Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2006

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log

Keratoconus

(Self-nom). This article has expanded substantially over the last few months, and I believe offers a comprehensive overview of a little-known, yet significant ophthalmic disease. A peer review was requested some weeks ago and comments raised there addressed. --BillC 10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Would have expected it to be one after finding it by chance. —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very good and detailed article. Tarret 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Some comments:
  • The lead should give "why" it's important. How many people are affected each year, prevalence (sp), what age group. Also, should mention something about etiology.
  • I would drop the inline citation in the lead, it's distracting and inconsistent, as multiple claims are given in the lead, while only one is given a citation. (similary, in medical or science journals, rarely is the abstract given a citation, and the lead is the abstract here).
  • History part is a bit insufficient. In addition to naming the people involved in studying the disease, should contain information about what did they "know" at the time and what "remained" to be known. Even though more about description of disorder can be added, history part now looks very good and put into context
  • Diagnosis is hard to follow. Should contain a mini-intro about "rationale" for the methods. Ex. First Snellen test, since it's what every opthalamologist do first. Then physical examination of cornea such as curvature, features, colors, because keratoconus has the following features. Then go into specific methods. The current form goes to the methods first without providing a rationale first, and I think it's unclear. Diagnosis section now is clearer and easy to read.
The sentence "opthal tend not to ask what patients see," what's the rationale? Is it relevant?
  • Cause, minor rephrase "the disease sometimes running within families" to "the disease running in certain families." Rephrase "cornea by proteases (a class of enzymes), which break some of the collagen" to "cornea by proteases, enzymes that break some of collagen." By the way, what kind of protease, any proteases? Are they overexpressed or just overactive?
  • Genetic background should be expanded to more than just one sentence. Most people don't bother to read the journal, so should summarize about what loci is the putative gene involved, presumably the mutation runs in the family, and what the the suspected gene (cornea specific enhancer element, protease...?)
  • The treatment sections are better than other IMO. But various mentions of company names, is it proper? I am not for either side.
  • Other diseases: don't put the author who wrote a review in this section. Instead, link to that section as inline citation or as reference.
  • Summary Overall the article has it's potentials. Grammer and others are fine, the main things are the lead should bring relevance, history should be expanded, and the diagnosis part should first give rationale for methods, then describe the methods themselves. I think this article is a good example of what wikipedia should have more as its FA, so I won't oppose here. These comments (objections) are easily actionable, when they are fixed, I'll give my strong support. Temporary account 22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • update Very good edits by the nominator, I haven't comprehensively re-read the article, but right now looks a lot better. I'll come back in a few days to see if any changes are made and give my support then. Nice job. Temporary account 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive response above. Have made the following changes so far:
  • Strengthen lead section to indicate prevalence, age groups affected, and some introduction to etiology.
  • Remove single citation from lead section.
  • Removed reviewing authors' names from the final section. --BillC 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rephrased 'Cause'. More work on enzyme action required.
  • Expanded history slightly, but a visit to Moorfields Eye Hospital library in the next few days is required, I think.
  • Removed corporate names from Intrastromal Rings section, though I think the device names ought to remain, as to many these are the names by which they are known. "Intacs" is turning up in PubMed searches paper titles, for example. --BillC 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Added more to History.
  • Rewrote diagnosis to explain clinical methodology better.
  • Expanded on a couple of short paragraphs, and combined another two. --BillC 07:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The latest changes:
  • Removed redundant term from first para.
  • Expanded history
  • Added to genetics section
  • Added handheld keratoscope and retinoscopy
  • Gel injection as a intrastromal ring modality
  • Combined some of the shorter paras.
  • Added incidence rate--BillC 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Good information, it seems very well researched. The biggest problem lies in the short paragraphs that make for choppy prose. Combine or expand any under 3 sentences to make for fuller ideas and smoother prose. 2) I'm a bit concerned about the note at the end on Posterior keratoconus. That suggests this article should be at 'anterior keratoconus', and a more general article or a disambiguation at Keratoconus. Otherwise the other condition is buried in a spot few would find if they only see this article. - Taxman Talk 18:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
'Ordinary' keratoconus is almost never called 'anterior keratoconus', but simply as keratoconus. (A google for "anterior keratoconus" produced 182 hits; one for "keratoconus -anterior" produced 376,000). I used the qualifier there to distinguish from posterior keratoconus, which is a different disease, as did my source for that section. I will reword that para to remove the word anterior. If anything, posterior keratoconus could have its own article under that name, though it is a rare condition. I will also review the text to try to combine some of the shorter paragraphs. --BillC 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine to justify the naming. Once the rest of the items that have been brought up here have been addressed, I would certainly support. - Taxman Talk 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Call me conservative (and consider that I am not a native speaker), but constructions like can affect the person's ability to, for example, legally drive a car or are effective enough to allow the patient to still drive a car make me feel slightly nauseated. Split infinitives are ugly, and split infitives with inserted clauses are unspeakably ugly, IMHO. Kosebamse 10:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am of course biased, having written those sentences, but as a native speaker didn't see anything drastically wrong with them. I have however reworded them to remove the split infinitives. They were the only such examples I could find in the article. --BillC 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Well referenced and comprehensive, a fine article. Kosebamse 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

This article was originally nominated by Kross in January. It had already had a positive peer review, but its nomination failed largely because on insufficient references (see archived discussion). I think that all of the issues raised then have now been addressed. The article as it stands is scrupulously referenced. It offers a balanced and very readable account of the life and work of a major historical figure. The images complement the text of the article nicely. I think this is the best source of general information on Sherman that is currently available on the web to the general public.

This is a self-nomination in that the bulk of the edits after the first featured article nomination failed are by me, though John Flaherty and Hal Jespersen also contributed significantly. -- Eb.hoop 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, but I would like to see more footnotes -- one per paragraph would be nice. Ideally the new format (see WP:FN) should be used. Johnleemk | Talk 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. RyanGerbil10 21:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Definitely a Good Article, but not quite featured quality yet, I think.
    • According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be three paragraphs long for this article.
    • Most of the sections are stubby, consisting of only one or two paragraphs. Consolidate sections, or, if there is enough to write about, expand them (preferred). If this makes the article too large, use summary style and split the article up.
    • Each section should have at -least- one inline citation. It would be nice to have at least one per paragraph.
  • I didn't have time for a more thorough review of content and writting style, but I'll get back to that later (hopefully later tonight). But the above issues are obvious and need to be fixed. Fieari 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the lead was too short, and have now expanded it to three paragraphs. I also have added a few extra references, and expanded some sections. The footnotes are now in the new format. Please take a look! -- Eb.hoop 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a well organized, well referenced, well written, and well balanced article. Introduction, layout, and image use are all appropriate. FA material by all standards. Durova 15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, well-referenced, NPOV. One to be proud of. Hydriotaphia 04:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history of France

Self-Nomination This article was checked by the Military History Peer Review and the regular peer review, although it has received no replies at all on the latter (but many on the military history one), so I decided to place it here on FAC.

I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the subject and I felt it was very under-covered in its initial version. Pictures were added, information referenced, sources increased, categorization improved, grammatical and spelling errors fixed, the number of battles and wars greatly expanded, visual quality got better, and descriptions also became more detailed. I greatly appreciate any and all input. I also just want to clarify a few things (these will become clearer after you’ve read/reviewed the article, so please do that first):

1. The article is somewhat long, but this is out of necessity, not oversight. I can’t change the fact that French military history was long, but I did try to be as economical as I could.

2. On the other hand, someone could claim that the article is short. For example, one could object to the fact that some wars (Revolutionary and Napoleonic) are covered as separate categories while whole periods of centuries received a category. This is because some periods, like the ones mentioned, witnessed profound change in warfare, and the literature also reflects this division. One of the books I used (it was on general world military history), for example, devotes one chapter of about 20 pages on 1,000 years of Medieval warfare while giving one chapter of the same length to 23 years of Revolutionary and Napoleonic warfare.

3. Because the article may be judged as (probably) long, I have included many pictures for variety and “visual entertainment,” but I would more than concur should anyone suggest some need to be taken away. However, the very reason why I put so many up was to provide some balance.

4. Below the descriptions for each era of warfare are the major conflicts (organized into wars and battles) that occurred in that era. But you’ll notice that for most categories, not every war or battle featured in the tables at the end is included in the descriptions; this is because those descriptions are meant to give a feel for what happened and why it happened. They are not meant to regurgitate every war or battle that French military history covers (that in itself is impossible, anyway). In the military history peer review, there was an objection that the tables at the end of the descriptions should perhaps be removed. This is very sensible indeed, as it would save a lot of space, but on the other hand, it would take away a unique experience for those readers who want to delve further into the topic and check out a battle in 1799, let’s say, that wasn’t covered in the description. The battle and war selection is also arbitrary and selective, but this is mostly due to the fact that wikipedia has limited resources on the respective topics, not because I forgot a certain important war or decided not to include this or that battle because I didn’t feel like it. Furthermore, there is much analysis of society and politics and how they shaped particular eras. This just follows from modern military theory that war has many different aspects besides what happens on the battlefield.

5. There are some online footnotes (six), which I more than realize is a weakness. However, they do not in themselves represent important claims, and because of that I thought it would be more convenient if I used online sources. One was a copy of part of the Versailles Treaty (primary source). One is a Britannica article on the “Grand Empire,” which does little more than give a casual description of that term (and I wanted nothing but that, so I thought it would suffice). One is a link to another wiki page on the Demographics of France, and if I must find another source for that then I will. One is a site on French colonization that I used for the size of the French colonial empire; a book might have been more reliable here, but I went back myself and added the number of squared miles of France at the time in question and found the number to be correct. The last is a site that talks about the controversy regarding the date of a battle, and the issue at stake is between several different historical authorities claiming different things (you’ll see in the site).

6. Articles in wikipedia look different depending on the text size or screen size in which you are viewing them. The way in which I expanded this article means that for optimal visual quality you should use the “Larger” text size. To do this (in Internet Explorer), go to “View,” then “Text Size,” and select “Larger.” If you don’t do this, the spatial relation between the words and the pictures will look disjointed. This can sometimes be a big problem in wikipedia, and someone needs to find a way to fix it. Also, a desktop would be ideal because of the large screen size.

7. An earlier judge objected to pictures being right underneath headers. Fortunately, the article’s creator pointed out that several other articles have this. In fact, many others do (including some very recent ones), and this article is definitely among them. It makes stylistic sense to do that; putting pictures at the top, right besides the text, is a way to lure in readers and keep them interested.

8. Almost at the very end of the article, there are three lists of military institutions, alliances, and leaders. Some of these have been mentioned during the regular parts of the article, and others haven’t. Still, they are there to provide outlets for others wishing to learn more about different aspects of French military history.

That’s it. Thank you in advance for all comments and suggestions.UberCryxic 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I think that the "French Colonial Empire" section should be immediately before "Modern Period" and not after. My understanding of French military history is far from thorough, but what I saw here I liked. Andrew Levine 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good article, and I think it does a satisfactory job of meeting the required standards. It is well-written and looks superb. On the other hand, even though I support, I think a few things could be revamped. For example, the lists at the end of the article are complete unnecessary and should be taken off. There's no real sense that they "provide outlets." It's just basically lists, without explanations of the alliances or leaders, that take up space. The "French Expeditionary Corps" redlink should probably be removed, leaving just the "Russian Civil War" (this was done with other wars where no battles were listed). The intro could also use a bit more work (in being shorter). But overall, I think the standards have been met, and we have an article worthy of fa here.Prometheus123 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great, relevant images and prose that is very easy to read. Does a great job in avoiding bias, and even treats all periods of French history equally instead of favoring the more recent like some editors (i.e. me) would've done. Definite FA material. Juppiter 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys. Ok, the French Colonial Empire has been placed before the Modern Period and I've removed the redlink to the Expeditonary Corps. But Prometheus, I'd like to see what the opinions of others on the lists are. I think some people may support them.UberCryxic 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think those lists are very helpful. If they were removed from the article I'd put them back in. Andrew Levine 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- 1) The article is long, but you can definately author it in summary style. Move unnecessary detail to daughter articles, and summarise the same here. 2) Those bulleted text at the end of each section look downright ugly. 3. There are issues with all browsers and resolutions but 800x600, the standard web resolution is regarded as the default. 4. A copyedit is needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm still not happy with a lot of the issues.
  1. =Themes in French military history= reads like an overview (which is the function of the lead). Military history of Canada for example is chronological and starts off immediately with "European colonization".
  2. Important milestones in Caesar's conquest: is a list and be prosified.
  3. Immediately prior to Charlemagne, the Franks were preoccupied with.. why is the article not written chronologically? Why not merge the two sections?
  4. Lots of essay type phrases: It could be said that French military history; the zenith of their power; afford a better understanding; By the time of the Crusades; Indeed, given the successes of Henry V,; It could be claimed
  5. France had a particularly favorable climate ... sophisticated and increasingly more expensive and more impenetrable armor. How does one the link climate with armor? Why is France singled out?
  6. more impenetrable???

