot of good stuff in there, but the presentation on much of it falls short. Also, do look into expanding the Story and Reception. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the prose is looking a bit better with the recent edits, but it still has some ways to go. I might try to help out later on if I have time. Ryu Kaze 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll work fastidiously. A fresh pair of eyes will definitely help. After cutting the references out (lots of text), I've found that the main article itself isn't quite as long as I thought. I'll definitely expand the story section if it isn't a problem. I'll be back to post when my copyedit drive is complete for the time being. --Zeality 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright, cool. By the way, could you get all the references in-line and connected to their respective information? In-line references are the way to go completely, and there's no confusion concerning where the information applies. Ryu Kaze 18:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Do you mean for the story? I can dig up some script references. But aren't the other references in-line? --Zeality 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Some for the story would be good, yeah. Sorry if I wasn't clear before: I mean all the references should be along the same line as the ones you have labeled "Notes". That's how we started doing things on the Final Fantasy pages several months ago since it seems to be the preferred way to go (ex: Wikipedia). Ryu Kaze 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
              • One small question. Do we need to wikify all the "Retrieved x and x" stuff? Like, Retrieved June 23 2006? Thought I read that somewhere, but I can't remember. --Zeality 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
                • No, it isn't necessary to wikify retrieval dates. Don't worry about that. Ryu Kaze 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I helped out a bit with the plot. See if you can extend the part from Zeal onwards. Crazyswordsman 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll separate this for ease of location. I've got a question about shortening the different versions section. What should we do with those small mini-CVG template boxes? Chrono Cross has a special section for its boxart, and since those boxes could no longer fit in a shortened section, perhaps we could do something in this vein? --Zeality 18:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, it's done. I fixed up everything in tune except the reception, in that we might have to find someone with back issues of EGM to get another source for the 1995 release. I added some commentary from Nintendo Power to make it more descriptive as a remedy, though. Also fixed references and added some story ones. --Zeality 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Another question about references. Back when we had actual quotes, it seemed necessary to list the same source several times (one for each quote). Now, we just have a bunch of identical Nintendo Powers floating around in the references section. Should we simply take the first reference and add [1] in place of all the other ones for multiple references? --Zeality 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that would probably be best unless you identify which specific page is being referred to in each case. As long as you're referring to the whole group of pages from the review, there might as well be only one umbrella reference. Ryu Kaze 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment with all these prose changes by multiple editors, I'm going to sit back and wait to do the "finishing copyedit" after you guys are done. — Deckiller 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, in response to what Ryu said; while flow is important, don't make it flowery. Encyclopedias should always balance between flow and succinctness. — Deckiller 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The drive is done for now. I've copyedited the article and addressed Rey's & Ryu's comments. --Zeality 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. The article is much better than many other CVG ones, but I do not like the fact that, to add sources, Chrono Compendium did specific researches (in example, For me, that is original research, as there is no difference between that and doing my own research, uploading it to GeoCities, and then using it as resource. Also, Image:Radical Dreamers Frozen Flame.png has no Fair use rationale, and Image:CT Pre-release.jpg and Image:Ctsnesjapanboxart.jpg are too high resolution. I tagged them with {{fairusereduce}}. -- ReyBrujo 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • A rebuttal: I removed the image without a license, as it is unnecessary. As for the others, they can be fixed as well. And just because Chrono Compendium uses original research doesn't violate our policy. We aren't allowed to use original research, but that doesn't mean other people aren't. Crazyswordsman 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    From what I understand, the research was done by a Wikipedia editor. And I am not sure I would calify Chrono Compendium as a reliable independant source. There are other "technicisms" (as like the information should come from several independant sources), but I am happy the image ones have been settled (which are likely to get the most negative reviews). -- ReyBrujo 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    The auction data can be completely removed anyhow when we shorten the versions; it's not exactly relevant to the article. We'll just use the Digital Press guide to say it's marked as a common game. The other sources from the Compendium shouldn't be a problem; there are only 7 or 8, and they're all fan translation / prerelease / rom hack stuff done months ago. No professional journal or magazine will ever cover these, and they aren't of pressing importance to the article's main points (what CT is, its story, etc.) They also form a minority of the references. Can you list anything else wrong with the article? I'm about to fix up the references and experiment in shortening versions (as well as addressing Ryu Kaze's other notes). --Zeality 20:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Two "studies", What is CT's worst flaw? ( and Chrono Cross: The Good, The Bad, and The Fans ( And the price one. If you remove or change the price one, I will change my vote to neutral. If you change or remove the other two, I will change it to support. Sorry, but for me, that is original research. -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Definitely! Okay, I'm about to look for more review sources, so I'll try and pull out a review describing the game as a tad short. That would take care of that one. The price one has been orbitally nuked along with the rest of the unimportant auction rabble. The Chrono Cross one can probably be remedied by finding a review that criticizes the direction. That might take a while, but I should have a lot of sources to go through. Time to rock and roll. --Zeality 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Good luck with finding some refs. Hope you can. Ryu Kaze 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's done. Auction stuff is gone, and two game review references each exist for the short play time and poor handling of the plot / direction for Chrono Cross. --Zeality 21:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Good, changed my vote to Support, if it is still valid (I have worked in some formatting in the article some months ago). I would suggest adding a link to Nintendo page about the game (, even if it has little information, it is the only official link). And to create a subsection for Non official sites. -- ReyBrujo 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Worked on this article months ago, taken much needed leaps in quality and copyediting, looks fantastic. Judgesurreal777 22:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I condensed the Sequels section. While there was some great info in there, I think that some of it was a bit fluffy for this article. Things are looking a lot better in there and I now offer my support. I'd still like to see somre more work done, though, and I'll probably try doing some more copyedits later myself. Ryu Kaze 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I just remembered something I meant to mention earlier: the info in the second paragraph of the lead needs to be added to a Development section, and that second paragraph should be used more to try summarizing the article. For examples, check out Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII. I might do it later if no one else beats me to it. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, Zeality, if I've gone overboard any on edits, I apologize. I don't know if you remember me from GameFAQs or not, but I recognize and respect your work and dedication with regard to the Chrono series and its fans (your Chrono Compendium site is a gem to the fan community), so I gave a bit more focus to someone else's FAC efforts than I might have normally done. I don't want to step on your toes or impede your personal pride where this article's construction is concerned, so I think I might just try to restrict my aid to constructive criticism from here on. Ryu Kaze 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Same here; I think I also went a little overboard earlier today. — Deckiller 02:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No problem at all. Doing this article has been quite an experience, and once it gets Featured Article status, it'll bring some new life to the community. I've learned a lot about editing, and in the process, I've made a good article and hope to get Radical Dreamers the same status. The CT article is totally fluid as far as I'm concerned. Veritas omnia vincit, truth is beauty, let the facts speak for themselves, and all that...we've made the article much more informative and truthful. I'm really thankful for all the help; I've been trying to get some assistance at the Compendium, but there's always a certain pervasive laziness over there. I hardly expected the assistance, and I'm completely grateful. If there's anything else to do before it can get FA, by god, we'd better do it. I'm ready! --Zeality 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I am having a little trouble finding a place for the developer information. It's a small paragraph, and would fall on its face as a one paragraph section. It could be stuck with Audio, but it'd still be relatively small and unrelated there. I've noticed that other CVG articles list that sort of stuff in the lead. Could we just add the proposed article summary in the middle and have the developer information round it out? --Zeality 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, glad you didn't take offense. Anyway, after thinking over what you've pointed out, without extra development information it might be best to leave that developer info in the lead after all. The most development info otherwise is for the audio, and this wouldn't mesh well there, even under a "Development" header with "Audio" as a sub-header. I might do a slight copyedit on the lead, though. Ryu Kaze 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Ryu, you're amazing as ever. You should become admin. Crazyswordsman 03:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Ryu isn't the type to need to be bogged down by administrative duties. Plus, the RfC issue may cause him a lot of opposition. I tried to nominate him once before. He is an asset to the editing community, and I'd hate to see him leave over admin claptrap. — Deckiller 03:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, it's appreciated, CS, but I don't think I'm the type. I'm sure there are plenty of duties involved that I'm not accustomed to and probably wouldn't mesh with my random, but obsessive approach to editing (lazy in 99% of cases, but then 100% dedicated to a particular article or mission of the moment, like adding references to all FFX and FFVII story pages, or changing "computer role-playing game" to "console role-playing game" on the summaries of over 100 image pages) and my attitude's probably not best-suited for it. I can follow rules that I've agreed to follow, but were it personally up to me, I'd have absolutely no patience with vandals or stupid people. It's probably best that I stick to just being the best editor I can be. Ryu Kaze 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • By the way, Zeality, I meant to recommend it earlier: at one point, it was suggested to us during construction of the Final Fantasy X page that we only completely write out our referenced information when it came to script references. For things like interviews and such at other websites, it was said that we should just leave it at a referenced link. We were doing it the same way you've been doing it (which identifies specifically what's being referred to, and seemed like a good idea to me), but we were informed that it's best to leave it at just the link, as anyone looking for the info would find it anyway by following the link. It also prevents you from having a lot of extra wording within paragraphs that future edits could stumble over. Ryu Kaze 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I went ahead and took care of condensing all the references that needed to be, and adding cite book and cite web templates to them. I also gave the lead a copyedit that mostly consisted of rearranging the sentences. I think I'll take a break from it for now. Ryu Kaze 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I've made a copyedit to the reception section. We really need more critical response info. I'm going to try to find some. Ryu Kaze 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Ok, good news. I've found a review on IGN and one on RPGamer. I also remembered that I have a magazine review from when the game was rereleased on the PlayStation. We should be good to go. I'm going to make some adjustments. Ryu Kaze 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, the Reception and criticism section should be good to go. There's not a lot of negative criticism, but there's not a lot of negative criticism about the game in reviews in the first place. There's still some work that needs to be done throughout with prose and such, and some of the images need a little licensing tweaks, but it's looking a lot better. Ryu Kaze 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Images taken care of. Ryu Kaze 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd just like to comment now that I've given a copyedit to every section except the Plot areas, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm sure they're going to be of quality. Out of all the sections I've gone through since further edits were made by Zeality, Deckiller and Crazyswordsman, I've not had to make any ground-up changes (with the exception, of course, being the Reception and criticism section). Mostly it's been tweaking wording and punctuation for flow, or rearranging the placement of a few sentences. The information in these sections has been good, relevant info that should definitely have been included. Good work to everybody involved. I might not perform a copyedit of the Plot section tonight, but if I don't, I'll certainly get to at some point in the next 24 hours. Ryu Kaze 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain besides my despise for CT , the article, well, is more detailed than Final Fantasy VI, and I still think the second is better (must be the huge paragraphs in CT). igordebraga 16:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SPOILER TAGS Please add much-needed spoiler tags to the plot. I think documenting the entire journey is overkill and people who havent played the game may accidentally spoil the story for themselves.
    • Spoiler tags aren't needed. The Plot section is very clearly marked "Plot" and its divided Character and Story sub-sections are also clearly marked. Anyone looking at those sections and not expecting to find plot details isn't going to be saved by a spoiler tag.
    • And touching on the game's entire story is not overkill. This is an encyclopedia, which is defined as a comprehensive body of information. You don't come to an encyclopedia if you don't want comprehensive overviews. Ryu Kaze 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just did a pass through the gameplay section. The section is starting to read and flow more like an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a lot better, so I've struck out my object. But please fix things like: "Each character can take action in battle" ("can be active in battle"? I'm unsure; perhaps it's a standard expression in this context.) I wondered about the use of "tomboy" in "an active, spirited tomboy often at odds with her father"—Does that mean that a sprited girl is a tomboy, but a spirited boy is ... just being a guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talkcontribs) 04:24, 28 July 2006
    • It doesn't mean that she is so spirited that she is a tomboy, it merely means she is a spirited girl who is also a tomboy. A spirited boy could "just be a guy", or any number of other things, just like the girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steampowered (talkcontribs) 11:39, 28 July 2006
      • Yeah, Steampowered explained it. As for the "action in battle" line, that is actually more... to the point, I guess, in this context, since it's a turn-based battle system and their meter has to refill each time. Thanks for getting back to us, by the way, Tony. Ryu Kaze 11:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This article has progressed quite far since just a couple months ago, and I feel that this article gives an excellent description of this game. If I had not already played this game before, there wouldn't be much more I could learn about this game that I haven't already read about in this article. (Steampowered 11:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
    • On behalf of Zeality, myself and the others, thank you. Ryu Kaze 16:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - You guys have done an excellent job on this article, and I think it's FA quality. --PresN 03:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - add spoiler tags. Would it really harm the article to add spoiler tags to the plot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you both for the support. And the matter of spoiler tags is explained in responses to your suggestion on Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy VI. Thanks again, guys. Ryu Kaze 13:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since there is so much text struck out here, here's a summary of the discussion to date: 8 Supports/Strong supports; 1 Abstain, 1 Spoiler Tags, 1 Support dependant on spoiler tags, 0 Objects. --PresN 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - As someone who has touched up the article from time to time and watched it evolve into the outstanding piece of work it is today, I do believe it's FA material. ~ Hibana 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! Ryu Kaze 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of BlenheimEdit