I'd have to stop here. There's also simply too much detail (specific instances, figures etc.) in the article. A summary is definately needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Nichalp, I've made the following changes: the Gauls section is now completely in prose, the Franks and Carolingian sections have been merged (so have the wars and battles in the list at the French wars and battles category), and I cleared out many of those annoying phrases (also, Wayward already performed a wonderful copyedit). I deleted the parts about the armor. A note on the themes section: it is not like the lead because it is not chronological. It merely informs people of important characteristics of the topic without many references to events (a fundamental difference with the lead). I believe it is a very important and crucial section in the article since it gives beginners a good starting point; something to keep in the back of their mind as they actually are reading the chronological accounts. Let me know if you have any more requests. Thanks very much.UberCryxic 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. It still needs a copyedit. I've still found two "Indeed"s and wesel terms such as "Some have aruged"; "Perhaps some of the most celebrated military rivalries". 2. I'm not convinced with the argument that the themes need to exist. Such a section conflicts with the goal of having a smooth and logical flow of the matter at hand. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The lead section needs to be trimmed down by omitting names of people, specific wars and dates. The =themes= section can be heavily condensed into three sentences and included right in the beginning of the lead section. 3. =Napoleonic France= needs to be cut down. The section is too long. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The indeeds have been removed and the "Some have argued" now reads "Some historians have argued" (I have to phrase it like this because it's not an undisputed fact). The Napoleonic section has been considerable shortened and looks visually better; I think it's now in line with the others. I based much of this article on the Military history of Canada, and the lead there mentions both specific years and wars. Also, for a 53 kb article, a 3-paragraph lead with that size seems appropriate. The themes section does many good things that just simply aren't covered in other areas (and that would be better if they were covered in a section like this). If you would like to give people a stronger sense of chronology, then what do you think about moving it all the way to the end, so the article starts with "Gauls" right away? I'm just hesitating to remove it because I think it serves some very useful functions; things that the lead can't do (the lead is expected to give the chronological account of French military history, and it does that, but it is not expected to provide information on motifs or themes; neither the lead in the Military history of Canada or the Military history of the Soviet Union does that). Thanks again!UberCryxic 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think some historians have argued is any better or needed. What historians argue that? It's partially covered in that the refutation of the theory at least tangentially covers the existance of the argument, but that's not ideal. It's a pretty good article, but I'd like to see that last few short paragraphs expanded or merged to eliminate choppy prose. - Taxman Talk 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
=Themes in French military history= Is it original research? these rivalries and objectives give a better understanding of French military history than a mere chronological listing. ..for whom? I'm still not convinced why we can't use a summary the themes section in the lead. I usually never copyedit, but I can summarise over the weekend if needed. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp, it is my opinion that readers unaccustomed to the topic will benefit from that section by learning why some of these wars occurred rather than "here are the wars; have fun." For that reason, I am strongly disinclined to remove this category. Including the themes in the introduction would make it embarrasingly long as the lead is unequivocally the place for the chronological account of French military history. But, if you do want it removed, then I guess I'll have no choice but to comply. Before I do that, however, I want you to tell me whether you have any other requests so I can take care of those first. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to excide the =themes=, but weave it within the lead section instead. I'll support the article once this is done. (I have a small minor request. That roundel image can be converted into an .svg image. Not essential though.). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)r

Done and done Nichalp. After careful consideration though, I decided to just delete the themes section and not include any of its information in the lead as I didn't think it was essential enough to merit being placed there. I know it's not exactly what you wanted, but now the lead remains of appropriate length and the structure of the article follows that of its Canadian counterpart more closely. Tell me what you think; thanks!UberCryxic 14:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep I agree with you. I've removed the "Some have argued part" and it now just says "One of the driving.." and so on. French air force, navy, and linguistic influence have all been merged under the section "Topical subjects" (someone welcome to suggest a better name for it).UberCryxic 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

About the copyedit, would you mind if you did it? My worry is that because I wrote most of this article, I'll be hesitating about taking things away. I've already done several copyedits and we've still been having problems. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

All-right, I did another copyedit.UberCryxic 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed some .gif images in the article. They need to be converted to png. GIFs are only meant for animated images. Secondly, please try and fix a standard width to the images (this applies to images where width>height). I've done the svg roundel image for you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the png versions. Support' now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Nichalp on the copyediting, but the article is very well written, so in no way would I use that to oppose. Also, the bulleted texts aren't ugly at all. They're very well-placed and fit in well with the rest of the text. I agree with Andrew on the lists at the end; keep them. Only thing I would suggest is to make the Franks category larger; as it is, a bit too small. In the end, great article and deserves FA.ThePro2 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An interesting subject complex due to the length of time the article covers. I particularly like the list battles at the end of each section, very useful further reading. The only minor issue i have is in formatting around those list. Suggest a repositioning of Images to fill the large white areas as has occured in French Colonial Empire, this being a minor issue that its not sufficient to object. Suggest you consider an image of the periods major weapon(s) to fill the space as opposed to reformatting the current document. Gnangarra 10:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
comment continued support even with the loss of the list. Gnangarra 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article very reader-friendly for the layperson. -- Sinatra 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nichalp. Those lists are really unsightly, and 60+ KB is too much for one article. — BrianSmithson 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment: In addition to my aversion to the aesthetics of the lists, they also bother me the same way all "See also" sections bother me. If something is a pertinent associated article, it should be linked in the main text of the article. Can you imagine if every article followed this one's example by appending lengthy "see also" lists at the end of each section? It's not a style I'd like to see mimicked by other pieces. If the lists are kept, they should be broken out into secondary articles, such as List of French wars and battles of the Middle Ages or some better name. The same goes for the long lists at the end of the article ("List of famous French military leaders" etc.) These lists are a large part of the reason this article is so large (66 KB!), and this is precisely because this is the type of stuff that should be broken out per summary style guideliness. Make these sepearate list articles, provide your links, and the main article will look and read better. The people who have supported the lists above will still have the information available, and I can forgive any excess of length at that point. — BrianSmithson 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing to Support. Bon travail! — BrianSmithson 12:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All-right, I've made the following changes and the article has now shrunk to 57kb: I deleted the Medieval, Ancien Regime, French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, and Modern Period war and battle lists. I also deleted French military alliances. A lot more material has been taken to the "See also" around the bottom of the article. As of yet, those lists have not been made into their own articles to link off from "See Also," (so far I've only done this for the famous French military leaders and the naval battles at the end of the navy cateogry) but if there's support for this, then I'll go ahead and create those. However, I left out the lists in the first few categories and the lists in the French Colonial Empire, Air Force, and Navy since there's not much white space in those categories. But if you want them taken away Brian, I'll do it. Just tell me how you think it looks now. Thanks for your comments.UberCryxic 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks better. One thing you might consider (in order to get rid of all the lists but not lose any content) is to start List of French battles or List of battles in France (or some better title) where you could list as many battles as will fit (including all of those you have listed now, as well as red-linked ones that will hopefully spur further efforts from other editors). Best of all, you could add a piped link to this article after each section, thus clearing away all the boxes. For example, [[List of French battles#Frankish_period|List of Frankish battles]] would bring the reader to a list virtually identical to the one under "The Franks" now while keeping the article sleek-looking and smaller KB-wise. — BrianSmithson 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I noticed somebody changed a particularly important part in the very first paragraph. What used to read as "peoples of France" now reads "the French." This makes it easier to read, but I'm afraid it's somewhat historically incorrect (which is why I used the phrase I did). The Franks, which made many of those important military developments, were Germanic and inter-mixed with the indigineous Gallo-Roman population, so Germany and France have just as much a right to claim them as "theirs." The reason why I wrote "peoples of France" is to avoid conflict like this. I don't think most laypeople would care, but a military "hardass" like myself would be skeptical about that comment. But I won't press it anymore. Overall, I liked the copyediting very much (thanks Wayward). UberCryxic 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say change it back. You researched this topic, so you know what you're talking about and what the best wording should be. — BrianSmithson 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I did change it back, and I'm in the process of implementing your suggestions. When I'm done, there should be no more boxes (*tears*).UberCryxic 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I created a List of French wars and battles article, so the remaining Gallic, Frankish, Carolingian, and French Colonial Empire battles/wars have been moved there. I deleted the five articles on the French Navy since they describe the current navy. But there is a link to the French Navy in the summary, and those five articles are linked in that article for anyone who wants to check them out. Also, the Zouaves picture had to go since when I took out the lists it was intruding on the space of the Modern Period. However, there is still one more box left, and that's under the Air Force. This last remaining box holds the three historical articles on the French Air Force, and because it doesn't hurt visual quality and doesn't repeat anything mentioned in the summary, I'd like to keep it there. But once again, check it out and let me know how you think it looks.UberCryxic 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget my suggestion to pipe a link to the appropriate section of List of French wars and battles at the end of each section. I prefer it the way it is now, but I'm anticipating that some who liked the boxes above may object to their removal. Linking as I described would be a good compromise, in my opinion. But back to the article: Bravo! It looks much cleaner. I still n'aime pas the long list of see alsos, but I won't object based on that alone. However, regarding the French air force box: Have you tried to move that information up to the top of the section with the {{main|Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942)}} then the other and the other? That's the standard way to do this kind of thing. Finally, I'm fairly certain that there shouldn't be any wikilinks in the title of the ariticle. Unfortunately, I can't find the relevant policy page at the moment! — BrianSmithson 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooops forgot about the pipelinks, but they're in there now. I also put the main articles at the top for the air force. On the wikilinks, I got that idea from the Military history of Canada, which is a featured article, so I think I'm with "legal" bounds for that one lol.UberCryxic 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of the many see alsos at the end too; the list looks more palatable now.UberCryxic 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Needs a copyedit, I'm sure, but all long articles could benefit from some good proofreading. I don't believe in length as an actionable FA requirement, so I'm going to go ahaead and say that the length is appropriate. I personally don't like the lists that aren't converted into prose, but if that's just me, I suppose I can let it go. RyanGerbil10 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I share and sympathize with your concerns. However, due to space restrictions and the gargantuan, event-filled military history of France, it would be difficult for me to focus on almost every single alliance or minor engagement. Your opposition is sensible, of course, but carried to its logical conclusion, you must also object to the fact that I didn't include French military missions to Japan in the 19th century, or French military missions to the Ottoman Empire in the 1730s, or the dozens of other French military missions with advisory roles to various areas and nation-states throughout history that have been just as significant, no? Furthermore, the mission to Poland is listed in the List of French wars and battles (so is the French Expeditionary Corps to Russia, thought it's currently redlinked); that category is incomplete, but you'll find wars and battles aplenty there nonetheless. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your opposition. I tried to be as thorough as I could with the length I am reasonably allowed to have. If you would like, maybe I could search for some online sources dealing with the topics you've raised. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help. Thank you.UberCryxic 06:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment : If the lenght requirement becomes a restriction to how complete an article can be,than IMO the requirement is the thing that fails.--Technosphere83 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I definetly agree with Technosphere83. The article should be comprehensive first, summary-style second. Of course we should not aim for gargantuan 1mb articles - this is what subarticles are for. Nonetheless I think that few mor kb could be spared to include more info, and that you can reduce some sections from several paragraps by one paragraph to include info on other events. One can make a good case that Napoleonic times deserve more coverage than Franco-Polish alliance, but not that Napoleonic ones deserve 5 paragraphs and FPa (or FJapanese or FOttoman relations) does not need to be mentioned at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I should emphasize that it's not the only problem preventing me from significantly expanding this article. I could go on with this in summary style for such a long time that 100 kb would seem short. It's just in the nature of the topic. Because it's so vared and complex, there are bound to be things left out. My objective is to cover the main periods, and the main struggles that covered those periods. The pictures also provide good, additional information and links where users can explore the subject further. Moreover, French alliances with other superpowers or alliances that produced decisive results on the battlefield are included; Franco-Ottoman partnership in the 16th century, Franco-Swedish cooperation in the 17th century, and the Entente Cordiale (mentioned in the article as something like "France, with British aid..."). But the Franco-Polish alliance didn't produce any decisive military result; in the Polish-Soviet War, the Poles were actually lucky to ignore the advice given by the French mission, or there would've gone one of the greatest victories of the 20th century, the Battle of Warsaw. In World War II, the French pulled off a measly Saar offensive to distract Germany from Poland, but it did nothing. In a strictly militaristic realm, this alliance was not as great as some other ones that France has had (which, again, have been mentioned). Thank you.UberCryxic 15:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments (haven't read through the entire thing yet)
    • Squeezing text between pics is poor layout. Either remove or redistribute them. Readers should never have to change their settings for an article to look right. Basic principle of webdesign.
    • It'd be nice to see a conversion to the Cite.php (i.e. the <ref> format). I can do it myself if you don't have objections.
    • I think Piotr does make a valid point, although I won't be objecting over it, lacking the knowledge to do so, but a shorter section covering this period could be reasonably made. After all, if it is suposed to cover the entire Military history of France, then shouldn't it cover the Interwar period just as well?
  • Circeus 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Circeus. I wholeheartedly agree that it is a good principle of design; however, it looks weird through no fault of mine. For example, I am now watching the Palazzo Pitti (current FAC) on the "Larger" text. Looks fine. Then I switch to "Medium," and an ugly gap emerges between the "Palatine Gallery" and the paragraph beneath it. This gap did not exist in the "Larger" style. This is the stuff I'm talking about. It's not just this article; every wikipedia article seems to look better on the larger setting. Yes, go ahead and make the conversion (thank you so much for that btw). Piotr does make a good point; let there be no mistake about that. However, the amount of detail and analysis that would need to be added if I were to keep this article fair (presumably I shouldn't just add a section or paragraph on the inter-war period, but also on obscure subjects like the Saintonge War, which in its time used to be important) would positively drive every single wikipedia reader crazy (including me, having to bear such a promethean task), even the fans of military history. I also just want to mention that it does talk about France in the inter-war period; there's a paragraph that mentions Charles de Gaulle's ideas on armored warfare and France's population problems leading to longer conscription terms, making military life increasingly unpopular. On top of that, I want people to read Military history of Canada and compare it with this. You should be noting major differences; notice how wars set the tempo and categorization in that article. Well, that's because whoever wrote it could afford to do that with Canadian military history, which is immensely shorter (in terms of events) than what we have here. I can't do that with French military history because the article would never end. That's why this article is organized into important military "themes" in French history; so it says "Modern Period" instead of "World War I" or "Inter-war period." For those who want to find out more, there are the lists at the end of each category. Finally, it is my opinion that whoever reads this will come away with a very good understanding of the developments, as seen in wars and battles, and the general themes in French military history.UberCryxic 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the gap you describe, but then, that is probably because I use Firefox, not Internet Explorer (Firefox has Wiki-related issues of his note, though). Also, I'm afraid this article cannot have Cite.php refs until the bug that prevents them being used in Picture captions is solved. Circeus 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I am pleading with you to revoke your wish, not because it’s not a good one, but because if I were to comply, this article would turn into a fortress of useless information and unnecessary details that would completely turn off laypeople. If that were to happen, I would also be greatly disappointed. It’s not just about Franco-Polish, Ottoman, or Japanese relations; there are many other things that you did not mention. I would have to include those too. I am not opposing you because I don’t want more work for myself; I love this topic. I’ve studied French military history (and particularly Napoleonic warfare) for years, which is why I sincerely hope people listen to my warnings. If I do this, I want to add my own big, bold-face “OPPOSE” to this article for FA. It would ruin it; it would be flooding with redlinks. This article is based on the premise that French military history should be covered in themes, not wars, battles, or alliances. To that end, I’ve included what I thought was the best information that would allow people to understand the general nature of French warfare in a particular theme or era. If, however, you want an exclusive and explicit mention of Franco-Polish cooperation during the inter-war period, then I’d be more than happy to do it. However, that would make it very arbitrary, so also keep that in mind. But if you want it done, I'll do it.UberCryxic 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just thought of this: I could take the Louis Fary picture from the French military mission to Poland and use it on my article, then explain some basic things about the Franco-Polish alliance in the caption. Tell me what you think.UberCryxic 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do agree it is a relatively minor issue (for the same reason I don't think that Polish Legions in Italy need to be linked. Nonetheless I think that eventually all those things should be included in the subarticle, and I'd gladly see such subarticles created now - even if filled mostly with copied content from the main sections - so I (and you, and others) can then start adding such links (red or not) and related info to them, without overbloating the current article. When I see those subarticles, I'll support this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, I'm trying to better understand what you want me to put in these subarticles. Do you want me to include summary content in the sections about what we've been discussing? So, for example, in the Modern Period, do you want me to include something like the "Inter-war period" and then there mention the Franco-Polish alliance and other relevant matter? If so, how many subarticles do you want for each main article (or do you just want this subarticle on the Modern Period)? One, two, as necessity dictates?UberCryxic 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you - do what you think is best. Eventually I'd expect to see a subarticle for every section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank God those horrible lists have been removed! Look, I don't know much about French military history (at least I didn't before I read this article), but I completely agree with Uber. This article is very comprehensive. Like Juppiter said up top, it covers all the major time periods, and does so in an effective fashion. I wouldn't change the summary content. If people have questions or desires about other material, just see the lists. And if your particular concern isn't there, then be proactive and put it in those lists. But the main article shouldn't be covered with litter because this or that was left out.Prometheus123 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Circeus, another problem for me could be that I'm using a laptop with a much-smaller screen than my normal home desktop (I'm in college now). And yeah, I've got IE.UberCryxic 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, very good article; provides a comprehensive overview of the material without getting bogged down in endless trivia. I might add that the alliance with Poland, while undobtedly significant in regard to the start of World War II, is a miniscule part of France's military history overall; if we are to significantly expand the article (which I don't really recommend), we should concentrate on things like the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Religion, which involve decades of bitter warfare, rather than on advisory missions to other countries. —Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done for the effort put in to write this article. --Terence Ong 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, great lack of bias, despite obvious pride. Very, very good indeed. --PopUpPirate 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Support. You've won me over. An article of this scope presents a great challenge. The piece is well organized and generally encyclopedic in tone. When editors take on this type of subject there's always a risk that someone who knows one part of the material well will come along and pick things apart. For this nomination, I'm that person. I'm very uncomfortable with the amount of unsourced POV on the topics I understand best. Details follow. Durova 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "In approximately the 10th century, iron armor started to replace the use of other materials like leather or bronze." unsourced France remained in the bronze age until the tenth century? This would place the country well behind its neighbors in Europe where iron helmets and weapons predate that by centuries.
  • In reference to the fifteenth century: "France could easily field over 10,000 knights in full plate mail, with a large number of those on heavy warhorses with their own armor. A knight on horseback would most likely have felt invincible except to another knight on horseback." unsourced Even before Agincourt, the English longbow had proven itself at the Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Poitiers and Swiss pikemen had earned their reputation in other engagements. Pope Innocent II had tried to ban the use of arbalests and bows because of their effectiveness in killing cavalry. Moreover, where does that enormous number come from? The most generous estimates of the 1429 campaign place the entire French army at 10,000, a figure which is probably exaggerated and certainly includes a preponderance of infantry, artillery, and noncombatants.
  • "However, by the late 14th century and the early 15th, French military power declined because of the sudden obsolescence of men in armor." unsourced English technology and tactics barely changed between Poitiers and Agincourt. Armor didn't become obsolete until the seventeenth century. What did happen during the reign of Charles VI was a king who suffered from psychotic fits and a cousin of his who started a civil war. Before the middle of the century French men in armor humiliated the English at the very important Battle of Patay.
  • "Given the successes of Henry V, the French could consider themselves fortunate that they recovered virtually all their territory by the end of the Hundred Years War." unsourced That makes adaptive tactics seem like luck. The French learned to ambush the English in open fields rather than charge against fully prepared longbowmen, and they learned to make greater use of bombardments and frontal assaults in siege operations.
  • "Popular conceptions of the victory in the final stages of the Hundred Years War are often dominated by Joan of Arc, but there were far deeper reasons for the French triumph. The main step was taken by King Charles VII, who, with the Compagnies d'Ordonnance, 20 companies of 600 men each, created the first standing army in the Western world since Roman times, giving the French a considerable edge in professionalism and discipline. Additionally, developments in artillery made it the finest arm of the French army..." unsourced Arguably the English longbow corps was the first standing army since Roman times and the French reacted rather belatedly. The historians I've read give primary credit to diplomatic realignment at the Treaty of Arras and the weak leadership of Henry VI for the outcome of the war. This also implies that Joan of Arc was wholly uninvolved in artillery. Actually the men who fought alongside her considered her a tactical genius with artillery placement as her particular strength.
 
  • Jumping ahead in time, but back to the article's introduction, we also find this: "In the 18th century, global competition with Britain led to defeat in the French and Indian War, where France lost its North American holdings..." unsourced Nothing in the body of the article clarifies or corrects this. In fact France retained large claims in North America which Napoleon sold in the Louisiana purchase. The transaction roughly doubled the land area of the United States.

Ok let me just chop off one thing first and then later on I'll address other more substantial claims. First of all, France did lose nearly all of its North American possessions following the Seven Years War. You forgot the Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, when Spain ceded Louisiana to France and Napoleon sold it three years later to America. The statement in the introduction is therefore correct (and it doesn't need to be sourced; it's a general historical fact). Also, I am 1000% sure that the Compagnies were the first standing army since Roman times (will be sourced). What I'm going to do about the Medieval category is use a site which up until now was listed as an "External Link." That site has terrific information on French medieval warfare and it's written by military historians. I'll notify you when I'm done with the changes (because essentially I agree with you; there's some things there that need to be referenced).UberCryxic 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, New Orleans was nominally Spanish - their lasting influence is demonstrated by the famous Spanish Quarter. ;) Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

K the information about the Compagnies d'Ordonnance has now been fully referenced from credible sources. In the process of addressing other concerns....(will keep you updated moment by moment)...UberCryxic 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Atlas of World Military History (editor Richard Brooks): "Much has been made of the success of the English longbow. However, it was not a war-winning weapon. Reliance on this defensive weapon on the battlefield gave the initiative to the French; its victories also depended on the French bungling their attack. The English were fortunate that their opponent failed to get it right three times in a 70-year period." My own research confirms the essence of this statement; the French would've crushed (excuse the wording but it's true) the English even with their longbows; they failed because terrain prevented the full maturation of an attack (Agincourt) or whatever attacks they did launch were poorly coordinated. The French tactical plan for Agincourt was superb, but the terrain prevented its implementation. The Henry comment is now cited, though quite unnecessarily. Every other book ....nvm, EVERY book on the Hundred Years War has the comment: "French got lucky when Henry died." Pejorative? You bet. But it seems to be a standard thing, and this is an encyclopedia, so standardization counts. Also, the article's comments don't in anyway belittle Joan of Arc's achievements; all the article says is that other, more substantial reasons than Joan of Arc can explain why the French won (which is true). Keep in mind that in this particular part I have to explain why the French won with little recourse to specifics (otherwise I'd break the structure of the article, which is not to get heavily involved in anyone part unless it's necessary....saying Joan of Arc spotted the artillery correctly at this or that battle is a bit irrelevant when I can talk about general trends).UberCryxic 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the French got lucky when Henry V died. No quarrel there. The war continued more than 30 years after his death, though. Joan of Arc didn't end it either. However, DeVries (Joan of Arc: A Military Leader ISBN 0750918055) and Richey (Joan of Arc: The Warrior Saint ISBN 0275981037) cite the testimony of the French commanders who fought alongside her. They consistently single out her artillery tactics for special praise. Obviously you can only give this a cursory mention in such a general article. My point is that it misleads the reader to juxtapose artillery and Joan of Arc. I'd still like to know your source for the "10,000 knights in full plate mail." Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh on the possibility that the English 'longbow corps' was the first-standing since Roman times, Andrew Ayton and J.L. Price in the Military Revolution from a Medieval Perspective (1998): "How far should the development of standing armies be regarded as a distinctive characteristic of the last century of the Middle Ages? Some states, like England, resisted the transition from contract armies to a standing army..."UberCryxic 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute a citation. My point is that, during an era when armies disbanded in the autumn and peasant soldiers brought in the harvest, the English maintained a corps of longbowmen who practiced their weapon throughout the year. Obviously that wasn't organized in the comprehensive capacity that Charles VII established. Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments about the artillery and their significance have been cited.UberCryxic 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The comments in the first paragraph about the 10th century have been reorganized and extensively cited; review them now and tell me what you think.UberCryxic 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes. I've been expanding Category:Medieval armor. You might want to Wikilink to a couple of items. Overall, thanks for responding quickly both here and at the article. Your subject deserves to be featured. You're very close to converting my vote into a support. Cheers, Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I strongly disagree with your comments about 10,000 being the number of French troops at Agincourt. The truth is that there is much controversy surrounding those figures. For example (I'm getting this off the wikipedia article on Agincourt), Juliet Barker's Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle says 6,000 English and Welsh fought against 36,000 French troops. I'll get rid of that number though.UberCryxic 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read my comment again. I referred the drive to Rheims in 1429. BTW regarding your Agincourt numbers, each knight needed at least one squire in order to dress for battle. So if the French fielded 10,000 knights in full armor at Agincourt out of a force of 36,000, more than half their army is already accounted for. Durova 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Durova, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, both through writings here and the changes I've made on the main page. I'd like you to have a second look and tell me what you think. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support This is a terrific article. Good information, well-researched, and very well-written.MichaelBr 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support - very well written, though I have two items I have added to the talk page that need to be addressed. They are relatively minor, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mexicanos, al grito de guerra

Another FAC attempt by me, second on a Mexican article and on a national anthem. The only thing I am concerned about during this FAC is the posibility that the media files I have might not be able to be used on here, so any comments about that, or anything else, is welcome. Also, if y'all think me moving this article a while back was wrong too, let me know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: some of the sources are just placed as bare links, without them being treated as footnotes. That glanced at me as soon as I gave the article a full read. Some of them are in Cite.php format too, so it should be better to just standarize them under one format, preferably {{cite web}}/<ref>/<references/>. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cautious Hold. There don't seem to be many references or footnotes... RyanGerbil10 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: Are there more details on the copyright situation? I found that Mexican copyright law (article 156) seems to suggest that the government thinks they own the rights to the song. I'd prefer a more weighty citation than LA Weekly for backing this section up. Also, where did the translation come from? A few of the lines are rather shaky, but if it's something official I suppose I can live with it. I don't like the explanation of "Patria" right beforehand; it seems unnecessary. A little more discussion of current events related to the anthem might be interesting (maybe [1] and some citations of the cultural importance of the anthem?) Other than that though, this is looking good. I don't mind the fact that there aren't a lot of citations; this is a short article and each citation covers alot of material. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hold. The translation is completely unofficial and has been discussed in the talk page. This should be emphasized in the article IMO. The copyright section should be clarified based on solid evidence, because otherwise it sounds like an urban legend. Itub 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I put an invisible note about the translation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Itub, I found out that the copyright mess, while it did happen, is mostly an urban myth. Only one recording was determined to be copyrighted by a US Company, the lyrics and music are in the PD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, is everything alright now? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all right. I withdraw my hold. Itub 03:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, I got rid of all fair use photos from the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Adding my support; this is looking good. If anything, a little more copyright info would be nice, but I have a feeling that there isn't much more to say. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The only other thing I found was in Article 188 of the MX copyright law is that the rights cannot be reserved on "reproduce or imitate coats of arms, flags, emblems or signs of any country, State, municipality or equivalent political subdivision without the due authorization; " So, if I am reading this right, any unauthorized recordings of the anthem should be public domain. But, since that is probably OR, that will not be included. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not comprehensive. Everyking 08:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Ta bu shi da yu 12:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan

This article has gone through an extensive makeover in the past 5-6 weeks and I believe that it currently meets the featured article criteria. Pepsidrinka 06:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Almost there though: Some issues:
  1. Following independence... twenty-fifth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. -- split and cpedit.
  2. border dispute Kashmmir is not a border dispute. It's also territorial. I've fixed it
  3. The tourism part in the economy sections reads like a brochure. plz tone it down. See Nepal and Bhutan.
    Please refer to [2] to populate the economy section. The tourism part needs to go. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. The image gallery in the =Society and culture= section needs to go.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think three of the four items you mentioned have been looked at and edited as such. However, I'm not sure I understand your objection about the Kashmir border/territorial dispute. Footnote 2 explains that China, India, and Pakistan all administer parts of Kashmiri region. Footnote 23, which was added after your comment, explains that India does not recognize Azad Kashmir nor the Northern Areas. IMO this sufficently explains that there is a territorial dispute. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support -- A light copyedit by someone not associated with the nom would improve the text significantly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak oppose also, the images need to have their copyright clarified. The image of Muhammad Ali Jinnah claims expired copyright and refers to a website. I checked that site out and cant find the image. Given that he died in 1948 (most photos would be this) if the photo was taken and published in India before 1946 then this image needs to have that confirmed and stated in its description. Images from world66 are creative commons with the requirement of acknowledging the author, i have fixed one but other images need to have this fixed. There is also an image with a template requesting the uploader to confirm copyright status. On the dates BCE and CE have been used, a wikilink to an article explaining what BCE and CE are would be helpful . Aside from these small fixes well done its an interesting article that kept my attention and deserves to achieve FAC Gnangarra 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
i found an article and linked BCE Gnangarra
  • Is it safe to assume that since the uploader himself added the picture to an article here that he meant for it to be released into the public domain? Pepsidrinka 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added the original author's name in the other picture (i.e., the King Faisal Mosque picture). Pepsidrinka 20:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It might be easier to just pick another image of the mosque from a PD or a creative commons work. Try these [3]. These images are CC-Attrib 2.0 images. You may want to search for additional images here too that might help satisfy any copyright concerns of other images currently used in your article. AreJay 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a similar picture of the same mosque and a similar vantage point by the same author on commons. I have since substituted it into the article. Also, the Muhammad Ali Jinnah picture has been removed and replaced with another picture, one whose status is confirmed to be within the public domain. Pepsidrinka 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good job in promptly addressing concerns Gnangarra 14:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Apart from the valid objections raised by Nichalp and Gnangarra, please address the following as well:. Good job addressing editors' concerns. AreJay 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    1. Pakistan has the largest expatriate community of any Muslim country with large numbers living in Australia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Citation required.
    2. Pakistani emigrants and their children influence Pakistan culturally and economically by regularly returning to and investing in Pakistan. That's a blanket statement, considering the assertion above that the country has the largest Muslim expatriate community. Please delete this sentence.
    3. The climate varies as much as the scenery.. theme repeated from the first sentence of the second paragraph on Geography. AreJay 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The last two issues you addressed have been looked at and have been edited per your recommendations. A {{fact}} tag has been added and the editors of this article are looking for an appropriate citation. Pepsidrinka 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The expatriates statistics have since been updated and cited properly. Pepsidrinka 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support once Nichalp, Gnangarra and AreJay's concerns are addressed, I'll give full support. Rama's Arrow 18:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support also. I liked the effort in article standarization. CG 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support as per others. I've added comments on Pakistan occupied Kashmir in the pertinent portions of Pakistan, according to the statements in Azad Kashmir and Northern States. I feel I may have acted under the influence of my bias towards India to do so! Please discuss if needed.--Dwaipayanc 21:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir article is fairly balanced. --digitalSurgeon 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't think its quality is good enough. --GorillazFanAdam 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Could you elaborate on how the quality of the article is not good enough? Green Giant 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not very helpful. GorillazFanAdam, please be specific as to what your objections are, so that the editors can then appropriately address any actionable objections. AreJay 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WeakStrong support While I acknowledge the tremendous effort that has gone into this article, I'm unable to offer a strong support before the following issues are fixed.
    1. The lead could do well with a little copyediting. Not a major issue though.
    2. Needs a reference for the assertion "imprudent policies led to a slowdown in the late 1990s."
    3. "Recent decades have seen the emergence of a middle class in cities like Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Sukkur and Peshawar but the northwestern regions bordering Afghanistan, remain highly conservative and dominated by centuries-old regional tribal customs." - The link between "middle class" and "liberalism" is not explicit. Definitely it's not obvious.
    4. The mountaineering mention in "Society and culture" needs to be reworded.
    5. The article as a whole could benefit from a copyedit by someone who hasn't actively edited this article. Perhaps Tom can help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A citation has been added for the economic slowdown of the '90s and the mountaineering sentence has been tweaked. The article has been copyedited again (though by an active editor of the article). The other issue will shortly be addressed. Pepsidrinka 06:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A citation has been added in regards to the liberalist/middle class. The sentence has been reworded to make itmore explicit that the middle class is of a more secular/liberal nature as compared to the northwester conservatists. Pepsidrinka 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That citation is really weak. It does not give any information and when I clicked on it you get a subscriber site. You should provide the title and author, assuming it is some kind of an opinion piece. Furthermore, recent riots over the cartoons in urban areas seem to indicate that it is not something confined to frontier areas.(Blacksun 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
  • I could not find a link so I rewrote the citation in a more appropriate format, which includes the author and the title. Pepsidrinka 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Really nice article. However, their is one thing that I found to be in gray area and bit misleading: "In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, Pakistan's GDP growth rate was 8.4%, the second-highest after China, among the ten most populous countries in the world." I do not disagree with the figure. However, that growth rate was from an extraordinary weak base of previous few years. Considering the context, I find the statement to be bit misleading but it is not enough to oppose an otherwise fairly good article. Just my two cents. Good job. --Blacksun 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The 8.4% figure was the number released by the PM, Shaukat Aziz. Please by all means, discuss it on the article talk page if you would like to encourage other editors of the page to chime in. Pepsidrinka 01:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Incidently, that figure is also used by the CIA World Factbook. Pepsidrinka 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I have been watching this article for a while and indeed it has gone under major changes and corrections that I feel it should be selected as a feature article. Fast track 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. We have references in the reference section that we don't know what they are there to support. Should be called a further reading section, not a reference section. Also, there is no decent map of Pakistan in this article. On another note, the map pertaining to the ethnic groups shows the Soviet Union! Do we have nothing more recent? --Bob 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
As explained already on the talk page of the article (though I'll explain for others who haven't read the dialogue on the talk page), the References were there prior to the current group of editors editing the page, and prior to this current trend where inline citations is the standard. If you take a look at older FAs, many do not have inline citations, as they weren't apart of the standard. Things have changed now. However, when the current group of editors started pushing for a FA, they added inline citations for those facts that needed it. As far as I know, it is not necessary for every fact to have a corresponding inline citation (this is explained further on the talk page). So the References section are references used by editors in the past, and assuming good faith that they are actually used in the article, it is my opinion that they should stay in the article, and be appropriately named References. However, I'm not going to get into an edit war over something like this. Pepsidrinka 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm with Pepsidrinka on this. I feel there's a distinction between the Notes and References sections. Notes contains specific in-line citations while References contains material that was used to gain a general understanding of the subject. As Pepsidrinka pointed out, the article lacked in-line citations before he and Green Giant and the new team of editors came on board. However, portions of the article existed in some state prior to their edits and the past editors had, it appears, referenced the material contained in the References section. I don't think the articles in the References section need to tie in directly and specifically to sentences in the article. I don't see how this particular objection can be satisfied short of tracking down this article's many previous editors and having them identify what they specifically referenced from each of those links. AreJay 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Saravask 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- It is well written. --Spasage 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until such a time as the genocidal campaign carried out in 1971 has received the weight it deserves, currently it is but a few lines. This is hardly enough to cover the entire aspects of a conflict which ended with the partition of a nation. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

I think this article is the most comprehesive, factually accurate, throughly documented, non-technically written overview of the philosophy of mind that you will find anywhere. Now go ahead and rip it to shreds!!--Lacatosias 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

comment wow a slug fest this should be interesting to watch, seriously its a good article obvious potential for FAC, first read is a little difficult(heavy) yet I understood whats was being said. I do question as to why Duelism has such a large section when it refers to a main article. Plently of referrences though their frequency increases towards the end of the article. I'll be back for another read before I climb off the fence Gnangarra 11:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

: Short and honest answer about dualism: I was trying to keep the structure of the article as faithful as possible to the German featured article version. Since I have no previous experience with Featured Articles on Wikipedia (have only been doing this for three months or so), I looked over the German version and decided there must have been something right about this particular organization or it would not have been accepted as an FA (which is something that only .001% of articles acheive??). In any case, this was my basic reasoning. Later on, someone added the main article links (this is not included in the German version) and I didn't want to offend by taking them out. Originally, there were just links in the body of the text to dualism or other technical terms and concepts.--Lacatosias 11:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Back I had time to read again and digest definately worthy of FA. Removing the main article link and placing a link within, the text flows and doesnt detract from the article.Gnangarra 16:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is a very interesting article, and obviously a highly abstract and technical one. That presents some reviewing challenges. To start with, I think the WP:LEAD runs long and is not truly an overview of the article. I think I would amend this by removing the third para ("within dualism itself...") which may be more detail than is necessary, and replace with details of the first paras about "Dualist solutions" and "Monist solutions." This will give the general reader some overview - (1) what philosophy of mind is, (2) what types of answers there are to it, (3) what the history of these views is. Kaisershatner 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the key areas that I tried to address in Peer Review. To start out with I had only one paragraph there, stating the nature of the questions (or something like that). It's not easy to summarize philosphy of mind in three paragraphs!! I will try to address your suggestion. Also note that in PR, I was advised that the artcile was too "popular" in style and read too much like a magazine article.--Lacatosias 15:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I qualified that by saying the Mind-body problem was to 'popular' - I changed my mind about the rest of the article.Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Need some clarification on this question of technicality. I've even added some illustrative diagrams to clarify several important concepts now. What specifically is still too technical about this article, in your opinion??--Lacatosias 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, no piling on. One thing at a time here. I've changed the third paragraph in the lead. Is this more along the lines of what Kaisershatner is suggesting? --Lacatosias 15:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, better. See my further changes, but it's getting there. I will have further comments when I get a sec. Kaisershatner 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm basically happy with the intro, and I hope I haven't messed up the definitions. And my head hurts, or at least I think my head hurts. My brain hurts? Kaisershatner 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I just needed to clarify again that while Spinoza was the first monist, his position was the very odd one called neutral monism. It is the latter that Bretrnd Russel breifly adopted and is not not very popular in modern times. Monism (physicalistic monism) is the dominant position. I just cut out the reference to Russell and left is as something like "monism originated with Spinoza". So as long as its clear to readers that Spinoza was a NEUTRAL monist, as is indicated later in the article, I think it works alright.--Lacatosias 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW.. the answer to your question, as any neurologist will tell you, is that since the brain doesn't have pain receptors, it's the nerves in your skull, skin or other tissues that hurt!! (;--Lacatosias 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I read this entire article, and all I can say is "wow." It is extremely well written, and even though the tone wanders in some places, especially towards the beginning, this article is excellent. Once a reader is familiar with the terminology used in this article, I think they would find it most enlightening. RyanGerbil10 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Haven 't finished reading yet, but looks good. I am not that familiar with the subject matter, but does this article cover all aspects of philosophy, are there any other schools of though that we missed? BTW, the lead mentions categories of thought, but I think it should be rephrased to "schools" of thought. Temporary account 23:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

**Response: All aspects of philosophy? Of course not. Perhaps you meant all the schools and traditions in the philosophy of mind? If so, the response is that it is undountedly very close. I could perhaps add mention of phenomenalism (a version of idealism sustained by the Bertrand Russel and some positivists at the beginning of the 20th century) and panpsychism. The first is not really a thesis about the philosophy of mind in particular though and the second is just another, more modern word for idealism (the idea that all that really exists is the mental and everything else is illusion). Those are the only things that I can think of that may be missed by some nitpicking terminologist. I agree with your second point and will change it to traditions. This is somewhere beteen schools (too narrow) and categores (perhaps too vague). --Lacatosias 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The writing could be improved in sections, however, I am impressed. Good job. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is indeed a great article, bound to be one of the very best and most comprehensive articles on philosophy here at Wikipedia. I think it deserves to be featured, although it can be further expanded, especially the Philosophy of mind in the continental tradition section. I also think that there should be something there about Indian philosophy of mind, Akan philosophical psychology, and mentions to other traditions. Nevertheless, superb work!
  • Support.Abstain. Will support if more inline citations are added. Currently there are entire sections without one, starting with the lead and going through 'Arguments for dualism', 'Behaviorism', 'Psychology' (shouldn't this link to main?) and 'The self'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • **Ok. Good observation. I think that can be addressed easily enough.--Lacatosias 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Done. --Lacatosias 10:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Great job, the inline cits have doubled since the beginning. I still see a few places they can be added, but even so the article is much better referenced than most of our current FA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Unfortuately, there are a large number of poorly written philosophy articles in WP. This rises quite highly above the mediocrity. Excellent. --DanielNuyu 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent article. Gandalf61 15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-This is a very well-written and informative article that as far as I can tell meets all requirements. --Kahlfin 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897

Self-nomination, with many thanks to Johan Elisson who made the map. An unlikely tale from the heroic age of polar exploration, involving blinkered patriotism, chicanery, crazy technological optimism, the spirit of Jules Verne, and suffering. The peer review is here. Bishonen | ノート 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