I came across this last night and have been tidying it - it's a good-sized article, copiously cited and decently written, on a major historic event. Doesn't seem to be missing anything obvious that I can see. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support this very nice article! Lead could use a little expansion though. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rlevse 12:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Only three sources are given, all from British writers (one of which is the brother of Princess Diana). I would hope that 300 years on nationalism and historical romanticisation wouldn't creep into any of the text or bias the accounts, but I would feel more comfortable if more sources were included; preferably some French and German. --Oldak Quill 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just added information for the referenced text The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army. Unfortunately, since David Chandler is both the editor of this book and the author of the first book in the references list, the notes section is unclear as to which book is being referenced. MarkBuckles 08:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • To differentiate between two books by the same author you normally follow the surname by the date of publication (eg. "Smith 2004"). --Oldak Quill 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Oldakquill in seeing this as undersourced. One author (discounting the feeble efforts of Spencer, see note 11 for an example) is not enough. I suggest that Lynn's Wars of Louis XIV might be a useful second source. Churchillian and Creasyesque nationalist tub thumping are quite unnecessary and have no place in an FAC. A general problem with writings on the War of the Spanish Succession is the same as those on the Hundred Years War; you don't see the wood for the trees. Same here with the "decisive" victory claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object It's a good article, but the source issue is bothering me too. The reason is because the article seems too British-centered, which would obviously follow from sole use of British sources. There is analysis of Franco-Bavarian movements, but not nearly as much as those of Marlborough. The "decisive victory" label is more than appropriate; Blenheim was one of the greatest tactical masterpieces of all time. It was not politically decisive, but few individual battles in this era were.UberCryxic 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The battle is a particular milestone for the British. It was the Waterloo of the century before Waterloo, and consequently it's not off the mark to have some of that tub thumping, so long as it is understood as "from the British point of view, Churchill's decision was brilliant," etc. I.e. it would not be a critical stop to have the Anglo point of view, if it were clear throughout that what is being reported is that this is the perception of the battle rather than an objective reality. To set the more objective scene, other sources would be necessary, and Angus McLellan has good tips. British political history is still overshadowed by the positivist and Whiggish historians of the 19th century, and the military history still has too few cynical or critical sources. No vote. Geogre 12:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all thank you Shimgray for nominating the article. I’m also very impressed by all the comments made by the all the other contributors.

Let me briefly address Angus’s comments on Creaseyesque and Churchillian ‘tub-thumping’. Both historians are credible and important sources of historical appreciation. One quote from Creasey (which was added by another writer) and one from Churchill, that are fully sourced, is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopaedic article. It is just as relevant to quote these historians as it would be, for example, to quote Gibbon in an article on the fall of Rome. History is not a pure science it is about interpretation of the ‘facts’ as we know them: John Lynn’s ‘facts’ are no more or no less coloured by his interpretation and perspective than Charles Spencer. Spencer is a source I shall continue to use, and am using, in a rewrite of another battle in the 1704 campaign, the Battle of Schellenberg. It is acceptable as long it is backed up by other sources, which was in this case John Tincey’s ‘Blenheim 1704:The Duke of Marlborough's Masterpiece’. Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2004. ISBN 1841767719. I omitted to add it to the reference list but every detail of the battle was checked using Tincey’s book. Adding German or French sources is not going to change the details of the battle. As John Lynn says 1704-1706 were ‘years of triumph for Marlborough and Eugene’. There is no debate in historical circles that the battle was a resounding victory for the allies – this is not a moot point.

What’s wrong with the word decisive? Knocking Bavaria out of the war and routing the Franco-Bavarian army was pretty decisive in that all the allies’ goals were accomplished. Again let me quote Lynn – ‘The crushing Allied victory at Blenheim did not decide the fate of the war, but it ended the war on the Danube’. Maybe we need to agree on a definition of the word ‘decisive’.

It is fair to say that the article is somewhat Anglo-centric. Part of this was because I was concerned that the article was getting too long. This is why I labelled one sub-heading as ‘Marlborough’s march’. I could have gone into more detail about Tallard’s shambolic and near disastrous march to the Danube but I was concerned about the article’s length. What is the ideal length of an article? Is there a limit?

I agree with the basic thrust of the comments made however. I will try to bring up to FA standard that we can all accept, fully sourced and with a few minor additions/alterations. I would be very appreciative if you would then get back to me and comment. Please don’t read anything I say as belligerent. All your criticisms are valid, welcome and much appreciated. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: There isn't an ideal FA length. Some people will complain if it gets very long, but "very long" is always subjective. If you hold your readers' attentions, they won't complain at length, and if you don't.... Well, that's not going to be an issue. Some FA's have been extremely long (I'm guilty with A Tale of a Tub and Augustan literature), but the subject matter will excuse detail or punish it. If you need the length, use it and let people ask for tightening. It's better to do that than to abridge ahead of time and confuse your readers. Geogre 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've rewritten most of the article, taking into consideration the comments made. Raymond Palmer 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Strong Support after substantial improvements. This is quite the legendary battle article now, rivaling even my Austerlitz (!)UberCryxic 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: One thing that should be added is the importance of Bavaria to the Austrian war effort after Blenheim. Because of the weak Austrian finance and the rebellion in the east the contribution they could levee in Bavaria was vital to continuing the war, especially later in the war when the English and later the Dutch betrayed them.--Carl Logan 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the time being. Here are some suggestions for improvement from the first half of the article. MarkBuckles (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Scholarly tone: "It also resulted in knocking Bavaria out of the war." and "he would return in good time", and "side-stepping Thüngen's efforts to intercept him"
    • NPOV: "leading to the brilliant Villars being replaced by the less dynamic Marsin" and "with considerable skill, Marshall Tallard managed to bring 10,000 reinforcements" and "The whole operation was an outstanding military achievement." (for this last one, would like to see some information on who thinks so in the article body, even with a cite). Also "Marlborough skilfully encouraged this apprehension"
    • Unexplained, unlinked vocab: "whose loss would almost certainly have led to the collapse of the Grand Alliance"
    • Redlinks: Robert Alexander Hillingford and Jacob van Schuppen. possible to create a stub or network to find a art-interested wikipedian who can? Also, Gross Heppach and Launsheim
    • Table proportion: Is it just my browser, or does is the France and Bavaria side of the table almost twice as big as the England side?
    • Single-sentence paragraphs: "The only forces immediately available for the defence of Vienna were Prince Louis of Baden's force of 36,000 stationed in the Lines of Stollhofen[5] to watch Tallard."
    • Long quotes should use block quotation style.
    • Context of quotations: "A scarlet caterpillar, upon which all eyes were at once fixed, began to crawl steadfastly day by day across the map of Europe, dragging the whole war with it." Poetic, but not sure this is a good way to begin a section of an enyclopedia. Full quotes like that should have some in-line explanation. I would prefer the situation be presented and then illustrated with a quote. And why is Churchill talking about this? Was he a scholar on the subject? I would want to know.
    • Voice: "It was decided that Eugène would advance" who decided?
  • Support: It's a great article on an important subject. I can certainly see the uses of each of the things others are objecting to and decipher the passives, etc. If sentence 1 is "the three met" and sentence 2 is "it was decided that," then the passive, while still being a passive, is comprehensible. The epigrammatic quotations are interesting, too (the tactic depends upon others following Churchill; if they don't, then Holland freaks out; Churchill IV says that Churchill Sr. is a red (lobster back) caterpillar that everyone watches: the tactic worked), so I have no problem. The general assessment also works. My own knowledge is mainly of the effects of the battle back in London, the very large political effects. Great stuff. Geogre 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Very good effort on a very important confrontation. Along with Yorktown and Valmy, Blenheim is the most important battle of the 18th century and this article does it justice. Well writ, well illustrated and well referenced.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - masterful. It is ages since I read Churchill, but, if I may suggest, some details from the chapter on John Churchill in Mark Urban's recent book, Generals, could add even more colour to an already rich tapestry (it would be nice to explain how difficult Marlborough found the Dutch - he essentially presented them with an ultimatum, either they could come with the British or he would march his troops south alone; it would also be good to explain how unusual it was for a British army to venture so far away from the coast and the possibility of escape with the Royal Navy; there is no mention of the Allied centre essentially remaining still, taking artillery fire, for an hour or two as it was reinforced and Eugene's attack was organised - Marlborough ordered his infantry to lie down and the cavalry to dismount; after being captured, Tallard sent to Marlborough asking him to let the French army withdraw, and Marlborough replied "Inform M Tallard that in the position in which he now is, he has no command."; after the battle, Frenchmen were heard to plaintively say Oh que dira le Roy!; later, Tallard congratulated Marlborough on beating the best soldiers in the world, and Marlborough replied "execpt those who had the honour to beat them".) -- ALoan (Talk) 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object on a few formatting issues that need to be cleaned up:
    • Quotes should not be italicized if they are in quotation marks.
    • The source of an epigraph should be separated from the text of the quote by an em-dash.
    • The nested header in the "Cultural references" section is unnecessary.
Fix these points, and I'll be happy to support. Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Green and Golden Bell FrogEdit

This article is a couple of pages longer than it was about 3 weeks ago when I started working on it. It has undergone a peer review with brought up all the content that needed to go into. It has been partially copy-edited by myself, liquidGhoul and Peta and fully copyedited by Samsara. It is well reference and I think it is FA quality. If you find anything that you think needs to be referenced please let me know and I can fix it up. Thanks -- Froggydarb croak 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Looks quite good from a first glance-through. Nice work. Jkelly 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "Conservation status" needs some reorganisation and copyediting. Why do the factors "seem to be" involved? The salinity section reads like an afterthought.Jkelly 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll move the salinity section into "ecology and behaviour". -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a well-researched animal piece.--K.C. Tang 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. You have to love frogs. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has come along way since I de-stubbed it.--Tnarg12345 09:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great info and pictures Cas Liber 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rlevse 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • weak object Support. The article is excellent but I have a few minor concerns.
  • "The species is now classified within the Litoria aurea complex". What is the Litoria aurea complex?
The aurea complex is a group of very similar frogs. The Litoria genus can be broken up into several complexes. The species in the complex are outlined in the article.--Tnarg12345 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can this be explained in the article? Joelito (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Froggydarb croak 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "The tadpoles of the Green and Golden Bell Frog are large, reaching 80 mm (3.15 in) in length". Is this accurate? The species reaches a maximum of 110 mm which makes me question if tadpoles can really reach that length.
Bell frog tadpoles can get that large.--Tnarg12345 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Given this species' ability to live in disturbed habitat, pollution and habitat loss are unlikely to be the main cause of the population decline, although they may contribute". Is this a logical inference by the article's authors? If not can we have a citation for this sentence?
Bell frogs are often found in some of the most polluted habitats around.--Tnarg12345 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This statement is not found in the article. Please include it and i f possible cite it. Joelito (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've totally deleted the sentence, I goes against what the rest of the article says and it would appear that both pollution and habitat loss/degredation are some of the major contributors to population decline, heres a link (under "Major Threats") -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Then that makes the article contradict itself, disused industrial sites aren't exactly pristine.--Tnarg12345 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, I've reworded it and placed it back in there. -- Froggydarb croak 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can the image of the species's New Zealand range be changed so that the color scheme follows the Australia image? (minor issue)
    Nop, there are no maps on Wiki or on Commons, of New Zealand, that are in the same colour scheme as the Australian map. -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article would benefit from a light copyediting.

I will change to support once this issues have either been corrected or explained to me. Joelito (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • All of your comments have now benn addressed :) -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on prior support As usual, I went briefly to the bottom and middle of the article and looked at a random sample. Here is the first paragraph my eyes landed on:
    • Tadpoles were released, over a number of years into specially designed pond and dams at Collaroy in northern Sydney. Bell Frogs had previously been located in the area, however the population had been lost. Although large number of tadpoles being released the program has only had minor sucess. Adult Bell Frogs are now occasionally found on golf course, however a permanent breeding population is yet to be established.
This section was added after I nominated it, I will try and fix it up. -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at rewording it: "Between 1998 and 2004, tadpoles were released into specially designed ponds and dams on Long Reef Golf Course at Collaroy in northern Sydney. Green and Golden Bell Frogs had previously been located in the area, however the population had since been lost. Although a large number of tadpoles were released during the program it had almost no sucess. Adult Bell Frogs are occasionally found on golf course, however a permanent breeding population is yet to be established." -- Froggydarb croak 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I see five Supports above with little commentary. Based on the sample text above, I am curious about how many of the supporting reviewers actually read the article? Is this featured article prose?
  • The article is also underreferenced. Given that it already has so much support, why should I bother to object? Do we really promote articles to FA based on great pictures? (By the way, great pictures.) Sandy 18:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that it needs a copyediting but the article is not underreferenced. Remember that not all references exist in the form of in-line citations. Maybe the article needs more in-lines but plenty of book references are available in the ref section. Joelito (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I need to be more careful in my terminology. By underreferenced, I was referring to a need for more inline citations. I'll correct my terminology on that in the future :-) Sandy 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is underreferenced, look at White's Tree Frog it has six inline refs and it is FA. -- Froggydarb croak 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't refer to existing FAs for comparison: it might not meet current FA standards. Sandy 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—This is a good candidate, but there are still glitches in the prose. For example:
    • "The bone and cartilage structural formations of the Green and Golden Bell Frog are closest to that of species in the family Hylidae." This is unclear: "that" should be "those", I presume, but I guess you don't mean "all" species in the family Hylidae, do you? If not, can you specify them, or say "most species in", or something like that?
    • "south-east"—I wonder whether this, and related epithets, can be conflated into one word. It's increasingly common to do so, and neater, IMV. They occur quite a lot.
  • I'm unsure on what else to use. These terms are frquently used in field guides. -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Only the ranges of L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and the general body shape and colouration are similar." Do these two ideas belong in the one sentence, at least closely joined as they are by the glue of ", and"? Unsure how to fix.
  • They were together to point out that those species (aurea, raniformis and castenea) may be confused with each other. It now reads: "Only the ranges of L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and the general body shape and colouration are similar, these factors may make it difficult to distinguish between the species." -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "The Yellow Spotted Tree Frog has large yellow spots present on its the thighs and has not been seen for a number of years, so may now be extinct." Same issue again. Can you re-allocate the ideas among the sentences in this paragraph so that they're all smoothly integrated into their sentences? Perhaps check the rest for the same issue. More copy-editing require. Tony 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reworded it: The Yellow Spotted Tree Frog has not been seen since 1980 and may now be extinct, although the large yellow spots present on its thighs help distinguish it from the Green and Golden Bell Frog. -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's very good; interesting, well-written, good length. I would like to see a few more inline references so that readers can see where particular points have come from. Also, I was about to fix something, but I'm not sure what the second means: "In 1998 a captive breeding program was set up ... It involved captive captive breeding frogs and releasing large numbers of tadpoles back into the wild ..." There are two captives, but should it say "it involved captive-bred frogs," or "it involved breeding frogs in captivity," or perhaps something else? Also, given that you say it was a captive breeding program, is it necessary to add that it involved frogs who were bred in captivity? :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll read the entire paragraph again, but I'd say it is a typo :) -- Froggydarb croak 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, I made it "...the captive breeding of wild frogs..." -- Froggydarb croak 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good article on the whole. I will suggest a few items that could be improved:
    • "Only the ranges of L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and the general body shape and colouration are similar, these factors may make it difficult to distinguish between the species." Beyond being a run-on sentence, this overlaps with Tony's concern above. I suggest making it clearer in this area that you are providing a brief description of how to distinguish the species. I think that would address Tony's concern that one sentence is describing both range/habitat and appearance.
    • "When in breeding condition, males have swollen thumbs, as they develop nuptial pads used to grip females during mating." Clarify "they"--males or thumbs? How about ""When in breeding condition, males develop nuptial pads on their thumbs, which are used to grip females during mating."
    • The references refer to both "Australian Zoologist" and "Aust. Zool.", and some article titles are in quotes, others aren't.
  • For the record, I copy-edited this article (a claim which many make, it seems) shortly after nomination. When I do this, it's for a few reasons: a) I feel like it; b) it is more pragmatic to make many types of copy improvements than to talk about what fixes should be made; and c) I hope someone will find it helpful towards their FA nom. I think you'd be seeing more oppositions on the basis of prose otherwise. (e.g. from Aug. 5: "The Yellow Spotted Tree Frog has large yellow spots present in the thighs and not being seen for a number of years and may now be extinct, the Growling Grass Frog, which is very similar to the Green and Golden Bell Frog, can only be readily distinguished by raised bumps on the dorsal surface.") Outriggr 06:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • All fixed, I think, is this alright: "The range of both L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with the Green and Golden Bell Frog, this as well as physical similarities may make it difficult to distinguish between the species." Thanks for your copyedit. -- Froggydarb croak 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup, that gets the idea across better. Regarding the sentence itself, I'd say, "The ranges of both L. raniformis and L. castanea overlap with that of the Green and Golden Bell Frog[run-on sentence; need period or semi-colon]. The similarities in range and physical appearance can make it difficult to distinguish between the species." Thanks, Outriggr 07:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - poor representation of the species; doesnt cover as much information as it should. Look here for the areas missing. [22] - but I think that it has a chance for Featured Article status in the long run. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What is so poorly represented, can you please specify what part of the article is and why. Nothing on that website isn't included in the article, and if there is info that isn't included, it is because it can't be cited to an original paper. -- Froggydarb croak 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything in that web link is covered in the article, plus a lot more. I think that this article is one of the best representations of the species around.--Tnarg12345 08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Guess he coudn't of read the whole article. I took a look at GoOdCoNtEnT's contributions and saw that he went through and voted on 32 articles in the space of 65 minutes that’s about an article every 2 minutes. Those 32 articles consisted of roughly 210 pages (more on a smaller resolution, mine is 1280x960). Each page consists of roughly 30 lines (about 20 on 1024x728 resolution), this is about 760 words and 500 a page respectively. This equates to about 3 pages a minute, therefore between 90 and 60 lines a minutes, therefore between 2280 and 1500 words a minute, therefore between 38 and 25 words a second. Damn, I wish I could read that fast. And remember that doesn’t take into account the time it took to right and save his comment on each nomination page. -- Froggydarb croak 09:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that the user has nominated three FACs at once, currently on this page. I wouldn't worry about his comment; I trust it will be weighted appropriately (→0) in the scheme of things. Outriggr 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Make that four. Sandy 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to see something mentioned/cited about the old 'second airport' proposal at Homebush Bay in the conservation section, (and any other such proposals defeated by the frog) - if memory serves, once the Green and Golden Bell Frog was discovered to be present, the project there was swiftly abandoned. (this is about ten years ago...) Just with the referencing, some of the references lack full citations. What's the difference between cited references, and references? Is there any way to merge either both of these, or references with external links (probably further reading).. Also, it would be good to mention the other governmental plans for the Frog, such as the NPWS Recovery Plan, as that also has significance. If you could reference a page with a sound of the frog when you describe it, that would be very good. :) You've done excellent work on this page, I hope it makes it to FA! - Malkinann 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a airport proposal at Homebush as well. The proposal for an airport at Kooragang Island was axed because of this frog. --liquidGhoul 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I may very well be getting confused - which is all the more reason why this stuff should be in the article! ;) Taking a peek at {{cite web}} may help with the citation troubles. - Malkinann 04:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I'm not exactly sure what you mean about references lacking full citation. -- Froggydarb croak 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Abstracts for some papers may be available on pubmed, for example. However, the best template to use now is {{cite science}}. Regards, Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look through all the Green and Golden Bell Frog publications on pubmed they don't have any extracts of current inline citations. Cheers -- Froggydarb croak 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