  • Most emphatically support for FA. A shining example of a Wikipedia article; very interesting, and indeed a poignant reminder of how idealist optimism can lead to such disastrous consequences. The prose is nicely set out, the article is clearly structured and defined, is well referenced, and presents an excellent summary of the subject in general. It's about the right length, too; it's got enough detail to make it a good read without it being too heavy. Indeed, it is perhaps one of the very best articles I have so far come across on Wikipedia - of course, I would have expected nothing less from Bishonen. :) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Everything from references to the wacky ttile is unimaginably good. RyanGerbil10 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, support. Extensive peer review. Great prose. Fantastic article. – Elisson • Talk 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written; a fascinating story that I had never heard of before Bishonen started working on it; the 1897 photos are an amazing, haunting time-capsule. Structure is very nice, references are plentiful and solid (if somewhat, what's the word? Swědïsh), and the length is quite appropriate to the topic. Wish-list item: a screenshot from Ingenjör Andrée's Luftfärd (Flight of the Eagle). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty good all around. Good prose, everything is referenced, I have read the article and looked at the references and can find nothing substantially wrong. A few minor gripes, it is perhaps ever-so-slightly overlong, but that can be addressed with pruning of minor redundancies (as I've already done on a small scale) rather than taking out any content. There are also some parts that could read a bit more clearly, for example the first part of the last paragraph of the "Promotion and fundraising" section. But overall it's quite nice already. --W.marsh 03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That paragraph you mention was a mess, I hadn't noticed how tortured it was. Please see if it works for you now. Bishonen | ノート 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
      • Yes, it looks better, thanks for checking it out. --W.marsh 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: One of the strongest FA's in a long time. The narrative itself is interesting, and the writing moves well, so the native interest of the events combines with a clear telling and appropriate amount of context. There are many ways to add, but each of these represents a sub-topic. The article is nearly a perfect example of how to tell the essentials, spare the extranneous, and yet achieve comprehensiveness. Geogre 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you know, I like this article until I read this comment. Is this article in fact lacking detail, as Geogre suggests? Everyking 10:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I could snow you, James, since nobody around here except me has read the sources, but I won't. There's an inordinate amount of detail in the diaries, and certainly I've selected, yes. There are high-colored anecdotes, mainly from Andrée, a practised diary-writer since childhood. "I was mending my underwear and the boys were cooking dinner when suddenly I noticed a polar bear staring into my eyes from a few inches away, through the slit in the tent. I never stopped sewing but merely said: 'Look, lads, dinner'. Frænkel grabbed his gun..." and so forth. Or: "Frænkel has invented an excellent new recipe for pancakes, using seals' blood as a coagulant. It's really good, much less nauseating than seal meat." :-) I could have filled a couple of screens with such illustrations of Andrée's rather determined cheerfulness and non-complainingness, even in a diary. Of course he had reason to believe posterity would read it and judge him by it, so it's a kind of interesting reflection of the stiff-upper-lip when-men-were-men culture of the time. But the page is on the outside of long enough for the subject as it is, and I'm dead against spinning off subarticles from such a very narrative article. I don't think readers would come trooping to say "fascinating" ever again if it was re-cast like that. :-( And now you're gonna oppose, aren't you? How about a deal: I'll add a paragraph about Strindberg's fiancée and Andrée's mistress, which I wrote earlier but removed for considerations of length. They're quite interesting, and relevant to the expedition. Any good? Bishonen | ノート 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
        • I don't want you to include great quantities of non-notable detail, I just want the topic to be covered thoroughly. I know that I tend to disagree with Geogre about what's significant, and so I get nervous when I read praise from him like above. And notice that I did in fact vote to support, and I read the article all the way through and liked it very much. Everyking 11:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Sure. Thanks. I didn't mean to suggest you'd oppose unreasonably, just that I know how you feel about comprehensiveness, and there are a few things I would have liked to include. Also, it's a bit of a problem that few people here can review the sources, as pretty much all the good ones are in Swedish. Bishonen | ノート 12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC).
    • I should clarify. I am the great expander. I usually think everything lacks context, and I see connections between things that other people think are irrelevant. I was praising Bishonen's article for not falling into the traps that I often fall into. For example, you could say, "Tell me more about nationalism," or "Tell me more about the Swedish Church's role," or "Tell me more about the newspapers," but all of that would be interesting and unnecessary. I thought Bishonene showed us all exactly the right line to walk between comprehensive and rambling, the necessary and the extranneous. Geogre 13:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support of course. Great work. Looks like a speedy FA candidate to me. - Taxman Talk 04:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't normally take the time to read through an entire FAC, but that was a very well written and interesting article. Has some excellent photographs in too. Could we get a photo of Ekholm? The sane one? - Hahnchen 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I do have a good pic of Ekholm in a book, but when I let slip he didn't actually go on the expedition, the family tech was reluctant to break out the scanner. I'll try again, I can totally understand the story makes you want to look at a sane man. Bishonen | ノート 06:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
      • There is one at the SMHI website here. As he died in 1923, I assume it is old enough to be {{PD-Sweden}}-eligible. u p p l a n d 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Mmm, thanks, Tups, but that portly white-haired gentleman looks an awfully incongruous candidate for Andrée's triple sleeping-bag anyway. I should get my photo scanned, it's from 1896 and has a more explorer-like look.
  • Support. Excellent article. u p p l a n d 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, minor suggestions I will make on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 09:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Interesting and aesthetically pleasing. -Obli (Talk)? 10:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Taxman. Giano | talk 11:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, for all the reasons above and then some. Great tale, well told. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article on a fascinating topic Bwithh 16:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, however, I have one concern: would it be possible to decrease the size of the lead image? At least on this monitor, it is very large and shoves the text toward the left side of the screen. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's unusually wide, I know, but I'm a little reluctant to change it, as the image is IMO very effective and striking, and emsmallening it will have bad consequences for the way most users see it, which are to do with its shape and composition. But if you mean there's text there that you actually can't see, I must of course do something. The image has been at original size so far—not thumbed—which means 439 px wide. I've now changed it to 380. I hope that'll work for you and everybody else. Unless you're viewing it on a mobile phone screen... anyway. Anybody who now finds it entirely too small or too big, please let me know. Bishonen | ノート 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Support thoroughly encyclopedic in presentation and a good tale well told. Durova 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No really major quibbles, but still worthy of attention:
    • The lead is too long and detailed. It introduces very specific details which I don't find appropriate for any lead, even if they belong in the main body of the article.
    • The image syntax is slightly awkward in places. I suggest removing a pic or two where they're bunched together and I recommend presenting the pictures of all three members of the expedition next to one another.
    • My favorite; footnotes. They're somewhat gratituitous to me. Note 7 establishes that the entire section is based on Lundström pg. 19-44, but the section contains an additional 5 notes, three of which refer to the pages alrady specified in 7. Pretty much the same goes for note 17-21. 17 states that all info is from Lundström pg. 73-114 "unless stated otherwise" and then goes on to repeat itself. Also consider whether it's really necessary to apply footnotes to statements like the number of holes in the balloons (15) or that Strindberg was good with cameras (13); they don't strike me as being either controversial or easily contested. (Disregard this particular critique if the footnotes are meant to cover entire paragraphs.) I'm also somewhat skeptical to leads containing any footnotes, since they're supposed to be summaries.
Otherwise a very good article. Well-balanced in the amount of detail and very well-written.
Peter Isotalo 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Responses:
  1. The Lead: You may well be right. I've removed a few specifics. I think beyond that is really a matter of taste, though. For myself I like it the way it is now, on the principle that "some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article" (WP:LEAD). If all colorful or ambience-generating details are removed from the Lead, it's my feeling that it won't create any interest. But that's certainly a subjective opinion. I expect equally or more compelling arguments could be made for a more austere intro.
  2. Images bunched together? Probably it looks different on different screens, it usually does. I don't have the expertise to fix image issues for any other screen than mine, where it looks good.
  3. I agree about footnotes in Leads, I'm against them. But there was rioting in the streets the last time I tried to get out of having them on a FAC— The Country Wife, I think it was. I can't take on the footnote moguls singlehandedly on this issue, and altogether I don't want to get sucked into the mathmos ("a seething lake of evil slime beneath the city Sogo") of MOS debates. I might never write an article again.
  4. Your other footnote remarks are, I don't know how to put this—they're wrong. See, the "covering" notes at the beginning of paragraphs—you mention 7 and 17—will necessarily be to a rather long page range, and therefore it sometimes needs complementing. For instance, the statement in note 17 that "The information in the 1897 section comes from Lundström, pp. 73–114, unless otherwise indicated" isn't specific enough for all the claims in the text that need referencing. Thus, Lundström says on p. 81 that the balloon careened wildly between sailing high and nearly crashing. Rather than sending the reader chasing this down somewhere on pp. 73—114, I give him/her the page reference "P. 81" in a separate note. All the examples you mention are of this kind. It's just not the case that they merely "repeat themselves". Where they're to the source that's already been mentioned, they add specificity, and where they're not, of course they're all the more needed. Or was your point that it's my covering notes that are redundant? They are the reason I have far fewer notes than the usual "well-referenced" FA of comparable length, you know: they save the need for many a specific note, which I'm as keen to do as you. Perhaps you might feel differently about this if you looked up my references in Lundström's book. The information that I use isn't at all easy to locate without my notes (all of them). There's no index. I've in fact spent some time trying (in vain) to convince Taxman that we don't need page references at all to sources that possess good indexes, so I feel rather miscast as a devotee of redundant apparatus and decorative footnotes.
I don't quite know what to say about the things you think don't need references. No, it's not widely known that Strindberg constructed his own cameras, and I haven't seen the 8 million holes mentioned anywhere else. Bishonen | ノート 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
My emphasis was on the level of footnote detail, not the obscurity of the individual details. They just strike me as things that couldn't be fought over by any reasonable editor. Or at least not by anyone who would ever bother to acquire the book.
Comments stricken.
Peter Isotalo 20:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support well written, Scoo 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- two issues about dates. (1), some dates like "In 1893 he" lack a comma, while in others like "On July 11, in a steady wind" there is a comma. They all should be changed to having a comma or not. (2), per WP:CONTEXT, years with full dates should be linked. Thanks, AndyZ 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon! "In 1893 he bought his own balloon" and "On July 11, in a steady wind from the south-west, the top of the plank hangar was dismantled" are utterly different cases. I will not chop them to fit on the bed of Procrustes, sorry. Bishonen | ノート 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
WP:CONTEXT makes it clear that full-date linking is optional: many don't care for the way Wikimedia has implemented date preferences, since turning them into links has the unfortunate side-effect of... turning them into links. As for the commas, well, look: it's written without commas after short introductory date clauses; the comma after July 11 isn't a comma after July 11: it's one of a pair of commas delineating a subordinate clause that follows. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
A comma offsets an introductory or initial adverbial phrase. This rule, however, is optional in the US and fading in the UK. (E.g. American grammars are beginning to teach it as an option.) The question is whether the phrase is an introductory adverbial or an adverbial that is part of the verb clause (in other words, how much is it functioning as optional information of context and how much is it a part of the verb that follows). Bishonen's non-offset adverbials are not introductory. Still, it is good that people know this rule -- it's just that it's a bit complex in practice. Geogre 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I find historical articles in which every other sentence starts "In xxxx, ..." a little turgid; rather than prolonging this fascinating grammatical debate, my recent copyedit has rephrased some of them (including this one). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support what is so great about this page? it exists! Malomeat 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Malomeat
What do you mean? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this was praise (this page is great because it exists). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting read, very well sourced and referenced, no POV-ness; I really enjoyed the article. TheImpossibleMan 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, great pics, comprehensive notes. Kafziel 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. (Disclosure: I have done a light copyedit which may have fixed AndyZ's comment.) I think the lead is entirely commensurate with the article: it sets the scene for a relatively obscure footnote of history. The "image syntax" and footnotes look fine to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I have to say I was sad to see the images now so small. :-( Especially the (formerly) haunting Lead image. Did it look bad on your screen the way it was, at 380 px, or take up too much space? For images with somewhat long captions, the captions are now bigger than the images, IMO an uncomely sight. :-( Cui bono? Does the cool North Pole boardgame on your screen look better shrunken and illegible, or where's the advantage? Bishonen | ノート 17:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
      • Did I make any images much smaller? I think I made some bigger too. Most of my image tweaks were just to bring in some consistency - I could see no reason why the images were getting bigger and smaller all the time: it just looked messy to me. YMMV. I think made the lead image a bit smaller (380px to 350px). The issue with large images is that the lead image can blot out the text for people with narrow screens, particularly 800x600 (given sidebars, etc). AFAIK, the featured article with the largest lead image is National parks of England and Wales, which is 400px, which is a little hard to justify, but the image is 'lovely. :) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object until this thumbnail-fetish is cured. The images are the most striking and incredible part of the article, they should be allowed to shine. Since they are black-and-white it's especially important to have them a decent size. Everything else is excellent. Haukur 09:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You think all the images are too small? Or are there some in particular? Image:Andree.Svea.jpg is the only one on my monitor that seems like it should reasonably be bigger, but then I run at a fairly-low 1024x768 resolution. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • All right, I enlarged that one. Personally I like large images. To be entirely honest I was trying to provide some counterweight to the small-image fans above :). Support. Haukur 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Please, not that one! It's the only single low-quality image in the article (but I think it's funny, so I like having it in there). That's the reason I had it small. Don't you think it becomes less, rather than more, clear when embiggened? Thank you for wanting to allow this amazing pictorial material to shine. I've made the rest a bit bigger. :-) And Nils Gustaf Ekholm can now be seen looking sane in a great (IMO) studio portrait of the whole 1896 balloon crew, do take a look. :-) Bishonen | ノート 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Support, well done for the hard work put in. --Terence Ong 11:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is top-notch. I have watched the diligent effort by the major contributors to this article and am impressed with their drive to do the best job they could. I can't think of any thing it may need to make it better.--MONGO 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. You have written one of my favorite articles. Seriously awesome!— L1AM (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Never heard of the event, but after reading that article I feel enlightened. Sean WI 04:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; this is very good. Everyking 10:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Could more on their deaths be added? I was looking over this again, and noticed that's one of the most important and interesting parts of the story, but there's only one paragraph on the cause(s) of death. The question that springs to my mind is, if it was trichinosis, it wouldn't be likely to kill them all within the same short span of time, would it? It sounds like a lot of theories have been put forward about the cause, so it seems like it deserves to be discussed at greater length. Everyking 07:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added a bit more. Several problems with the trichinosis theory have been raised since it was proposed in the 1950s, even though it's still the favored explanation. The cause of death is the only aspect of the expedition that people have found to disagree about, since everything else is so amply documented, so I guess it deserves more discussion for that reason alone. I hope I haven't given Kjellström's common-sense theory (=that they just died already, and wouldn't you have?) too much prominence. I admit I like it. Bishonen | ノート 08:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Support. Brilliant! Kosebamse 09:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are a LOT of pictures in that article. You may want to cut a few out. TheImpossibleMan 04:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please not. The historical pictures are an i ntegral part of the article and should not be reduced in number. Kosebamse 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    I see that image galleries in articles are so very deprecated that it won't be of any use my suggesting a gallery to resolve the viewpoints above, either. Oh, well. I do think there should be as many of the most relevant 1890s photos as possible (and I'm heart-broken that I can't have a few of the presumably copyright ones from 1930 too, as those are also time-capsules, notably the state funeral procession in Stockholm), but if the images are starting to make the text irritatingly snaking to read at some resolutions, that of course won't do, either. Is that the problem, TheImpossibleMan, or is your objection aesthetic? Bishonen   talk 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC).
    No, don't remove any images. But I think galleries are getting reprecated (if there is a word like that) so an additional gallery could be a fine addition eventually. In any case, according to the {{PD-Sweden}} template, photos published in Sweden before July 1, 1944 are in the PD, but I don't know what that is based on exactly. u p p l a n d 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    "... according to the copyright law of July 1, 1994, of Sweden, all photographs of Swedish origin published prior to July 1, 1944 are assumed public domain. This applies worldwide." Great Scott! Where's that scanner?? Bishonen   talk 09:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC).
    The law is here, but I can't tell why it is supposed to be 1944. It talks about "Rätten enligt första stycket gäller till dess femtio år har förflutit efter det år då bilden framställdes", which would appear to be 50 years from the present time, which would now put photos from as late as 1956 in in the public domain. But perhaps it depends on the artistic value of the image, however that is judged? I'm sure there is something written about this somewhere in normal Human Swedish. u p p l a n d 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    P.S. I guess it can be deduced from the "Övergångsbestämmelser" listed under "Ändring 1994:190" here. u p p l a n d 10:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Impressive work, but the article needs more ilinks. For example, lead should ilink words like Sweden, Russia, race to reach the North Pole, drag-rope steering technique, Paris, optimism - that's just after a cursory glance of the first two paras.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Sweden, Russia, and Paris: maybe. It's a matter of style preference, I think. (But everybody probably does know what Sweden, Russia, and Paris are, and linking to their main articles is unlikely to actually serve a useful purpose from an article like this one.) Drag-rope steering technique is likely to be a red link... forever? Linking optimism would just be to provide a dictionary definition of a word... exactly what links shouldn't be for. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    [edit conflict; thanks, Bunchofgrapes.] I expect I can link a few more (in the whole article), but on the whole I just don't agree, either. Paris and optimism? I've followed the Make only links relevant to the context principle, and I can't believe anybody will want to go off to look at a half full/half empty glass in order to better understand S. A. Andrée's optimistic mindset, or to look even cursorily at the vast Paris article merely because his balloon was made there. These would be distracting low-value links IMO. Sweden is linked in the first sentence, from the form Swedish. But your suggestion of linking drag-rope steering technique raises an interesting matter of principle that's probably relevant to other concepts in the article as well. See, I would have to write a stub for it, which would not conceivably, ever, be relevant to anything except this article, because drag ropes were a wrong-headed invention by Andrée that no one else ever used. They're an obscure dead end in the history of ballooning, and unique to this story. Therefore I think they need to be fully defined in this article (which they are, below), rather than linked to. I mean, "drag-rope steering technique" is a whole long phrase (which I made up), can you see anybody typing it into the Search field? They wouldn't, they would only reach it via this article, and find that it only contained duplicated information from this article. So, well, I know the article is lightly wikilinked, but there are reasons for it. I don't want to link just to make it more blue. (Or more red.) Bishonen   talk 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC).
    I agree that some of those are dispuateble. But there are also those that definetly should be linked, like race to the North Pole or polar expedition (and those definetly deserve a stubs and would be linked from quite a few articles, I believe). One more issue: shouldn't there be a section on discovery of the expedition remains?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    I added a few links (Russia, Paris, etc) in my light copyedit by later editors removed them again. I would link them, but I agree that it is a matter of style. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think it is. Thanks, ALoan. The article got Featured a few hours ago, so this is now an archive, I guess; I've replied to Piotrus on his own page. Bishonen   talk 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Battle of Cannae