See also: archived discussion page for the first expired FAC nomination

This is a self-nomination. This article was first nominated by User:Skittle two months ago and it went through a month-long enhancement, mainly in inline citation. It has been a month since the nomination was retired. And I believe all previous problems are now addressed. The article was given Wikipedia:Good articles status on June 29th. Fred Hsu 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Seems like it deserves to be featured. 11kowrom 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I apprecate that the images are necessary to explain the subject, but the current layout is pretty messy, and I'm sure must look worse at some resolutions.--Peta 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative objection. Agree with Peta and also find the style unencyclopaedic in places:
    • "converging the two eyes at a point behind the pattern" - how about "focus"?
    • "One needs to fight this urge"
Looks like a great article otherwise.
Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The first quote doesn't refer to focus. Both eyes are focused on the image (they have to be or else it would be blurry, 3D or not), they are just focused on different parts of it, so the lines of sight intersect at a point behind the image. I'm not sure how the wording could be improved... —Keenan Pepper 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The layout seems to work at 800 width with Monobook. Support. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • About the layout: I've tried very hard to make these images fit better, but it was almost impossible to make it better (see formatting issues during peer review and layout discusion. I know this article is not a typical wikipedia article. The ratio of images to text is way higher than the norm. Fred Hsu 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • About the 'urge' sentence: You have a good point. I rephrased that sentence :) Fred Hsu 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. It was looking well-written until I hit "such as in a repeating pattern like you might see on wallpaper", which crashes on several counts. Further scrutiny revealed problems such as:
    • "Julesz used a computer to create a stereo pair of random-dot images which when viewed under a stereoscope, caused the brain to see 3D shapes. This proved that depth perception was a neurological process."—Tense: shouldn't it be "cause" and "is", for permanent facts? More commas please, such as after "which". Please go through and audit the text with respect to both of these issues.
      • Keenan already fixed these and a few dozen other bad sentences. Fred Hsu 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Around 1849-1850, David Brewster, a Scottish scientist, improved the Wheatstone stereoscope by using lenses instead of mirrors, thus reducing the size of the contraption. Brewster also noticed that staring at repeated patterns in wallpapers could trick the brain"—Can't you make it "In 1849 and 1850"? (Maybe not; it just looks awkward as is.) Get rid of "also" to strengthen the flow of the text. The word reduces the impact of your main point (what he noticed).
      • It is not clear in which year this incident took place. I changed it to "Between 1849 and 1850". What do you think? I also removed "also" as you suggested. Fred Hsu 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I wish you'd tell us how to look at the first image, on the spot. Perhaps in the image info page, since you invite us to click on the thumbnail image?
      • I made the words "viewing technique" a link to the "Viewing Techniques" section. I wish I could explain the technique in a few words. But it is impossible. Fred Hsu 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good article, but please get a colleague, whether a WPian or external person, to sift through the whole article; the prose is not yet "compelling, even brilliant". Tony 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one else gets to it by this evening, I'll go over it with a fine-toothed comb. —Keenan Pepper 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Keenan, for going over the entire article again! I'll address the rest of issues our dreaded Tony brought up tomorrow, if you don't get to them. Thanks again. Fred Hsu 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't gotten to the last section Autostereogram#Viewing techniques yet, and that may be the one with the most problems. I'll look at it right now. —Keenan Pepper 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, how nice to be famous.   You do want to be proud of the article, don't you? Tony 09:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure he didn't mean it personally. Anyway, the article could still use a little work. Specifically, it's 33 kB long, slightly over the suggested limit of 32 kB, and it could use some omitting of needless words, as Strunk and White say. I'll try to do some pruning. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course I meant it personally, as a compliment :) I read Tony's comment on other candidates and his Guide on 2a with admiration. But I simply don't have the skills to perfect English writing :( I knew he would strike sooner or later, and hoped that someone like Keenan would step in to help ;) Fred Hsu 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No one takes the 33 kB limit as a strict boundary, and much larger FACs are regularly promoted. But prune for readability and concision. Tony 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So... what's the verdict? I believe all known problems are addressed during this latest round of copyediting. I hate to see this second nomination 'expire' like the first one. Will some kind soul put a stamp of approval or disapproval on this article? Fred Hsu 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Very interesting, and, in my opinion, sufficiently well-written. It even talks about the type of people (like me!) who can't see the things. A few minor points: please remove all bold from the article except that which appears in the first sentence. If possible, make images that are next to each other have the same frame size (will be based on the length of the captions and the width vs. height of the images). Consider reducing the size of the largest images (perhaps a max of 300-350px would be more approriate for people with 800x600 screens). Also, using a gallery may be a good idea for the first three images in the 3D perception section. Finally, I'd suggest renaming the section currently called "How they work", though I'm not sure what a good alternative would be. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I will work on your suggestions later today. Fred Hsu 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • All bold words have been turned into either plain words or italic. Fred Hsu 03:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just adjusted size of some images. And yes, I know the article is now promoted to FA. But I will continue to make small improvements. Thanks!!! Fred Hsu 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric BanaEdit

Self-nomination: This article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. It has been greatly expanded, with references and citations and such. It received very little attention in peer review, but I think that this article is ready now, and I hope you agree. -- Underneath-it-All 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is there any critical appraisal of his work? This should be included in a separate section. Otherwise, the article seems to be quite good. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I put critical appraisal within the body of the film career section of the article, so everything about that certain film is all in one section. -- Underneath-it-All 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm late. I change my vote to Support. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would definitely suggest a lot more sources throughout. Statements like "The Castle was a critical and financial success, but its humour was not well received by audiences outside of Australia" definitely need a source (or two:)) . Mad Jack 05:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added more sources throughout the entire article. -- Underneath-it-All 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The following sentence is missing some information (which I assume is the $ symbol) but someone who knows should probably add it. The Castle was a surprise critical and financial success, earning 877,621 at the box office in Australia. JenLouise 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the missing dollar sign. -- Underneath-it-All 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Also alot of the phrasing is pretty bad (eg. Dominik had been working on the project for five years and had been having a difficult time finding an actor to portray Read. I'll go through and rephrase where I can, but it needs a serious look at. Specifically, the word had is way overused and sentences containing it could be better articulated.JenLouise 02:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I changed the line to Dominik had been working on the project for five years, but was unable to find an actor to portray Read. I have also went through the article again and have fixed minor grammer and spelling errors. -- Underneath-it-All 03:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is not geographically specific. Many financial figures are simply quoted as "$" but apparently at different places "$" means different things. See WP:NUM - I suggest writing [[United States dollar|US$]] and [[Australian dollar|AU$]] on first appearances and simply US$ and AU$ thereafter (no redundant wikilinks). TheGrappler 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed this, but what about international money totals? I have stated the international box office gross for Troy but do not know what to put in front of it. Do I just leave it? -- Underneath-it-All 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's actually measured in US$, I think it would be a good idea to say so. Makes things less ambiguous. TheGrappler 11:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have fixed all the financial figures. -- Underneath-it-All 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object—nice job with the article, but I've got a few questions:
  • "for his impressions of his teachers, which he used to get himself out of trouble." Could this be expanded more?
Expanded a bit. Explained why he performed impressions and when he began to do them. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "supporting himself by clearing tables". Was he not successful as a comedian?
Explained why he had to continue to clear tables. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "which told the story of a Melbourne-based family's struggles". Not interesting. What kind of struggles? Could this be expanded somehow? If not, take it out.
Expanded the film's plot and why the family is stuggling. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Although the film received a limited release outside of Australia, Bana's performance was met with positive reviews." Not sure what this is trying to convey—is "limited release" a good thing or bad thing? How is it related to the type of reviews he received?
Reworded sentence to just say it was given a limited release outside of Australia. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The subsections in "Personal life" are rather short. Can they be expanded at all?
I have expanded the interests section, but cannot really expand the section on his family life as he is a private man and not much is published about his personal life. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace or remove the "Newspaper unknown" reference; that's scary.
I have replaced it with a reference with a magazine name. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How were the three general references used? I'm a little confused about those.
The general references were for used in place of articles I could not source (ex. these articles did not have the newspaper they were published in etc.). These general sources are pretty reliable, as they have been used as his biographies on web sites such as IMDB and All Movie Guide. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do any books exist that could be used as sources? Any biographies of this guy yet?
Bana is not really well known outside of Australia and as far as I know, there hasn't been any biographies published about him. -- Underneath-it-All 01:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't far from FA status, just needs a few more touches. --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Supporting now. I don't suppose there's any way to get a free image. Thanks for making the fixes. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can try and see if I can find one. Thanks for your suggestions. I think they have improved the article greatly! -- Underneath-it-All 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: The whole this needs a copyedit. A few specific comments:
  1. His most popular films include Hulk, Troy (2004), and Munich (2005). -- how can that be the case is Hulk was a box office disaster?
  2. What is an "audition tape"?

--ppm 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article. While Bana did gain a lot of media exposure for Hulk and he is well known for his role, you are right in the fact that it was not one of his most popular films. I have changed this to Black Hawk Down. As for the last sentence, I have reworded it. -- Underneath-it-All 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. A citation spot check found issues(of varying severity) with 4 out of 5 footnotes checked (Results here). There seems to be a problem with statements being cited to sources related to but not directly supporting the statements in the article. --RobthTalk 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have now gone through the article and have checked every reference, fixing them and in some cases removing or reworking sentences. I have also addressed your concerns on the article's talk page. -- Underneath-it-All 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Looks much better. --RobthTalk 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it important to have info on his children? Anyway, support, good article. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Other biographies that were featured articles talked briefly about the subjects children, so that's why I included a bit on his children. -- Underneath-it-All 21:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—I'm sorry to have entered this page late. The entire text—not just the following examples—needs a run-through to weed out bad prose.
    • "featured skits, stand-up and celebrity guests but failed to attract a substantial audience and was cancelled due to low ratings after only eight episodes."—Comma required before "but" (more commas throughout the article would improve readability). Don't you mean that it "was cancelled after only eight episodes due to low ratings"?
    • "Bana was invited to perform on Steve Vizard's late night talk show, Tonight Live, making his television debut."—Better prose is required by the FA criterion 2a: "Bana was invited to make his television debut on Steve Vizard's late night talk show, Tonight Live."
    • "he was persuaded to try stand-up comedy while working as a barman at Melbourne's Castle Hotel."—What, he did the stand-up comedy act at the bar? Make it clear.
    • "Bana performs predominantly in leading roles in a variety of low-budget and major studio films, ranging from romantic comedies and drama to science fiction and action thrillers. His most popular films include Black Hawk Down, Troy (2004), and Munich (2005)."—Why not plain and simple: "Bana mostly performs"? Pick the group of three redundant words (and as well, we have "ranging from" in the subsequent clause). Can you possibly replace "include" with "are"? You're implying that there are other "most popular films" that you're not listing here.
    • "The two were married in 1997, after Bana proposed to her"—Not three? Just make it "They were married ...".

A copy-editor who is relatively unfamiliar with the text is needed—it will take about an hour. Please network to identify such a person. Tony 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Haha! I'm about to do the unthinkable and suggest that Tony's suggestion still contains redundant words: instead of "Bana was invited to make his television debut", why not "Bana made his television debut"? ;-) I'm working on doing a more thorough copyedit—I did the first level two section, and will hit the others tomorrow. Hopefully I'll catch the important stuff. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it, Spangineer. Tony 03:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it took longer than an hour, but I went through the whole thing and fixed it up a bit. One thing: "He recently finished filming Romulus, My Father in Australia." sounds like an afterthought. Hope the changes were helpful. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Obection withdrawn, but it makes you wonder why the nominator didn't organise help before nomination. Thanks to Spangineer. Tony 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Seperating the "early life" and "personal life" sections at each end of the article makes the article flow poorly. It also contains very little about his comedy career, including only one sentence on his time as Full Frontal, which was the break that first brought him to nationwide fame. Rebecca 05:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is a brief summary of Bana's career. Everything cannot be mentioned. How would you suggest expanding this section? Also, other Featured Articles on performers such as Diane Keaton, Uma Thurman and Katie Holmes have seperate sections on the performer's "early life" and "personal life". -- Underneath-it-All 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've crossed out my former objection, as while it is bad practice, I can't hold it against you for following earlier precedent. That said, it really does need more about his time on Full Frontal. This series launched him to national fame, and paved the way for his entire later career, and it is given only one sentence in this article - compared to his fleeting bit role in The Castle, which is given an entire paragraph. There should be plenty around from the time, although it may require some searching of newspaper archives (as, being in 1994-95, there probably isn't much online). Rebecca 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a small bit on where he got his character inspirations from, but other than that I am lacking info on this time in his life. Most biographies only include one quick sentence about his time on Full Frontal (such as his official bio on his managements website). Other articles (which I have looked up on spend very little time discussing this period. -- Underneath-it-All 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Three "fair use" images in only 21k of text is two too many. User:Angr 06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed an image. Now there are only two. -- Underneath-it-All 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Satyajit RayEdit

This article on the Indian filmmamker has improved considerably in the last months. A very comprehensive peer review was done, and the issues raised there have been addressed. The article size is 47KB, but much less if the numerous citations are discounted. Thanks,--ppm 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Very good work, and thoroughly peer reviewed. I have only one small comment, which I feel should be handled immediately. The article has the stamp Image:Domsat1.jpg, which is a set of stamps featuring RAy and one of his movies. However, the stamp's license, {{Stamp}} clearly states that for "Fair Use", the image of the stamp can be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design), on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation". So, the stamp cannot be used in this article. This is a very minor issue, but "Fair Use" doesn't apply in using the stamp here. I personally used to think we can use stamps to illustrate the subject of the stamp, but after some discussion and reading of the "Fair Use" criteria, it appears that we cannot use stamps in articles not related to stamps or philately ... i.e. we can't use a stamp on Ray in Ray's article. So, please remove the stamp ... it doesn't hurt the article, but removes any potential "Fair use" problems. Thanks. --Ragib 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Query- when it says "to illustrate the stamp in question", does it mean the *whole* article must be on the stamp, or only that the stamp itself must *also* be discussed? The stamp is mentioned explicitly in the article--ppm 04:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:FAIR#Images. It says "Stamps and currency" (can be used) "For identification.". Also, Category:Fair_use_stamp_images specifically says stamps should not be used to illustrate subjects of the article. I quote:
As the template mentions, stamp images in this category should not be used solely as a cheap way to illustrate articles. In addition to the problem that images are often altered for artistic reasons and thus may not be factually accurate representations of their subject, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria does not allow for it.
In some cases, the issuance of a stamp is itself notable, and the stamp may be allowable in the article (for instance, if the issuance of the stamp was an overtly political act, with the design chosen for political purposes). For these images, the image description page must describe this as part of its fair use rationale, and the article(s) using the stamp must do so also.
Use of these images in philatelic articles is almost always legitimate. The image description pages should mention this also, ideally with links to the article(s), so as to facilitate future automated link checking. (As of March 2006, most will need to be added.)
So, fair use doesn't apply here. The stamp isn't irreplaceable for the article, so it's better not to use questionable fair use images such as this. Thanks. --Ragib 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the stamp--ppm 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You did the correct thing - Yes. --Bhadani 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support thorough and dedicated work by Shmitra. Congratulations! Rama's arrow 07:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Just one comment. The section New directions (1965 - 1982) looks a bit choppy with 8 small paragraphs. Can it be made compact? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

merged a few paragraphs--ppm 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the lead is overlinked and the language is a bit too glowing in places- I think a copyedit might tidy this up.--Peta 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
reduced wikilinking in the lead--ppm 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Weak Support for now (will change to strong support after minor copyediting). Commendable effort from Shmitra especially, but I'd like to see some changes to the prose before I support this. More specifically, my objection is to the excessive use of review quotes, especially laudatory ones to describe the movies. This makes some parts look more like an essay than an encyclopaedia.Most concerns have been addressed. Thank you.

:Couple of minor things:The Indian reaction was similar (Apu) - the sentence is ambiguous (I think the meaning is that the Indian reaction was positive)

:Ray had not thought about a trilogy while making Aparajito, and it occurred to him only after being asked about the idea in Venice - though this might be true, I would like to see a source for a matter-of-fact statement like that.Great work, comprehensive article. And thanks for removing a lot of quotation marks :-) - Cribananda 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Added citation for Apur Sansar. I also removed 2 of the 3 review citation for Pather Panchali. The remaining reviews are all negative. Wood and Kurosawa's statements are not reviews, they are from books or letters.--ppm 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - this is a perfect article - informative, interesting, non-biased, well-cited, rarely vandalized. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: a nicely creatred article on one of the greaterst filmmakers. BTW, I am a fan of his movies, and have seen many. --Bhadani 11:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support: I Admire shmitra for doing a great work. Auyon06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the ColossusEdit