I believe that this is a highly informative page that provides a comprehensive view of the Battle, as well as quotes, tactical dispostions, and its effects. Furthermore, I believe that this article fully meets the given WP:WIAFA for a featured article......--chub 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Two comments: One, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded, and two, the external links in the text should also be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs and have citation information. Thanks, AndyZ 20:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Approve: But other than the few minor errors mentioned above (which can be easily corrected), I see no other reason why this article shouldn't be accepted--199.232.104.30 21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a lot of inline citations refering to the samefootnotes. Unfortunately, the baclinks will only ever link to the first citation. You might want to convert the article to the <ref> system. I'll help if you wantCirceus 22:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks very well-written and well-cited. It would be nice if the citations were converted to <ref> format and if the lead was lengthened, both points already brought up, but those alone are not sufficient to stop me from supporting. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 02:20 (UTC)
  • Comment. Battles articles have usually a picture or a painting of the scene as a lead image. The map is really bad, I took a while before finding the Cannae town. I suggest you improve it by showing only the Italian peninsula. CG 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Adressing and acting upon comments: I appreciate the advice. I have expanded the lead. I am not aware of the </ref/> system, so I may need help with improving the citations. --chub 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Citations I converted the article to Cite.php <ref>s,but there were a couple issues:
      • I found 3 refs without equivalent notes, 2 were labelled "sealy" and one "gowen". They are still in the source, but commented out.
      • If a references does not have footnotes attaches, do not put {{note}} before it. These refs are in the "References" section instead of "Footnotes"
      • There are still 2 external links that should be converted to footnotes (The Cannae book link and the Titus livius citation), you might want to look into {{Cite web}}
      • I could not properly reference the PDF because I could not access it (A failure I blame on a problem with the PDFdownload extension of Firefox), someone else should fix it.
    • Circeus 15:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: The article appears to be extremely well-written with numerous citations that are now properly formatted (for the most part). --24.91.242.154 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Minor Comments: As far as details and content goes, this article is indeed FA-worthy. Inline citations are properly formatted and the lead has been expanded as requested. However, there is still room for improvement. I recommend that this article undergo minor grammatical revision if (or before) it is to be saved as a featured article (fragments in the lead need to be eliminated. Furthermore, I suggest that (1) The lead include more details about the aftermath of the Battle (it provides a summary of the battle itself but devotes only two lines of info on its effects) (2) and The "United States Military Academy" text on the images be removed (I think they are, for all purposes, unecessary). But other than that, the article seems to be considerably well-written and EXTREMELY informative. --24.91.242.154 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The United States Military Academy text is not unecessary - but is part of the conditions of use of the copyrighted images. - Vedexent 16:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Another Comment: Someone also needs to check the numbers of casualties, since battle casualties (in all military history articles in general) often have a tendency to contradict each other.--24.91.242.154 05:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead of Article: I've made some minor adjustments to the lead. Unfortunately, I know very little about this topic, so I could not add any further details.--24.91.242.154 05:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead is long enough in my opinion. It should not go in-dept and should only contain the most significant details. According to WP:LEAD: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". The fact that Cannae was not a decisive battle (meaning it did not determine the outcome of the Second Punic War) means that its strategic effects were limited. The defection of Capua and other Italian city states was perhaps the only significant strategic effect from the battle, and it is already mentioned in the lead.--Chubdub 19:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support + Comment: Looking over these commments and the recent adjustments made, I think the format of this article has been greatly improved. Together with the content (which features highly detailed descriptions about the tactical dispositions and an abundance of additional facts), I would say that this article is certainly FA-worthy. Alhtough I would like to see more pictures of the battle itself rather than just diagrams. I know this is ancient history, and no photos were in existence back then. So I found this "virtual reenactment" from the TV series of Decisive Battles (TV series)

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/creativ/Cannae1.jpg --P.O.N.Y. 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly such images cannot be used due to copyright restrictions. Images in an article have to be in the public domain, or have permission granted by the copyright holder. - Vedexent 20:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose
    • I'd like to see my earlier comments on citations acted on,especially about making the PDF cited properly.
    • I don't think the big "trivia" section belong there. After all, if it is "trivia", then isn't it by definition unencyclopedic? If the material in there is really pertinent, then it should be possible to work it in the rest of the article. Circeus 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks great and ready for featuring. Circeus 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose with hopes the objections can be cleared up so the article gets the FAC it clearly deserves: - This is a well written article, with a balanced approach of Carthaginian and Roman perspectives, it describes the larger background of the war, the rationale of the commanders in their deployment, clearly lays out the stategies of the two forces, what happened as opposed to what was supposed to happen (at least for the Romans), and goes on to explore the results an significance of the battle. I think a lot of praise is deserved by the nominating author who has obviously put a great deal of time, research, and effort into this article.

However, there are large blocks of facts that are mentioned, without citation. The makeup of the forces is in question, but by who - what sources are being accepted by the author? There are claims for the strategy and viewpoint of Varro and Hannibal; facinating and informative, but where do they come from?

I'm of the opinion that there should be a 1:1 ratio of claim (or group of related claims) and referance: "X was the case [1]. This caused Y [2]. There is evidence that Q,W, and W were probably in place, and this most likely would have lead to M[3], although it has been said by others that they would have resulted in P instead [4]." My example is pretty citation heavy (really, citations shouldn't be inside a sentance), but you get the idea.

Unfortunatly there are large blocks of claims that read like they do come out of the volumes in the bilbiography, so I don't think they are spurious, but they are not referenced, so I cannot find them.

This is well written and informative article. I just think it needs to be a little more informative about where it gets the information from. - Vedexent 19:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Slight retraction - some of the views attributed to Varro and Hannibal are cited. Plus, the ones that are not could be due to recent re-organization of some of the paragraphs by ... ahem... me.... (mea culpa) - and the citing author may want to examine the "tactical deployment" section to see if the citations need to be moved around. There are other areas that still do have the problem I outlined, however. - 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support' with Minor niggling complaint - The author did a boatload of footnoting since my comment. We also discussed the footnoting style, and while I personally would like to see page numbers in the references, they don't seem to be needed for the Wikipedia style :) The only slight complaint I might still have re inline references is that there seem to be two diffrerent styles of footnotes being used - and because of this the numbering sequence seems to jump around out of sequence. Other than that, looks good to go :) - Vedexent 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Puerto Rico

This article has had a recent peer review which has improved the article significantly. I now believe it is a comprehensive and well-written article that covers Puerto Rico's history, which spans more than 500 years. I also think it's well referenced and stable. Joelito 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The article is comprehensive, well written, and full of references. In fact, the only problem I had with the article was one sentence in the History_of_Puerto_Rico#Establishment_of_the_Commonwealth section. This sentence reads "This actions by both Muñoz and the United States' Government would later be determined as infringing on constitutional rights." Determined by whom? Is this the historic consensus? I think this sentence needs a reference. Otherwise, I think the article is ready to go to FA status.--Alabamaboy 02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added two references regarding this. One is a news article in which the FBI admits rights violations. The other is a reference to declassified documents by the FBI on Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. Joelito 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. There are a couple of sections (namely "The struggle for autonomy" and "Military rule") that are missing citations at key locations. Other than that, it looks really great. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 02:03 (UTC)
  • If you could please specify the exact locations I would gladly submit the corresponding reference. Joelito 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added references in both sections. Joelito 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At a quick glance, the images need better captions... almost all are just 2-3 words directly identifying the subject... leaves a bit to be desired. See most other FAs for good examples of captioning. Also the article is a bit overlong... but I can understand if that's a bit more difficult to address. --W.marsh 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added better picture captions. The length of the article is unavoidable since it covers 500 years of history. Joelito 04:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it's a big improvement already. Article needs a little copy editting I think, I've done some... but that's not a huge deal. References look to be excellent, prose is good. Pretty impressive, really. Support. --W.marsh 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Brisvegas 09:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object the article needs to be written in sumary style by moving detail into daughter articles. The current article has too much detailed information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you provide specific instances of too much information?. Joelito 13:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure: Two years later, in 1511; Under the encomienda, settlers enslaved Tainos a... ; Not wishing to serve under the new governor, The first paragraph of the =Spanish rule= section easily be summarised into:
On November 19, 1493, explorer Christopher Columbus landed on the island christening it San Juan Bautista in honor of Saint John the Baptist. Juan Ponce de León, a lieutenant under Columbus, founded Caparra, the first Spanish settlement in 1511. Two years later, another settlement, San Germán, was established to the southwest. By the 1520s, the island took the name of Puerto Rico while the port became San Juan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the example however I find unacceptable to remove the Taíno revolt of 1511 and the explanation of how colonization began (encomienda and repartimiento systems). Maybe copyediting the paragraphs to eliminate the detail but maintaining all information would be a good compromise. Joelito 15:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You need not omit it, just remove details of the event. A single sentence describing each event should be ok. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Iniki

Self-nom. I feel this is ready. It is a bit biased, I guess, because I worked greatly on this article, but I think it adheres to the qualifications for FA. Hurricanehink 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Short, but concise. I feel the aftermath section could be expanded and explained better, and referenced more thoroughly. RyanGerbil10 21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because it is a little short, there aren't as many references, so I'm not sure how to reference more thoroughly. Is the aftermath section better? Hurricanehink 01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Full Support. I guess I was just a little taken back by the content of the section, Hurricane Katrina is still fresh in my mind. I think I've actually grown used to the death and destruction, and when I failed to find any in the aftermath section here, I guess I was a bit incredulous. Oh well, that's just how it goes sometimes. RyanGerbil10 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a little short, but gives plenty of information. Well written article. WotGoPlunk 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, it is short, but it is also well-written and stable. Remember, length is not a part of the criteria! :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is short, but it is concise, informative, stable, accurate, neutral, and comprehensive up to where it can be done. It also has gone under a significant amount of scrutiny, and it conforms to the standards set by the relevant WikiProjects. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per all. It's long enough to cover the subject in detail; any longer and it would feel padded. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:38 (UTC)
  • Support, covers its subject well. Good referencing and images too. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. — jdorje (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support don't know if it was changed from the earlier votes, but as of this writing, I'm actually amazed by the number of ref's for an article of this length... it's incredible. -Mask   18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Very detailed for a 14-year-old storm, and no real disputes or speculation - very informative. CrazyC83 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely yes for another great piece of work. NSLE (T+C) at 00:56 UTC (2006-03-23)
  • Support for the same reasons as everyone else. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Michigan State University

This is the first nomination for an article prepared in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan. This article has had a peer review. Project members are on stand-by to respond to any objections or address comments. Jtmichcock 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support [btw, this is Pulley, again, it's not registering at the end]. To whip this article into shape, I tidied a few things up, such as, w/ the 1st inset photo of campus, I reordered the list of building names to match those in the photograph, which wasn't done, originally. Also, there were other things: stylistically I changed: the possessive Holmes's to Holmes', which is not only the modern possessive form of 's'-ending names, it is consistent w/ other citations, like: Williams'. I changed (Williams) from "school president" to "college" president. Also, in the section where it was noted Abbot reverted the curriculum, I substituted "liberal" instead of "general" (in the phrase liberal/practical) because, in the academic context, the term "liberal" is more the yin to practical's yang than is "general". There were other spots that, while grammatically correct, needed tightening, like the section where we discuss the 1885 opening of the Mechanics program (eliminated: Michigan State University; added "which became its first full-fledged, degree-granting engineering program." Also, I bold-ed the name changes "Michigan Agricultural College" and "Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences" since, not only were these names (and corresponding dates) neatly referenced in an inset box near the article's beginning, it was consistent with other text, reference name changes. I doubt anyone should have any problems with these changes (if so, please say so).151.197.170.126 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object - Two items that jump out at me. First, the lead is too short for the article size. Second, some more facts need citation. One specific example: "Despite these innovations, Williams ran into conflict with the managing State Board of Education. The Board saw the College as being elitist and extravagant, despite William's eloquent defense of higher education for the masses. Indeed, many farmers began protesting against the College's curriculum and called for its abolition." Fieari 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 1) I have enhanced the lede by three sentences, providing more detail as to the content of the article. 2) I have reinserted additional page citations to the text. I am also looking to see if we need to get more cites to the latter part and I would appreciate any input. Thanks. Jtmichcock 03:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is still insufficient for the size of the article, according to WP:LEAD. It should be three paragraphs. This is a sticking point for me, I'm afraid. I feel that the best wikipedia has to offer should follow standards like this. The "Co-ed College" section could use a few more citations in the first and second paragraphs. Other than these two points, the article looks good. Fix them, and you have my support. Fieari 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Good work! Support now. Fieari 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Thethinredline 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too short, not comprehensive. --*Kat* 23:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not really helpful unless you can tell what it is missing. The article is about the right length for it's topic. - Taxman Talk 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice job. The article size is right for the subject, and it is well referenced. PDXblazers 04:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done. I still think the riots issue is a little whitewashed. I mean there were police cars flipped over and burned, and I saw coverage of one of them on the news in California. I don't remember the estimates of cars burned and total damage, but some of them were fairly significant. And if I recall more than just the 2005 issue came after sports wins or losses so saying they were due to tensions over student drinking isn't very accurate. But that's a reasonably small issue, not too hard to fix, and ideally shouldn't take any more or even as much space as it does now. - Taxman Talk 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have revised the paragraph at issue so it is more even-handed. One problem is that local paper is probably not unbiased in its own coverage. The News and Free Press accounts were more balanced, but are inaccessible absent a large subscription fee. Jtmichcock 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That is much better and simple enough. You should be able to get the News and Free Press at the library on microfiche if nothing else. If you had a source you could also note some (large?) proportion of those involved in the riots had no affiliation with the university and some of the events simply happened near campus. Interestingly enough, I happen to know the person that started the couch on fire in the Gunsen St riot and he wasn't a student and didn't live near campus. - Taxman Talk 19:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I created this article a while back and put a lot of work into it back in January, but since moving I've been too busy to work on it. Thanks to Jtmitchcock for fixing it up and nominating it. It looks good so far, I'll try to help out when I can. Lovelac7 20:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Michigan State University has already been a featured article and fairly recently (I think... I may be confusing it with University of Michigan which was also a FA) as well, and as well as linking to this history article, also has a key section from the history article on its page. Wouldn't featuring the History of Michigan State University article essentially repeat this subject matter? Does this point disqualify this article? Bwithh 00:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is a daughter article of the Michigan State University and was started because its parent was getting too large. There are a number of similar articles throughout Wikipedia, particularly as it relates to institutions and places (History of Miami, Florida, which was made a feature article just recently, comes to mind). While there is a brief summary of MSU's history in the parent article, it is just that: brief. Same goes for the Miami, Florida article. Having information related to another article has never disqualified any article I have seen. Jtmichcock 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There's in fact precedent for all the daughter articles being featured. See: Saffron, History of saffron, and Trade and usage of saffron. Fieari 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, Support Bwithh 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Support One of the reason's for the daughter article is b/c of the history portions I wrote and expanded got to long for the mother article. However, in revising the intro paragraph, we need to be careful of our grammar as well as facts. Example "The school admitted its first African American student in 1899 and, shortly thereafter, the college began offering degrees in engineering and other applied sciences to students." This article is both facutally inaccurate (engineering degrees were offered immediately after mechanical engineering was offered in 1885) and grammatically awkward (the same subject listed twice with different names: "school", "college"). Therefore, if there are no objections, I plan to delete the latter portion of this sentence (leaving the African American 1st part) for it adds little and detracts a lot. Pulley14 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mini

Self-Nomination. I (and several more experienced Wikipedians) believe this article is now worthy of FA status. Several editors have been working hard on this article for a couple of months now and I think we all agree that it's done (at least as far as a Wikipedia article is every done!). We have checked all of the FA criteria - including actually measuring the link-to-text ratio and all of that stuff - if you check the talk page, you'll see just how careful we've been in verifying those things. The article has been through peer review with no significant problems - and no new comments have been posted there for two weeks now. It has also been listed as a Good Article for quite a while. I have had some real experts on this vehicle go through the article with a fine-toothed comb and we can find no factual errors or significan omissions. Finally, there have only ever been a couple of car articles make it to FA status - and I think it's time for another one.