I believe this article to meet all the criteria of being listed as an example of Wikipedia's finest. It's well written, having been slightly to significantly copyedited by several editors, including at least two from outside this nomination, as well as efficiently and relevantly illustrated, making use of images that convey an idea of each major concept mentioned, including aspects of gameplay. Moreover, it is extremely well-referenced, provides a comprehensive and clear overview of the plot-related aspects of Shadow of the Colossus's content while recognizing brevity appropriate to the subject material. It also features a thorough description of the game's reception, both commercial and critical, taking care to provide input from respected and recognized names in this works' medium, and an informative dissertation on the concepts and practices that went into the development of the title. May the nomination begin! Ryu Kaze 22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to co-nominate this article. Thanks to Deckiller for being our outside copyeditor. -- Steel 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I only copyedited like two paragraphs, BTW :) — Deckiller 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you did slightly more than two, but it was a while back and stuff has been added since then. -- Steel 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • True dat; I take fault for missing a couple things in the lead. — Deckiller 18:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty good, but I'm going to wait for Tony's feedback before I support :) — Deckiller 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Ryu Kaze 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. Sijo Ripa 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much! Ryu Kaze 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Currently, 10 images of the same company are used under a fair use rationale - which exceeds the fair use criteria in my opinion. See: WP:FUC: #3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. (...) Do not use multiple images (...) if one will serve the purpose adequately." We can all agree (I think) that these 10 images are not "as little as possible". Moreover, in my opinion, most images serve a decorative purpose as they are not necessary or the necessity could be removed by altering the text. See: WP:FUC: #8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Perhaps a "purely decorative purpose" is exaggerated, but most images do not contribute significantly in my opinion. I would recommend to trim the number of images down to 2 or 3. Sijo Ripa 23:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reducing it to 2 or 3 would significantly impair the illustration of the concepts being presented, I feel. Often, video games feature concepts that — though described thoroughly and accurately in words — can't be understood in context without a visual representation. I do, however, believe that we could possibly reduce the images by two or three. I know we can lose the PAL box art image, the soundtrack cover, the image of the protagonist carrying the girl and possibly the in-game map image, but anything beyond that would be harming the article.
Obviously, the first image is being used to show the game's most recognizable cover. The gameplay images display the battle mechanic and navigation mechanics, integral features in an article on a video game. The image of the game's protagonist and the girl he's trying to revive are — obviously — to demonstrate two of the main characters, one of whom is the reason for everything that's happening because she's dead and the protagonist wants her to live again. The colossus image below that is used to emphasise scale between Wander, his horse and the colossi, as well as to provide more variety in the portrayal of the game's colossi (of the 16, only two are represented visually in the entire article). Finally, the Nico image is because it's portraying an important aspect of both the game's development and a recognizable piece of merchandise associated with Shadow of the Colossuss.
I will remove the four images I've mentioned that I feel the article could lose, but I would like to point out that many other Featured Articles contain more images than this. Remember: there's no "one size fits all" to the size of plot sections or how much imagery is needed to portray concepts. I feel that the images whose purposes I've described certainly meet the criteria for inclusion described in WP:FUC #8, and that they can't be removed without damaging the article. Thank you for your input, and I hope the changes performed will address your concerns. Ryu Kaze 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've reduced the images from 10 to 6, and, like I said, I believe these that remain to be very important to the article. Please let us know if this takes care of things. Ryu Kaze 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, many FA's gained their featured status before a strict application of the fair use criteria were applied. (See for instance: Wario or Link (Zelda series)). Secondly, there is a difference between fair-using 6 (or 10) images of one company and fair-using 6, each of a different company (which is the case for many FA's). I truely appreciate the efforts made, Rya Kaze, but I still object. 6 images of one company are still too many, especially because I don't agree to the need of at least two images (which give me the impression that it is not "as little as possible" and the impression that it doesn't serve mainly a decorative purpose). #1: Agro, the horse. I don't see the need to depict that horse, because it seems a pretty normal horse to me and even if it isn't a normal horse, I can't distinguish any specific characteristics that make it a different horse (=that make the picture notable and necessary). What I'm trying to say: what is the necessity to depict the horse? It doesn't contribute significantly, even more because the horse can be seen in a similar way in the "pursue of the thirteenth colossus"-picture below, which further reduces the need of the picture. #2: the DVD cover. It doesn't seem to really add anything to the article, besides being decorative. If you remove those two, I can accept the others as "as little as possible" and "necessary" (and will cease to object). Sijo Ripa 08:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, the fair use criteria still aren't strict in what is "as little as possible". That's quite subjective, as is "contributing substantially". On the matter of the two images you still find fault with, I'd like to point out again that the first of the two isn't being used to depict Agro. Its purpose was to demonstrate navigation (the beam of light that's used to locate colossi), but I suppose the concept is pretty straightforward in how it's described in text, so maybe we could lose it. As for the Nico DVD cover, I'll replace it with an actual image from the development feature, which is obviously significant to the work because a) it's the concept video that began development and b) it allows the readers to see the "then and now" aspect of development. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that we have to reach some sort of consensus. I will cease to object if you implement the above changes. Sijo Ripa 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I'll just try to find us a good shot from the development feature and then implement the change. Ryu Kaze 13:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your input. I hope this meets any and all concerns. Ryu Kaze 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support may have some minor issues such as fair use images but on the whole it is featured article quality. Joelito (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I'll be addressing the fair use concerns right now as is, so no worries. Ryu Kaze 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article, though I'm wondering why you have so many references in the section detailing the plot and characters? This is more of an observation than a criticism, but why do you need them? Dark Kubrick
  • In responce to the above question - the plot in the game is very minimal, so a lot of information regarding the characters or the story is open to interpretation. In order to avoid speculation, fanfiction, and OR most of the plot and character points have to be sourced. Hopefully that clears it up.Tani unit 02:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your support, Dark Kubrick. As Tani explained, in order to make it clear that we're not inserting fancruft of any kind, such as speculation or original research, we have to cite references for all that we're referring to with regard to the plot. This is a practice commonly used on video game articles because people often are unaware of where the information has come from and will change it to something less detailed (even though the details there before were correct) or to something that actually is speculative if there's not a source for them to refer to. Ryu Kaze 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As a frequent editor of the article, I give my support. The article, ever since it was peer reviewed by the folks over at the CVG Portal about a month ago (and more recently received a positive formal peer review), has undergone many changes, both significant and minor, to ensure it meets the criteria of a featured article. We'll try to fix any flaws as soon as possible, and thanks for your support! --Onlynameicanget 03:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I support as an editor of the article, it's nice to see how much came out of a petty edit war. Schicksal 04:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object - too short + lacking info on several important aspects --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is 46 KB long, which is actually over ten KB longer than recommended size. Also, what "info on several important aspects"? — Deckiller 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Very well; the objection is invalid — no reasoning is given. Raul will pass by this objection when promoting, unless it is supported with reasoning. — Deckiller 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, this objection is non-actionable. "Too short" is highly subjective, but inaccurate nonetheless in this case, and you don't mention anything that the article's lacking. If you're referring to all the gameplay info that used to be there, that stuff had to be removed because it belonged more on GameFAQs than Wikipedia. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, the objecting user above vandalized this page earlier by changing the link to some amusement park coaster. — Deckiller 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the article looks pretty good once all the dust was settled down and stripped of unnecessary parts.--Toffile 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your support. Ryu Kaze 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great job Ryu and Steel, you've turned this into an incredible article. --PresN 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. We appreciate it. Ryu Kaze 18:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks! It means a lot. -- Steel 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – You've done it again, Ryu. I'll be waiting for the next game you nominate to reach FA status. ♠ SG →Talk 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot, on behalf of all of us who've contributed. We certainly appreciate it. Ryu Kaze 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why did you put the list of songs in the soundtracks in a box of its own. Why not in a simple table? CG 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, a table would take up unnecessary space. With this small box, the page isn't stretched. This is also the way Half-Life 2, a previously selected video game Featured Article did it. Ryu Kaze 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I oppose this way of displaying. It's obtrusive and a list at the end of the article won't hurt much. The table could consist of two columns to save space. CG 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Obtrusive? The tracklisting box was designed so that it would not be obtrusive. Putting a table or list there would take up much more space in the article than that tiny box does. --Onlynameicanget 21:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I've got to agree with Onlynameicanget here. The box couldn't possibly be less obtrusive unless it was nothing more than a link to the list. Compare the current version to the presentation that used to be there. You can also look at either of the tables[23][24] that have been used in this article in the past. Even the one that was only two columns wide (as you've suggested be the case here) was a massive eyesore. Now imagine a table like that with 42 lines. That would damage the quality of the article significantly. Ryu Kaze 21:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
            • What's wrong with this version? CG 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm a little confused. You say the current scroll box takes up too much space, but your alternative actually takes up more space. -- Steel 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm sharing Steel's confusion. Ryu Kaze 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • You didn't get the point. I wasn't arguing about the space (in both examples, the space taken is relatively small). I oppose the way of displaying the tracks. The current format poses many problems. For example when I select-copy-past the whole article, will all tracks display correctly on Ms Word for example. And look at the printable version, will all tracks be printed out? CG 07:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
                      • I have never seen this be a concern for anyone before, but given that you are concerned about it, I'd like to point out that copy-pasting the entire page is a problem in and of itself, namely because you're going to be including the navigation tools on the left, top and bottom when you do that. However, nonetheless, yes, all tracks display correctly when you copy-paste the entire article. I just checked. As for the printing matter, I don't know. I've not tried it. I honestly don't want to either, as it seems like a rather pointless use of ink and several sheets of paper. I'm not even sure that this is generally a major concern of any kind, but if it is to you, check it out and less us know what happens. I'm sorry if this is a big concern to you for some reason I'm unaware of, and I'd check it myself, but printer ink and paper cost money, and I'm not looking to sink money (beyond the time already spent) into volunteer work. Ryu Kaze 11:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
                        • You don't have to print the article, just use the Print preview feature of your navigator and you'll see that not all tracks will display. I mean give me one good reason the list of tracks should be displayed in that complicated and restrictive way, since the older version didn't take much space (Compare the two printable versions 1 and 2. CG 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
                          • Because it's not complicated or restrictive and takes up less than half the space of the alternative. -- Steel 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
                          • For the record, I don't really see how that is a big problem. If you want to print the list of tracks, just copy+paste it from the box. That box does wonders for the aesthetics of the article versus that huge eyesore of a list. Schicksal 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) I'm not too sure if the print preview is giving an accurate idea of what will be printed. It's showing more tracks on there than I normally see when looking at the page in my browser. In any event, I don't see how it's a very complicated presentation, nor all that restrictive. It's a simple scroll box. The older version is far more visually imposing and draws the focus of that section to the list. Also, again, the Half-Life 2 article (a Featured Article) uses this same method, and I'm unaware of any precedent for this thing being considered a problem.
For that matter, if it would cause problems for someone who was — for whatever reason — printing the page, they could simply print the first 5 pages as normal, do a basic copy-paste job for the 6th, print that, and then print pages 7-11 as normal. I don't see how this is a problem. It's not like somebody's report in an advanced English course is going to be dependent on their ability to print out a Wikipedia article without stopping to copy-paste one of the pages and print it by itself. For that matter, I'm unaware of anything in the Manual of Style that suggests against using this kind of formatting on the basis of printable versions. Your concern is appreciated, but I just don't see how it's pertinent. Ryu Kaze 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted a message about this subject in Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Use of scroll boxes. Feel free to comment. CG 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - ignore my previous objections; it was a stupid act of vandalism that my friends and I did yesterday. I believe that this is a good article. It is factual, interesting, well-cited, and stable, and I would love to see it on the front page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Ryu Kaze 03:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the scroll box. This FAC was brought to the attention of Wikipedia talk:List guideline for comment on the use of the scroll box. Even though the article on a whole is great, this is a candidacy for featured article, the best of the best. The scroll box looks damn ugly, and the rational to save space is just silly. You know what saves even more space? Deleting all the text. It's true! It saves tons of space if you delete the entire article! We don't write articles to save space. If the list is too bulky and not important enough to be shown in whole, then why is it on the article?? If it is too long for the main article then split it off as a list article. This partial hiding of content is just .. bad. It looks bad and unprofessional, it raises a question of technical compatibly like printing or browser rendering, and shouldn't be acceptable for a featured article. Also, I can easily see this being a way for vandals to hide their vandalism in articles. Content should not be hidden or partially hidden in articles. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I accept your (and the above) points now they have been explained fully. I have removed the track list (and thus the scroll box) from the article. I trust this addresses your concerns. -- Steel 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It does indeed. I now have no major objections and Support this article for featured status. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks! -- Steel 10:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your support. While your concerns have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that you misunderstood the argument involving space. It was not that it saves space for the sake of saving space (an article will be as long as it needs to be, after all), but rather, that it's less imposing and doesn't unnecessarily stretch the page. That was the issue involving space.
That said, as I mentioned a week or so ago on the article's talk page, I've always had misgivings about the list of tracks because it can be seen as somewhat trivia-ish outside an article specifically for the soundtrack itself, and — as you've said — if something is considered unimportant enough to be stuck in its own scroll box box like that in the first place, it might not be important enough to include anyway. The fact that Half-Life 2 utilized it, however, was enough to convince me to give it a chance, though I honestly can't say I'm surprised to see this concern over relevance brought up. Thanks again for your input and support. Ryu Kaze 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While I wasn't opposing the list of tracks, I can now Support. You could create an article for the soundtrack. CG 13:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • We originally had an article for the soundtrack, actually, but most of it was merged into the main article. We may put the soundtrack's article back on soon if we can find a lot of unique and interesting information on it. Thanks for your support! --Onlynameicanget 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support. Ryu Kaze 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support :) NCurse   work 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like a great article for a great game. Congratulations to the editors. --L33tminion (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you both. -- Steel 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Aye. Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 23:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Violates fair use criterion #3. Five "fair use" images in only 44k of text is three or four too many. User:Angr 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I gotta say your measurement of fair use per data is extremely flawed. The idea of fair use being limited is that you only use the images you need. If the article needs five images, then it needs five images, and it doesn't matter how long the article is. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's about what the article needs, then five is five too many. The article doesn't need any images at all, least of all so-called "fair use" ones. User:Angr 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Each image has a rather convincing fair use rational written up. The article would be lacking and not as complete without these images. It suffices all requirements of WP:FUC. Needs may be subjective, but they've done all that is required by policy and law, what more can you ask? -- Ned Scott 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, Angr, you just said that Wikipedia shouldn't use images at all. If five is all we have and five is "five too many", then you've basically indicated that we should never use any images. Ever. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic behind this. This objection is nearly non-actionable, and should possibly be dismissed. For one thing, failure to use the boxart would be failure to identify the subject under discussion. We're using the most recognized cover boxart for an English audience — which is what is supposed to be done. We've got one image for portraying basic elements of gameplay. We've got one image identifying the most important characters. We've got one image portraying the protagonist on his horse, while in pursuit of one of the massive colossi that need to be visually illustrated in order to emphasise their size. And then we have one screenshot from an early development video, which conveys a little bit of an idea of how things evolved as development went along (especially if the reader compares that bulky quadruped to the sleek flying creature in the picture before it).
This sounds more like a discussion for fair use in general, and I can't say I appreciate this FAC being used as an outlet for someone's personal wikiphilosophy. Inclusionists and deletionists have attempted making use of FACs I've nominated in the past as a playground for "making an example" with their respective wikiphilosophies, and I've kindly told them to take it elsewhere. If that's what's going on here with regard to fair use, I'm going to kindly ask you to do the same. We have cut the fair use imagery in half (look at previous concerns raised in this FAC) and have left only those images which are vital. I see no further compromise that we are required to make here. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's an actionable objection: remove all the images. As a compromise, I'll withdraw my objection even if you leave one or two. But stealing a bunch of images that don't belong to you, sticking them in this article, and then trying to get this article declared one of Wikipedia's best is simply immoral. And the same applies to every single other Wikipedia article; I'm not trying to pick on this one unfairly. User:Angr 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's actionable, but not within reason. Heck, one of these is a promtional image in the first place, while another was used in a video to demonstrate the technology that was going to be used in the game. The owners have been supplied full credit and fair use stipulations recognized. As I've said on your talk page and earlier in this FAC, this matter is a discussion for fair use in general, not individual FACs. If it becomes policy that we can't use fair use images at all, then and only then does it become an issue for individual FACs. Ryu Kaze 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you exagerate, Angr. It's not "stealing". Fair use is codified in law, which means it's not illegal as long as the legal rules are followed. I did object to a lot of images because I thought these rules were not followed for certain images, but now that the doubtful images have been removed, there is no reason to object. The underlying rationale for the current images is possibly open for interpretation, but seems most likely to be valid and legal. You may however question this rationale of particular pictures and/or provide arguments why you think the fair use rules are not (sufficiently) followed; but simply stating that the pictures should be removed because you think it's immoral, is not a valid objection. Sijo Ripa 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, Large blocks of text with zero wikilinks, even on interesting topics. Also, wordiness and clumsy prose, like
  • "A specific objective that Ueda wished to achieve with the game was an overall unique presentation."
  • In addition to the man-made structures present, the land is characterized by diverse geographical features. The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge. This bridge spans half the distance of the landscape and terminates at a large temple called the "Shrine of Worship" located at its center. It is, however, forbidden to enter the land."
  • No spoiler warning around the story, even though it describes the ending in detail.
  • really weird citation pattern, citing statements like "Despite a warning from the Dormin that he may have to pay a great price in order to revive Mono,[22]" but leaving uncited trailing information like "When trespassing upon their territory, some colossi ignore the player, while others will attack on sight. Inhabiting specific locations in the forbidden land, they do not venture outside their own territory. Once slain they will remain where fallen as a mound of earth and rock vaguely resembling the original colossus."
  • oddly written lead. Of the three paragraphs, one seems to be all about the game's lighting. I know it discusses other features, but then give the paragraph a lead sentence that talks about all the features.

The article really needs a copyedit and better prose. It's informative, but not up to FA quality yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The two sections in need of copyediting ("Plot and setting" and "Development") have now been given one, and the lighting information in the lead paragraphs has been moved to where it's more relevant. I don't think the lead paragraphs lost anything critical in the process. I'd be grateful if you could specify which interesting topics aren't currently wikilinked but could be, so I can fix that. I realise I haven't addressed every concern yet, but thanks for the feedback. -- Steel 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess this is as close as you guys are going to get to Tony feedback, so I'll throw in my support once this user cancels the object. — Deckiller 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • All but two things you've mentioned (spoiler tag and reference for the colossi turning to dirt) have been addressed now, Night Gyr, and I'll try taking care of one of them now. Spoiler tags aren't actually in the manual of style, so it's really a case-by-case thing and based on stylistic preferences. In this particular case, all the plot details are already in the section entitled "Plot", so we won't need to use the tag here. Now I'll try to get a reference for that final matter and hopefully alleviate the last of your concerns. Thank you for your constructive input. Ryu Kaze 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Night, I've added several references to the article now. Hopefully all of your concerns should now be addressed. Please let us know if there was something else, and thank you again for the constructive criticism. Ryu Kaze 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's quite well written: Deckiller et al are doing well. Just a few comments.
    • "miles"—I know where you come from. No miles in Japan, nor anywhere else but Liberia and Burma. Consider rewording?
    • There's often a temptation to use "then" in a narrative. Try to avoid this; here, "then" can be neatly removed. Check that the future tense is OK here. It's the only one around.
    • "miles of varied terrain"—I can tell where you come from. They don't have miles in Japan, or anywhere else but Burma and LIberia. Please reword.
    • "Fully utilized in order to"—much nicer as "fully used to". Prize to anyone who can come up an instance where "utilise" is better than "use". There are several instances of this ... ugly word—two in three sentences under "Agro". Not nice.
    • "Additionally, each colossus"—you don't need the first word. It flows more strongly without, and no loss of meaning. This word pops up several times. It's another one to avoid in a narrative, which is a long long sequence of many facts. They're all in addition to what has come before. The reader will unconsciously tire of this.
    • "comprised of"—"consisting of" or "comprising".
    • "Prior to"? Who's been studying Latin? "Before", please.
    • "in vague detail" ....?
    • There are lots of instances of "in order to". This should be "to", unless in the negative "in order not to". I feel like doing a Hitler salute when I hear it. Tony 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only person who felt that removing "in order to" and "then" was a good thing! :-) — Deckiller 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Deckiller's copyedit sorted out most of those, and I've just replaced every "utilised" with "used". There's still a couple of additionallys left, but it's no longer being used excessively. -- Steel 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the ever high-quality advice, Tony, and good job to Deckiller and Steel sorting those issues out. Ryu Kaze 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandy MooreEdit

The old nomination was lengthy and mostly correct/no longer applicable. I'm restarting this nomination. Raul654 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mad Jack 06:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Appears to be well written. Tony 12:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's an interesting juxtaposition to see an academic-style article, with detailed footnotes, on such a subject. At any rate though, it's definitely FA standard. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Only quibble: is there any way to increase that font size in the infobox? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, not sure. I tried using the same formatting employed in Lindsay Lohan, but it did not work. This appears to be the standard font for music infoboxes, though, so I don't really know. Mad Jack 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I made the font size a bit bigger, changing it to the standard caption size. Perhaps it looks a little better. -- tariqabjotu (joturner)
  • Support The article has come out of the crucible of review quite nicely. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rebecca 04:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Shane (talk/contrib) 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good, well referenced article. --RicDod 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support well-written Jaranda wat's sup 19:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the selected television section in unnecessary for one show - cna't it just be added to the text?--Peta 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is in the text and it shouldn't be there. I guess no one noticed it. Thanks! I will remove Mad Jack 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as someone can make the refs two columns. Otherwise, it's a great article. -- Zanimum 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild support I think some expansion is in order though. There is NO requirement to have two-columns of refs. In fact, I've never seen that. Rlevse 21:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a bettter lead picture is required. TheKillerAngel 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well-done, I'm impressed. Lordwow 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. While this is a good article, I find a few minor inconsistencies that take away from its overall quality.
  1. While it is not fundamental, featured articles on musicians should have music samples (see other featured articles like Phil Collins, Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Jackson 5, The Beatles...).
  2. After reading this article, I have no idea how Moore's music sound — the only info on her craft is critical comments and chart placings. The reader cannot get a picture of what the critics review: what are the themes covered? What instruments are used? What genres does she incorporate? We need an exploration of this (which, incidentally, would be complemented by samples). (The writers may use Celine Dion and Mariah Carey as standards for exploring "music".)
  3. The caption in the lead pic lacks context and seems out of place.
  4. Numbers should be written as words.i.e instead of #20, write "number twenty".

Fair attempt, but not there yet. Orane (talkcont.) 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Working backwards:
      • 4. Not sure if that's true. FA Lindsay Lohan certainly has a lot of numbers in number form. I don't think there's a clear policy on that and I can't see us spelling out "one hundred and twenty three".
      • 3.What part of the caption? A lot of description is necessary for the image to justifiably be there (i.e. commenting on the video). Is "the video marked Moore's first public appearance as a brunette" the problem?
      • 2. Mariah Carey's article has unsourced phrases like "presented a more overtly sexual image of her than had been previously seen", which, for the record, should definitely not be there without several sources because that's clearly someone's opinion. I don't actually see that many more descriptive phrases in Carey's article then in Mandy Moore's. I added one bit and may add a few more, but unless quoted from a direct source these are POV
      • 1. Again, I am using FA Lindsay Lohan as a model (i.e. she is also an actress-singer) and that article doesn't have music samples either. The official site, which is linked to, immediately starts playing some of Moore's music, if that helps :)

Mad Jack 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that you won't address any of my suggestions. Then I will continue to oppose. Lindsay Lohan is a far superior article to this, so I don't understand why you are quoting it. There is no clear policy on numbers, but it is conventional to spell out numbers (especially those below ten), but preferably for those under 100 (I did not expect you to write out 175 — that would be foolish). As stated, the caption does not have context. The problem: the video marked Moore's first public appearance as a brunette. Well, was she a blonde before, or was she a redhead? Why is this important? If there is discussion of her image further in the article, observations like these should be there, not in the lead (it seems out of the blue).
Why are we critiquing Mariah Carey's article? I was not talking about sources and POV — don't dodge the issue. That Carey changed her image after her divorce is basically common knowledge (plus, the picture there proves it). What I am talking about is the exploration of Carey's music: what it sounds like, the themes covered, the style of each album. It is a must for featured articles under the "music category" — even Lindsay Lohan touches on it. I'm not asking for the article's length to be doubled, here. Im just asking for a paragraph or two about what Moore does.
"The official site, which is linked to, immediately starts playing some of Moore's music, if that helps". No it doesn't help. And point of information: articles have been 'defeatured' for lack of music samples. I'm just trying to help here. We can't tout a mediocre article as one of Wikipedia's best. Orane (talkcont.) 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I did address your suggestions - every one - it doesn't matter if Linday L is a far superior article - does that excuse the fact that the numbers aren't spelt out there? :) If it's not a clear policy, then, how is it A. conventional and B. why doesn't Lohan's article do it? As for the caption, I will remove that part - I was just trying to figure out what part of the caption was the problem. You can't really use the "That Carey changed her image after her divorce is basically common knowledge" argument or "the picture proves it" - you'd need sources that said it. Although I would assume that 1 + 1 = 2 IS common knowledge, I don't think that the fact that a singer changed her image after her marriage is "common knowledge". I don't believe, as I said, that Lindsay Lohan has a music sample - and as you previously noted it is not a must. That just leaves a little bit on Moore's music - and aside from the bit I added yesterday, I'll see what I can do. Mad Jack 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I added in more bits here and there on Moore's music, from various reviews of her albums. I hope that helps, at least somewhat Mad Jack 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, you continue to focus on Mariah Carey. And by the way, I checked the point about her "overtly sexual image." It is sourced — from a book. And since you want to get technical, according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style — the official policy— "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words in the body of an article.", and "Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million"." These are direct quotes.
Are you satisfied? Don't quote Lindsay at me. Just because that article lacks something, that does not mean that this one will get away with it (i.e two wrongs don't make a right). Expectations about featured articles evolve and change over time. That is why there is the FAC removal process.
I still see no mention of music. Other than for critique (as you have done for Mariah Carey), have you actually taken notice of the content of any of the model articles I showed you? Orane (talkcont.) 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I brought up Carey because you pointed me to her article as an example and I brought Lohan up because, if we're comparing to other articles, we may as well compare it to that, since Lohan is a full-time actress and only part-time singer, which is what Moore has now become. Yes, I am well aware that numbers under or including 10 must be spelt out, and I believe that is done in the article. But, the rules say "you may" spell out numbers above 10. It certainly doesn't say we have to, or even should, only that we can. I'd think most people would rather just write those numbers in number form, but it looks like there is no clear direction there. Lohan's FA wasn't that long ago, and as you said, a music sample is not a requirement (just as a video of an actor during a film performance is not a requirement for a film actor FA). The critiques I added "are" of music. I'm sure I'll add some more shortly. Mad Jack 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So we're clear here: you are not including a sample. O.K, then I'm not supporting this nomination. I'm sure if Wikipedia had a featured article category for "celebrity", then this article would pass. However, the category is "music" — something that this article does not touch on, save for a few "the album peaked at #5", or "critics called her a pop princess". These are trivial observations that do little to distinguish this article as one of Wikipedia's best. Practically every featured article on a musician delves into musical style (complemented by samples). Yet, you use the odd one— Lindsay Lohan— as a justification for "Mandy Moore"'s shortcomings (even though, incidentally, Lohan's article contains mention of style and themes). If you feel the need to counteract every comment that I make, then fine. Go ahead. But you won't accomplish much by doing so, and you won't get another reply from me.
PS: Lohan was promoted over 1/2 a year ago. I'd hardly call that recent. Orane (talkcont.) 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this necessarily a "Music" article, though? I thought it would be filed under "Media", ala Lohan, especially considering Moore hasn't really produced anything in terms of music in over three years, and is mostly now known as an actress. As for styles, "teen pop" is a style. As for "counteract every comment that I make", this, unlike other parts of Wikipedia, is a discussion forum, so if you make a comment I don't see why you wouldn't expect that someone may disagree with you and indeed, "counteract". Anyway, as I said, I will shortly add a tingle more critical analysis of her music. Mad Jack 02:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't mean to be blunt or unfriendly. I just want what's best for the article. Yes, I think it's a music article. The difference with Moore and lohan is that Lohan is primarily an actor who decided to venture into music once she had established herself. Moore, on the other hand, started out as a musician, and her music is a more prominent feature of her career.
I can see that you aren't doing exactly what I described, and maybe it's my fault for not being precise. I'm not after critical analysis of her albums/music. I want a description of it. Consider these examples from Celine Dion:
On the one hand, Dan Leroy wrote that Falling Into You was not very different from her previous work,[13] and Stephen Holden of The New York Times and Elysa Gardner of Los Angeles Times wrote that the album was formulaic, and the songs suffered from a lack of emotional connection.[14][15] However, other critics such as Chuck Eddy, Erlewine and Daniel Durchholz lavished the album as "compelling", "passionate", "stylish", "elegant", and "remarkably well-crafted".[16][12]
In an attempt to reach a wider audience, Falling Into You combined many elements: ornate orchestral frills and African chanting, and instruments like the violin, Spanish guitar, trombone, the cavaquinho, and saxophone created a new sound. The singles encompassed a variety of musical styles: the title track and "River Deep, Mountain High" (a Tina Turner cover) made prominent use of percussion instruments; "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" (a remake of Jim Steinman's song) and a remake of Eric Carmen's "All By Myself" kept their soft-rock atmosphere, but were combined with the classical sound of the piano...
The first one deals with critical appreciation (what you are doing). I need to see more of the second one. Understand? Of course, I'm not expecting much, as Moore has released only a few albums and her music has gone through minimal progression. However, just a mention of these things will do. Other examples from Lindsay Lohan: "Though primarily a pop-rock album, Speak was introduced with the single "Rumors", described by Rolling Stone as "a bass-heavy, angry club anthem", "a blend of old-fashioned, Britney-styled dance-pop and the anthemic, arena rock sound pioneered by fellow teen stars Hilary Duff and Ashlee Simpson."
PS: isn’t considered an authoritative music review source. Consider print/news articles,, AMG, Slant Magazine, Entertainment Wkly etc. Orane (talkcont.) 03:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I understand a little better now, and I'll try to bring some of that in tonight, so I guess - check back tomorrow (I think we're on the same Ontario time). For the record, though, it seems weird that there are a few sections on the Dion page which seem completely unsourced - but maybe I have focused a little too much on sourcing on the Moore page, anyway. Mad Jack 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, as for Moore's music career - personally - I think it's obviously not a heavy part of her future - she has something along the line of 7 upcoming movies, but has been struggling for a while now to get an album done and distributed. Speaking of the Amazon thing - it wasn't actually a review by a random user - it was the posted description - I.e. I guess a review by the Amazon staff - though I suppose that may also not muster up to the standard. Mad Jack 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, maybe you are too focussed on sources. I find that many of the contemporary featured articles are grossly overreferenced (Katie Holmes is a perfect example). The thing is, not every point of information has to be sourced with an inline citation. This is why we have the "reference" section, which should include a list of the works used for the more general info (which is the case for "Celine Dion").
PS: It doesn't matter if the review is by an Amazon staff. This site's concern is with selling products, not with providing a professional and comprehensive review. Orane (talkcont.) 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of info of the type you requested last night. Are those sufficient or do we need more? Mad Jack 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm satisfied. All I'm waiting for is the music sample (even one), which, as I pointed out, has become increasingly important to featured articles. Orane (talkcont.) 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Weak object; referencing could be improved. Yahoo! movies, All Music Guide, RottenTomatoes,—these are all shaky references. Print reviews from large city newspapers and well-known magazines would be great. Question—were the reviews by Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone that appear in this article also printed in the corresponding magazines? Could that bibliographic information be given as well? --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • RottenTomatoes is just a general overview of reviews to get an idea of whether they were positive, negative, etc. Would you prefer MetaCritic? (i.e. we already have various print reviews cited for specific quotes and opinions on a film, Rotten is just for generalities). As for The Numbers, I can replace those with Box Office Mojo, which is more reliable. Is there a requirement for the bibliographical information on RS and EW? The reviews cited are linked to the RS and EW websites, which are reputable sources. Anyway, I'll change the box office citations to the MoJo cite, and wait for your reply on the other stuff. Mad Jack 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I looked over Citation 53 ("most painless of former pop princesses") should not link to rottentomatoes; or at least, it should include the original bibliographical information (if the review is not available online elsewhere). The reason bibliographical information is needed for all print sources that also appear online is because the internet is subject to change. While it may be true that currently all of the sources you use are available online, that may not be the case a year from now. Including the issue and article information ensures that a reader will always know how to obtain access to the original source. Is it required, per se? No, but hopefully you agree that it's beneficial for the article, and for me, it's the basis of my objection.
Using rottentomatoes or metacritic isn't in my opinion "best practice" for determining overall sentiment toward the movie, but it's not the end of the world and is certainly alot easier than adding 3-4 print references per statement. Generally I think it's just better to shy away from such general statements like "it received positive reviews" and to instead cite dollars (for popularity) and then quote a few choice reviews that in your opinion capture the overall mood. But again, this part is not a big deal. --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've cited the specific quotes for the movie reviews to the specific review where they were said (well, there weren't that many), though Tomatoes is still used for the general "positive"/"negative" thing. I've also formatted the EW citations into Cite journal - i.e. the specific issues. Mad Jack 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have that info for the newspapers and rolling stone as well? --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I have just added all the info I could find on all the other newspapers and magazines (there was only one Rolling Stone - the other was an online only report). Hope that does the trick. Mad Jack 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks better; thanks. --Spangineeres (háblame) 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Although a better lead picture should be used, this article gets my vote. Sarz 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Violates fair use criterion #3. Five "fair use" images in only 38k of text is three or four too many. Some are being used in a way that's inconsistent with their "fair use" tag (the top image is tagged as a music video screenshot, and can only be used in a discussion of the video, not merely to show what the person looks like; the Cosmopolitan magazine cover isn't being used to discuss the issue, but merely her presence on the cover, etc.) User:Angr 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you trying to suggest I should stalk Mandy Moore so I can get a free picture? Anyway, FA Lindsay Lohan has six images, and it's 41k, which isn't much more. LL is a fine FA article, and I'm not sure why standards that are so much harsher need be applied here. Mad Jack 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • And in fact, Diane Keaton, FA'd fairly recently, starts off with a screenshot (i.e. same as Moore's header) and then has something like 6 fair use images (39 ks). Why did I get stuck with this month and a half long nomination where it seems the harshest possible standards that were not applied to other recent actor FA's have been applied? As for Cosmopolitan, that is silly, the article explicitly discusses the cover, which is all that is required for the cover to be here. Mad Jack 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I found an free image for Mandy Moore, not the best of images but it replaces an fair use and I'm currently looking for more in flicker. Jaranda wat's sup 06:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elliott SmithEdit

This is a self-nomination. Elliott Smith is a good article which has had all the issues at its first FAC nomination and its peer review resolved as far as I know. - Phorque 19:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright status is not settled for all images. No reson to oppose, however, the article is quite high-quality. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Thought this was ready by the end of the last FAC, and it's improved even more since then. Fg2 07:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although I made some suggestions in the PR that weren't taken onboard (there's still, for example, no mention of Thumbsucker) ;-) Great article, though, appears to have had most if not all of its issues cleared up, extremely well-referenced (as it needs to be, for the various pieces of controversy surrounding Elliott's life and death). Maybe I'm biased as a fan, but I'd like to see this on the front page, and I think it does him justice. Although it'd be nice if the article made mention of his distinctive vocal styles (his voice itself, the double tracking, etc.) Seb Patrick 08:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make a bash at including those in the article. - Phorque 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. See "Final years and death". - Phorque 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool :-) I just think it's an interesting point to raise, as it demonstrates that his life wasn't in a complete downward spiral when he died, and that he was (or at least appeared to be) upbeat and enthusiastic about some things. Plus, unless I'm much mistaken, the two covers represent his final ever recorded work, do they not? Anyway, a nicely-done addition that only serves to enhance my support vote. Seb Patrick 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Trouble" is supposedly the last thing he recorded, but I'm pretty certain that "Thirteen" was recorded during at least 1997 or earlier. Shamrox 00:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - in order to enhance readability, you might want to turn the soundclips into inline soundclips whenever possible (especially with "Miss Misery") and possibly do away with the album image gallery in the discography (which most featured articles on bands/musicians don't have). WesleyDodds 23:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the soundclip idea. However, I don't see having the album images there much of a problem so unless somebody can object on other grounds than "all the featured kids are doing it", I'll just leave them there. - Phorque 13:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, they are kind of redundant, given some of them show up in the body of the article anyway. WesleyDodds 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia:Music samples states that should be distinguished in boxes and not inlined with text in oder to justify fair use. Therefore it would be better to include them back into boxes. CG 17:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgot I also did that. - Phorque 11:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't album covers not applicable to the unfree image rule? Shamrox 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought so too, also consider what Miles Davis' featured article looks like. - Phorque 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I added rationales. If they aren't good enough, I just give up. So there. Someone else can do that. - Phorque 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I helped with the initial revamping of the article (spreading it out from a couple paragraphs to significantly longer) but haven't done too much since the last time it was put up for feature article, so hopefully my vote won't be counted as biased. This article looks really good! Hats off to everyone who worked on it. Shamrox 00:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There don't appear to be any unanswered objections. Time to promote? Fg2 10:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. WesleyDodds 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great to me. Teemu08 03:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's a wonderful article. joules214

Final Fantasy X-2Edit

I believe this article to be worthy of being featured (pun intended) among Wikipedia's group of Featured Articles. It provides a comprehensive overview of each aspect of the game, cites its sources abundantly and has been thoroughly copyedited by myself and User:Deckiller. Additionally, the article has been stable (with the exception of a few last-minute edits today) for quite some time now, and provides efficient and relevant use of images. I believe it to be in the same vein of quality as such articles as Final Fantasy X (a Featured Article itself) and Final Fantasy VI (a current FA candidate now another FA). Let the nomination roll! Ryu Kaze 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm co-nominating this article, even though Ryu has done more work on this one. I helped copyedit the article, so the prose should be okay (it may still need some work). Ironically, less than half an hour ago, FF8 and FF6 were promoted to FA status, Ryu :) — Deckiller 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as semi-co-nominator. — Deckiller 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - You guys have done an amazing job once again. It looks FA status to me. Only thing I noticed, and I'm not sure how to fix it, is the sentence, "Despite misgivings from Wakka — now married to their childhood friend, Lulu, and expecting a child — ", which has the amusing gramatical connotation of Wakka being pregnant. That's pretty much the only thing I saw, however. Great job! --PresN 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I meant to mention that I took care of that sentence. Thanks again, by the way. Ryu Kaze 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportMinun SpidermanReview Me 18:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Blimey, that's just as impressive as your previous efforts. Well done. Combination 19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. You guys are machines. Sir Crazyswordsman 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, guys! About that line with Wakka and Lulu, PresN, at the time I didn't feel like "expecting a child" gave the impression that it was Wakka who was pregnant, but I can see how the flow might lean in that direction, so good catch. I'll try to fix it. Ryu Kaze 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, lacks description of criticism or reaction from any significant press sources. Additionally the statement, "This decision did not sit well with some fans who believed it to be a change in the spirit of the Final Fantasy franchise. The vehemence of these complaints has waned since the announcement of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, however, which indicated Square Enix's intention of pursuing this path, but the subject nonetheless remains a point of contention." is unsourced. Generally, the article is severely imbalanced, focusing almost exclusively on in-world issues to the detriment of real-world topics. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can find us some additional criticism information. Thanks for your input. Ryu Kaze 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, I've found a good bit more in the way of critical response, all of it from widely recognized sources on the subject. I've begun adding the info in, but it'll be a little while before I'm finished. I'll come back by here and let you know when it's done. Ryu Kaze 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've got the criticism info taken care of thoroughly. Hope it's to your liking. Ryu Kaze 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Much improvedd, thanks. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • And thank you! ^^ Ryu Kaze 03:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks :) — Deckiller 03:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would it be possible to expand Development and Audio sections? they seem a bit slim compared to FFX. 00:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I was able to add a little more to the "Development" section just now, but, unfortunately, I've not been able to locate quite as much info on the game's development (including its audio) in English as I was able to with Final Fantasy X (at least not in English; I have the Ultimanias for the game, but I could literally end up spending hours translating parts of that before I'd find some of the info we'd need). Ryu Kaze 01:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's fine, to be honest. If we get people objecting over the length and expansion of those two sections, it'll encourage poor inclusions. — Deckiller 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive, very well sourced, guys aren't going to stop until every last Final Fantasy article is featured, are you? An exemplary job (as usual!) --Onlynameicanget 03:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I'm unsure of where we'll stop. I guess we won't know until we get there. Ryu Kaze 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - informative, explanatory, good pic usage, etc. Michael 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! ^^ Ryu Kaze 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All the "Dunham, Jeremy (2003). Final Fantasy X-2 Developer Interview. IGN. Retrieved on 30 April 2006." references should be grouped together according to the link. WP 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I had made separate links for each page of the interview (and the review that he also did), but if they should all be the same link (to the first page of the interview and the first of the review, I guess?), I'll go ahead and fix that. Thank you. Ryu Kaze 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Well written and well referenced --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Appreciate it. Ryu Kaze 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: mostly well written—FACs in this area have improved dramatically, and I'm impressed! I've removed a few instances of "however" (esp. at paragraph starts) and "additionally" (yuck, it's not a PhD thesis). I'm unsure what "the fashion of these two characters" means. Watch the slipping into contractions ("wasn't") when you're not directly quoting. Still a few redundancies, e.g., "during the course of this mission. Ellision dots: spaces either side of three dots ... unless ending a sentence.... Then it's the full stop jammed against three dots. Please make a note of these points for your subsequent FACs in this area. And just a stylistic point: "because of" is usually better than "due to", although some style manuals don't insist on this. Well done. Tony 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per others. It's refreshing to see these articles come to prominence. --Zeality 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much you two! I'll take your advice into consideration, Tony. Quality advice as always. Ryu Kaze 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, the "fashion" sentence refers to their clothing. I'll make that sentence more clear. Ryu Kaze 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, guys! — Deckiller 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Thunderbrand 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much. ^^ Ryu Kaze 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks ^_^ Our next goal will probably be Final Fantasy IV, which will probably be a bit of a challenge, due to its oldness and so on. — Deckiller 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - purly FA quality. good work guys. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot, ZW. Ryu Kaze 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The condition is the same as for Shadow of the Collossus. The images should be in accordance with fair use criteria #3 and #8. In other words, the least needed pictures should be removed or replaced, thereby bringing the total number down. Sijo Ripa 13:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Deckiller's taken the initiative of removing the image that contributed the least to the article. All the others either represent important aspects of gameplay, the characters being discussed (most of whom were newly introduced in Final Fantasy X-2) or provides an example of a major negative criticism leveled at the game. Thanks for your support. Ryu Kaze 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - slightly outdated. Otherwise, very nice job. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As per other GoodContent votes, this oppose is invalid. — Deckiller 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You can't oppose on grounds such as that, GC. Please review the "Supporting and objecting" section at the top of the FAC page. Ryu Kaze 14:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This article has come a long way since I first saw it in the beggining of this year. It was so bad that I just HAD to register as an Wiki editor to try and fix it a bit. Ryu Deck and others pitched in and the rest is history.. I'm proud to have been a small part of making this article such a good article as it is today Renmiri 01:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ^ Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined (see the help page).