Many thanks in advance for any further help you can offer on improving the article.

SteveBaker 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ugh, could we not have footnotes in section headers? They look terribly ugly in Firefox. Johnleemk | Talk 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I confess I wondered about that when I put them in - but was unable to find anything in WP:MOS to say whether they were deprecated or not. One question though - if I have book references that talk in general about all of the same things that this section talks about - what is the alternative way to convey that to the reader? I'm very happy to bow to the expertise of others here! Just tell me what is "the right thing" - and it'll be done. SteveBaker 19:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You put the footnotes after the information they corroborate. If the same note corroborates more than one unique chunk of information, there is a particular format for going about this -- see WP:FN. Johnleemk | Talk 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I understand that - but the article looks so messy with a "[x]" after every single sentence. The books I'm citing cover the facts stated over several paragraphs - or even the entire section. Well, perhaps I should just move the ref tags to the end of the section instead. I'm just not clear on what is required of me here. SteveBaker 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
          • You could put them in a "General references" section (like Glacier retreat#General references. Although I have not seen it done on Wikipedia, I would like to see annotated references for these kinds of references (that are not specific to one citation but are specific to one or more sections as a general source). One of the reasons references are listed is so that researchers (students) can follow up on the subjects so annotation would better help them pick the right book to track down. --maclean25 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I understand the formal reason for references (they say: "...if you don't believe me - read this book") - but in practice for a non-academic/non-scientific article like this, I'd be suprised if anyone ever actually did that. The practical reason for wanting references in this kind of article is to say to readers "...if you want to know more about this - read this book.". However, formal reasons matter too and the idea that you could (theoretically) verify every fact in Wikipedia through outside sources is a powerful one. But if this was simply a matter of providing fact-checking then two or three carefully chosen books would have covered all the bases for this article. However, for someone who actually wants to know more about one of the specific varients of this car, there are several recommended specialist books - and I wanted to make sure they were referenced. I guess you could argue for a 'Further reading' section - but each book tends to be 'attached' to a particular section of the article - so there are books on the Mk I Mini that aren't useful reading for Mini Clubman enthusiasts. This is why the 'reference' format (where books are tagged against the section headings) is useful. SteveBaker 15:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
        • OK - references are gone from the section headings and attached to the sentence they best support. I agree it looks much nicer now. SteveBaker 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support now that the footnotes in section headings are gone. Johnleemk | Talk 09:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support & Comment: I agree with Johnleemk, the footnotes in the section headers is not very visually appealing. The large spaces throughout the article aren't either. Also some picture captions are detailed, while others are not. I also noticed some mistakes in them. Otherwise this is a very well written article and would make a good feature article. Good work! Underneath-it-All 19:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • White-space. Man - this is hard to deal with. I have deliberately set my screen width down to 800x600 and in stages up to 1600x1200 and set my browser window (I use Firefox) to a range of different font sizes and screen widths - and I can't make any large voids show up with the 'Monobook' skin. I could get some ugly gaps with (I believe) the Cologne Blue skin. But it truly is impossible to test every possible browser combination. The WP:MOS section on images tells us that if there are problems, to "add more text" or "remove photographs" - but adding more text than covers what needs to be said just to get the layout right for every possible bizarre combination of settings is ridiculous. We could toss out some photographs - but that doesn't help unless you allow the photos to become detached from the text that they refer to. While we are talking about Mk I Mini's - we want the photo of a Mk I next to the text...but if we need to attach a photo to a short section - then it tends to run into the next one and cause a gap. We experimented (briefly) with alternating left/right images - but that looked worse because on some browser settings you got this ridiculously narrow 'corridor' of text jammed between two photographs. So - once again, I'd be THRILLED to fix this - but I've worked very hard on it and I don't see how to get better. What is truly needed is a standard range of browser settings - laid out in the WP:MOS over which authors should test their layout - but trust me, there will always be combinations of page size, screen resolution, font type and skin preferences that will break any layout you can come up with! SteveBaker 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You mentioned 'mistakes' in the captions - could you elaborate so I can nail them please! SteveBaker 19:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In the section 'Minis in the United States' the caption has a spacing error and I also think the captions should end with periods. But other then that there are no problems. Underneath-it-All 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Mini-thanks! All fixed now!
  • Support Great work, perfect example of a FA --PopUpPirate 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your kind comment. But I have to confess a problem...in the course of fixing the problems the previous reviewers came up with, I somehow managed to just nudge it over the 32k barrier...Damn! I probably need to find about four words to delete before we're back inside the threshold! :-) SteveBaker 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Pchaw, the 32k is only a guideline, not a requirement - it'll be reet! --PopUpPirate 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Please check through the inline reference numbers; some have spaces before, others don't. There are dots before and after at least one. Tony 09:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow! You guys are good at this copyedit stuff - I could have sworn the thing was OK - but you found a BUNCH of things! I'm seriously impressed! Anyway - what is the approved style for references at the end of sentences? Should the ref tag go before or after the period? I've moved them all to be consistently before the period - which I think is OK because it ensures that the reference belongs to the end of that sentence - and not to the start of the next one. SteveBaker 15:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the recent changes was to change year ranges from "1959-1976" to "1959-76" - but what about our section headings that say "1959 to 1976" - should those also be changed to "1959-76" or perhaps to "1959 to 76"? SteveBaker 15:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I was wondering why a bunch of the above entries are labeled as "Comments" when they really are objections until fixed, since they are fixible issues (perhaps easily fixable?) and are a detriment to the article as a whole. That said, I have a similar comment, but I'm really not sure it's enough of a detriment to count as an "objection" per se. The article layout, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, is a bit ugly, related to the whitespace issue mentioned above. One idea for fixing it might be to have some of those images left aligned instead of right aligned. With all the images to the right, it bunches up the text to the left, and gives things a cramped appearance. Varying the image placement might help aleviate this problem. Fieari 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Steve's put a point earlier about how it looks ugly with the pics justified "randomly" and I very much agree with that pov, I think it looks great as it is, with everything on the right :) --PopUpPirate 02:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My 'comment' is a comment because (as self nominator) I have already expressed my opinion in that I believe it should be FA. My comment was more of a question to the expert audience here. There are some points of style that are being made here that are nowhere mentioned in WP:MOS or anyplace else that I could find. If these things have a bearing on FA status then I need to ask some questions about them. SteveBaker 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The whitespace issue is one of how Wiki renders things - having investigated this VERY carefully (see the Talk:Mini page) I have concluded that if the ratio of images to text reaches some value for some span of the article then there is quite literally no way to avoid "ugly whitespace" for SOME browser setups. When I view the article on my home PC, my work PC and my (relatively low res) laptop, I see no ugly whitespace at all. However, if I deliberately pick some wild font sizes, override Wiki's default fonts, dink with the screen resolution and the window size - if I choose a different browser or a different Wiki 'skin' - then everything moves around. Whitespace appears and disappears. Alternating the images left and right WAS tried for this article (check the history) and the only one of the editors who thought it was an improvement was the guy who did it - and even he admitted it wasn't a vast improvement and he was ambivelant about alternation. If you alternate images then you can get a situation where all of the text funnels down the middle of the page with just two or three words on each line...if you think extra whitespace is a problem - then trust me - it's nothing compared to the uglyness you get with alternating images ON SOME BROWSER SETTINGS. The true solution to this is nothing to do with this article - it'll come up whenever an article has a text-to-images ratio that's unsuitable for SOME browser/screen-res/font-size/window-size/skin combination...which is always. I don't think there is a single thing you could do to this article to 'fix' this problem for every combination. You could pad the article with a lot of irrelevent verbiage to space the images out - or you could cut pictures that actually tell an important part of the story...neither is "The Right Thing", IMHO:
      • Choice of alternation versus all-on-the-right versus all-on-the-left (versus no images versus all images in a gallery at the bottom...) should be a Wiki preferences thing that the user can select - not something that's a feature of the article itself.
      • Wikipedia should come right out and say (on the front page) "To see Wikipedia articles at their best, your browser screen width should be X pixels" (where X would depend on preference and 'skin' choices).
      • The WP:MOS should REQUIRE editors to check that their pages look good over some range of resolutions/font-sizes/etc. That 'canonical browser range' would be something we could all check our articles against.
    • But right now, I have NO WAY to know what set of settings must look good. Pick *ANY* FA with more than a couple of photos in it - and I utterly guarantee you that I can come up with a combination of settings that makes it look ugly as all hell.
    • So I simply cannot fix this "problem" to everyone's satisfaction. It's provably impossible. SteveBaker 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't think of anything substantive to add, and it looks generally fine to me. A couple nits: please add links for units (cc, metre, kilogram, mph, etc) and more helpful and wikilinked image captions. I'll copyedit when I have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:MOS-L cautions us about overlinking and use of 'low value' links. It's hard to imagine that links to these really common units are 'high value' in an article about cars. I'll read through the image captions and see if I can insert some more links there. Thanks for your comments. SteveBaker 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Yes, but as another part of the MOS also says in relation to units, Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Some of them may not know what a "cc" or an "m" or a "kg" or an "mph" is. At the least, the first use of a unit should be linked. Wikipedia:Captions explains that a caption should provide context and add depth to an image, so a little explanatory text is always helpful. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • OK - I'll go and add links to units.Links to units have been added. Thanks for your explanation. SteveBaker 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, this is a good article, I beleive it is good enough to be featured. --Karrmann
  • Comment Why is the section on the new MINI so small when the main article has a considerable amount of information? Joelito 00:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The information on the new MINI is split off into a separate article (which I'm also working on). There is a delicate 'political' balance here because some classic Mini enthusiasts are opposed (often violently opposed) to the new MINI being in any way associated with the classic car - whilst others (myself included) love them both. In the interests of compromise, the present section on the modern MINI is a balance between asserting a strong relationship between the two cars and completely separating all discussion of the BMW cuckoo. If you look back through the article's history and Talk page, you'll see the comings and goings of text in that section. Anyone who really wants to know about the new car will find at least three or four links to it in the article - plus a photograph - that ought to be enough. SteveBaker 16:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clearing that up. Joelito 16:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights

This article was nominated by someone else in February, and met basically none of the criteria. After voting against it, I made a few hundred edits and submitted it to WP:PR (where it received no comments after > 1 wk). I then solicited comments from contributors to the FA "First Amendment to the United States Constitution." I didn't get any. Nonetheless, I think it might be time, or close to it. Fire when ready... Kaisershatner 19:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Former nomination here. Wow! This has come a long way since the last time this had been nominated. Let me do a more thorough reading and get back to you in a moment... Fieari 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've looked it over, and I'm objecting on the following points:
    • The lead section is both technically too long, containing four paragraphs, and also feels too long, as some of those paragraphs are themselves very wordy. See if you can't try to pare it down a little. It should be an introduction to the topic, allowing the article itself to elaborate.
    • There is information in the lead that is not explained further, or even mentioned, in the main body of the article. This includes mention of the English Bill of Rights, which was a previous point of objection to the older nomination.
      • Added "antecedents" section in "Drafting" section, with expanded discussion of the documents noted in the intro.Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I like to see at least one inline citation per section, and preferably per paragraph. In particular, while the "Background" information is not exactly disputed, one citation for where one (say, a forigner who doesn't know our history) could verify or learn more, would be appreciated. The "Drafting" section, before the subsections, could use a citation.
      • Will work on more refs, but I think the "see also/main" links in the "Background" section fulfill this need.
    • Wordyness: Some of the paragraphs I found a little hard to read because they were so dense. While simply adding whitespace wouldn't be grammatical (even if it would help readability), I believe the information could be reworded so as to be able to be split up into more paragrahs, simply for legibility. This is not a sticking point for me, however, and I would not vote oppose on this point alone. Almost the entire article suffers from this issue.
      • It all suffers because I wrote this, and that's my style - dense, long sentences. I was repeatedly unsuccessful at attracting collaborators/commenters on this article, so I appreciate your understanding.Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how to fix this one. In my browser, Firefox, and 1024x768 resolution, in the "Madison's preemptive proposal" section, the first line of the quote is overlapped by the image to the right, so that the text is somehow beneath the image. I'm not sure what causes this or how to fix it. The line is ""For while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the" and the words "must feel for the" are overlapped.
      • No idea, but I think it's fixed. Call Jimbo?  :) Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yep, fixed for me. Fieari 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • On my first read through, it wasn't clear to me that "Congressional Appointment" and "Congressional Compensation" were the two failed amendments, because I was skimming... something you can expect readers of an encyclopedia article to do. Could you make this clearer please? Preferably by including mention of these amendments' names in the "Twelve Amendments proposed" lead section.
    • "Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights"... could we have statistics on how many visitors it gets per <arbitrary unit of time>?
    • Looking good other than these points, I think. As I said... impressive work since the last time this showed up around here. Fieari 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The issues I have not crossed out above still stand, but I believe they are not enough to object anymore, so I have changed my vote to support. Fieari 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support the intro really needs to be slimmed. Computerjoe's talk 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Support Computerjoe's talk 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The first sentence of the second para ends with "threatened the Constitution's ratification" which is confusing re the rest of the sentence and looks like it was left over from somewhere else. I can't tell what it's trying to say. I mostly agree with Fieari too. Rlevse 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:Here is the sentence: "Initially drafted by James Madison in 1789, the Bill of Rights was written as ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists dating from the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 threatened the Constitution's ratification." It might need commas before "dating" and after "1787" but otherwise I don't see the problem...?Kaisershatner 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Anyway, I revised this again. Kaisershatner 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support looks good to me now. Rlevse 13:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Cut down thetop and my vote's yours! American Patriot 1776 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The 2nd paragraph of the introduction could be almost completely removed. It can be pared down to a one- or two-sentence summary of the section that deals with that information further down in the article. Looks like that will solve objections from other editors as well. Otherwise, it looks good. Changing my vote to full support after revision of introduction. Kafziel 14:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although a little more information on the display is nice. You could mention the display's heavy use in the film National Treasure, explain some of the security, there's GOT to be an easy PD/GFDL photo of it on display out there somewhere, etc. However, the important part is certainly FA quality now. Staxringold 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Added some more details about the display. I would think the NARA photos are PD as US Govt. work but couldn't find that info at their site (yet). I didn't see that film so can't be of too much use on that point. Kaisershatner 21:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
National Treasure was about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I don't see why any mention of it whatsoever should be in this article; maybe on the National Archives article, maybe on the Declaration of Independence article (but probably not), but definitely not here. Kafziel 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for all the feedback. About the introduction: I cut it down, again. Note that WP:LEAD suggests a three paragraph introduction for articles over 30,000 characters. Without counting spaces and also w/o "See also" and everything after it, this article is 31,500 characters, but beyond that I think the introduction should include more than just "what is the Bill of Rights." I think it should also cover "who wrote it, when, how, and why." I'm advocating the three paragraph intro as it stands, for now, with all due respect, unless it is really a deal-breaker. Kaisershatner 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great work --PopUpPirate 22:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. --Myles Long 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the original text should be in Wikisource - it should not be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? This article is about the Bill of Rights. You object because it has the Bill of Rights in the article? What could possibly be more relevant than that? Kafziel 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    And would you add the text of War and Peace to War and Peace? Wikipedia is not ... "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files ... such as original historical documents ... laws ... and other source material ... Complete copies of primary sources ... should go into Wikisource". That is what Wikisource is for. This is an encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Bill of Rights is so short that it's ridiculous to put it in WikiSource and have to go look at it there. Coffeeboy 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. No point in putting it elsewhere. Fieari 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It is already in Wikisource, starting with http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Amendment_I I and ending with http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Amendment_X I can see no problems with small parts of it being quoted, but I don't think the article needs to have a whole section which just sets out the whole text of the subject of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem, although it should probably be at the end of the article to avoid disrupting the flow of the text. Lots of constitutional articles have the full text of their subject in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you point me to which ones, please. Are any of them featured? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, several, including all of the following. Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution all include the full text in one section. Article One of the United States Constitution spreads it out across each section of the article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The "full text" included in First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution is so short in each case as to be a trivial addition (compare this article, which is about the first 10 amendments). There is much more original text in Article One of the United States Constitution, but at least it is disguised a little by being spread out. However, I would still say that it is too much. Similarly, I would say that the quotation of the full text in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia is unnecessary; as some of the comments at the end of the FAC say, firstly it is in Wikisource already (the right place, IMHO) and secondly where to draw the line? (The series on the USA PATRIOT Act, such as USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, is a case in point - it is important legislation, but including the original text would be daft. Should we add the original text to Magna Carta or Parliament Acts or Bill of Rights 1689?) The "full text" in the Malaysian article takes up about 1.5 screens; the main body of the article is only about 7 screens (ignoring the references, which add another 1.5 screens), so around a quarter is taken up by the original text rather than prose about the original text. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. This isn't my article, and I objected to its first FAC, but why is this such a sticking point for you? Nobody else has had any problem with including the text, and four other editors have actively voiced their opinion that it belongs here, . First of all, it's not simply a word-for-word inclusion of the text; each amendment is separated and briefly summarized. Secondly, the Bill of Rights is very short; it's beyond absurd to compare it with the PATRIOT act. The article isn't overly long, nothing is hurt by its inclusion here, you're not backed by precedent or by the manual of style, and you're going against consensus by maintaining this objection. You've been shown examples of this same thing in other articles, but you still won't let it go, preferring instead to find excuses (like "at least it is disguised a little" - I must have missed the "disguise" section in the MoS). If your opinion actually is "humble", as you claim, then why do you absolutely refuse to compromise with anyone? Kafziel 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh. Each editor gets to object as he or she wishes. If the objection is actionable, it's actionable. In this case, I think ALoan's point is valid. In the case of the Malaysian article, I felt that an .en readership might well need the text. For one thing, the article was about very subtle disagreements and interpretations of words, so the text needed to be iterated. Secondly, it's an obscure thing. Neither of those cases applies here, and neither should apply here. Only because the Bill of Rights is exceptionally famous can there be an article like this, and any detailed analysis of the individual interpretations and political struggles over each phrase would be out of place in an all-ten article. Finally, the objection is entirely actionable. Since the Bill of Rights exists at Wikisource, the authors need merely to link to the Wikisource and then present a table of what each right covers (rather than original language). Finally, it is now MoS, since we're going to mention that, that FA's use "summary style" and transclude where possible. Linking to Wikisource is in keeping with this, and it is against our general article principles to allow duplication of material anyway. Truly finally, trying to argue someone out of an objection is absurd at best, counter-productive generally, and, honestly, bad form at all times. Geogre 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As a reader, I don't want to have to go to wikisource just to be able to read the (very short) document this article is about. The Bill of Rights is quite succinct; most of the amendments are one sentence each. Any attempt to further summarize them would simply mean replacing one sentence with a different sentence, which would then be criticized for inaccuracies. But without some kind of context, the article is meaningless. I would object if this didn't include that section. Kafziel 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As you wish. For my part, I can understand cutting down the 18th century wording where possible, and there is a difference between "The rights are: freedom of speech (1), freedom to carry weapons (2), freedom of a fair trial..." and "I: The right of the people to assemble, speak...." If nothing else, one is lawyer-talk. You feel that the primary material has to be present. ALoan feels that it shouldn't. Now the authors will either address the objection or not, and Raul will either promote the article or not. No calling names, badgering, or assessing the nature of another person's objections. If an objector is being a serious troll, I can understand, but when a person's objection is reasonable, I can't. Geogre 11:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Come on now. You're a smart guy. You know "freedom to carry weapons" is childishly simplistic, and you wouldn't want to see that in an article any more than I would. I certainly wish things were that simple, but they aren't, and they shouldn't be portrayed as such in a featured article. You know as well as I do that the history buffs and legal folks would have a shit fit over language like that. The original wording is only ten senteces long. Ten sentences. Any article about a legal document can handle ten sentences of exceprts from that document. That's nothing.
If I came on too strong before, it was only because one of my pet peeves is people who throw around "in my humble opinion" when, in fact, they're not humble at all; they think they're right no matter what and plan to throw a tantrum until they get their way, no matter how many others disagree with them. Happens on here all the time. Just throw a little "IMHO" in there and you can be as unreasonable and uncompromising as you want.
How about the guy above who thought there should be more information about the movie "National Treasure" in this article? It was an actionable request. But National Treasure isn't even about the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights. Should he still get his way, just because it's actionable? No. Not even if he had said, "IMHO". Kafziel 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Criterion 2a. There's much that is worthy in this article, but it needs a thorough run-through to fix unwieldy sentences and odd expressions. Take, for example, the four sentences that lead into 'Background'.
"The Philadelphia Convention that convened in 1787 set out to correct weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation that had been apparent ..." "before the American Revolution had been successfully concluded"—to conclude a revolution is unidiomatic "a revenue amendment"—needs to be reworded "requirements of large majorities to enact major legislation"—I think I know what it means, but it needs to be clarified and reworded "The need for a stronger central government with a unified currency and the ability to conduct affairs of state such as foreign policy (and that could bind all the states under negotiated treaties and agreements rather than be undermined by a single state's refusal to comply with an international treaty) led to the stronger Federal government adopted by compromise at the Convention."—this snake needs to be chopped up/simplified" All of those amended. Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"The newly designed Federal government"—designing a government?
In answer to your question, yes. See Philadelphia Convention. They were...desigining a government. Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"However, ardent debate between political factions known as the Federalists and anti-Federalists ensued over the balance between strengthening the nation's government and weakening the rights of the people who ten years earlier had explicitly rebelled against the perceived tyranny of George III of England."—another snake. I made your other suggested changes, but I like this sentence. Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs scrutiny. Tony 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) See either peer review archive for a history of the scrutiny, or please feel free to help edit the prose in a way that you find more appealing! Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Kaisershatner, you may have 'amended' my examples, but I haven't checked what you've done, and they may still be unsatisfactory; therefore, I've removed your striking out of my text here. With respect to your comment just above concerning peer review, I don't see the relevance. The fact that the article has already been scrutinised is irrelevant to whether it still needs scrutiny. Tony
Tony, thanks for your comments. Kaisershatner 13:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - concerned about the large quote in the section "Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise". Why are we doing this? I say, find seperate sources for this and the rephrase it into the main text of the section. Anything else is, to be frank, lazy. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This was already accepted as a featured article. Why is this still on the nomination page? Pointlessness 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien

This article has come a long way, and after its nomination last November, copious amounts of work have been done to address critiques from the last FAC nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. R. Tolkien/archive1) related to prose, pictures and a lack of discussion of Tolkien's work on languages and philology. In light of this work, I proudly present this nomination, on behalf of those who worked so hard on it, for featured article status Judgesurreal777 09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support - There appears to be only one note. I hope that, being a fairly famous person, there should be more notes on him; and most things appear to be just written, as in simply stating things but not proving them. For example, there are numerous sentences stating he is a Catholic, but there is no place to prove that he actually was. Once the inline citations have been expanded, I will support. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 13:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While I would love to see this featured, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Kilo-Lima. It needs inline citations. Citing that he was a Catholic seems excessive, but I think I will go through the article now and tag what does need citations with {{fact}}. It shouldn't be too hard to cite anything from the references provided. See WP:FN for how to create quality footnote citations. For an example of what citations should look like when complete, see Saffron. —Cuiviénen, 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have to question whether the article will really be 'improved' by having (Carpenter 1977) or (Carpenter 1981) at the end of every other line - rather than just the current complete citation of those sources in the 'References' section. Inline references are generally suggested when disparate sources are being cited. Carpenter's biography covers the majority of the facts in this article... Tolkien's letters (edited by Carpenter) cover nearly everything else. Putting inline references to those two sources over and over against strikes me as pointless clutter. --CBDunkerson 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not going to debate anyone on the issue, but I do think it important that there be inline citations. Readibility is greatly hampered by the {{fact}} tag because it is very large, but the footnote links are not. I also wonder how you know that all of the information comes from this single source -- and you think that we should be using only two sources for a person who was famous enough to have many books written about himself. I'm not going to object to this FAC, but I think the points raised are important, and it would be foolish to overlook them just because the article is very well-written. —Cuiviénen, 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've changed all of the Letters references to footnotes. Of course, that hasn't changed the level of citation at all, but it's a start. Someone who has access to the books referenced (preferably the person who wrote the bulk of the article) should add in the citations where needed. As Fieari said, there needs to be at least one citation per paragraph. —Cuiviénen, 01:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice to see the inline citations! —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Object. Requires inline citations. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Strong article with details, pictures, and properly cited references section per Wiki-standards. Inline references would be redundant. --CBDunkerson 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The inline citation requests that were recently added illustrate the damage done to readability by over-heavy inline citations. It could, perhaps, use a handful of additional inline citatiosn to clarify which sources apply to which sections of text, but the article is overall well sourced as is (note that some of the citation requests added were added to sentences that were citations). The article complies in every way that I can determine with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -Harmil 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
They don't look nearly so bad as numbers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. Great article. Phoenix2 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It's not too much to ask to have at least one inline citation per section. One footnote per paragraph even doesn't make things ugly at all. One citation per sentence may be a bit much, but at least per section! One citation is simply not enough for featured status in my opinion. I have not read the content of the article yet, but will do so and evaluate it further if the citation problem is taken care of. Fieari 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Conditional Support - I've read the article now, and it looks both comprehensive and well written. Fill in those last few little citations, and you have my support. Good job, getting all those references in this time span. Fieari 16:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to support, but I am wondering how comprehensive the coverage of his academic career is. What was the influence of his academic work, how is it percieved today by students of language, that sort of thing. There must be journal articles he wrote, or that were written about his work, that can be looked at. The examination of his career seems to be, like the rest of the article, very much tied into his private mythology, but he was a Don for many years before he published any of that work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    His primary legacy in academic fields has been on the study of Beowulf, where his work is still the standard by which others are judged... while there are several other 'academic accomplishments' I suspect that is the only area where he'd have risen to 'encyclopedic notability' without his fictional work. --CBDunkerson 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. One line, which refers to a lecture that apparently had influence, is that all he ever did? I doubt that very strongly. How did it influence Beowulf study? It doesn't say. I want to support, especially now it is extensively cited (bravo contributers!) but this is still bothering me. Tolkein will always be remebered for middle earth, a comprehensive encyclopedia article on the man would give more than a few lines to his proffesional life. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone who knows where these references could be sited in the article please fix this? There are so many Tolkien experts on Wikipedia, I am astonished that the in line references cannot be fixed in short order. Judgesurreal777 21:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if the references are fixed. —Nightstallion (?) 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Fieari is correct on this one. There are simply too many facts being cited to have an inline citation over each one. There should be a compromise between having none and having a veritable forest of cites. RyanGerbil10 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; article does not properly cite its sources, instead giving some "Further reading" under a section header lablled "References". Jkelly 23:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    The irony is that the policy you quote explicitly lists that as a viable way to cite sources. If people are really going to oppose making things featured articles unless they follow the inline citation style and no other then Wikipedia's stated style guidelines should be updated to reflect that. That said, since people are being odd (as I see it) about requiring inline citations... I will add them. --CBDunkerson 01:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- relvent section is: "Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below". I don't think that this applies to this article. Jkelly 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite an article which it does apply to? I can't imagine that the basic facts of Tolkien's life are controversial or that Carpenter's work on him would be described as anything other than "widely accepted" and an "authoritative overview". As requested, I've put in a few dozen redundant citations so far. Is this really preferable? I can continue through the remainder of the article (after sleeping), but I put to you that no printed encyclopedia is so excessively OVER cited. --CBDunkerson 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
With respect, no other encyclopedia is likely to have a radically different article a year from now. I sincerely do not understand what the potential danger is in "over-referencing". I do know that I could not use our current article as a start point for a serious inquiry into the subject, being unable to use the article's referencing system to ensure that the facts we are presenting are accurate. Page-specific cites add value to readers and future editors. I am unconvinced that we are currently discussing our most comprehensive work, and am therefore unconvinced we are discussing our best work. Jkelly 06:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
wrt. non-inline references, if no particular statement in the article, or a large number of insignificant ones, then it would be preferable surely to cite it in a Further Reading section. In this context, there's no useful point in the article to cite it inline, and I'm sure that this is fairly easy to arrive at if you have a source such as a biographical novel. BigBlueFish 17:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jkelly. --Bcrowell 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
After Judgesurreal777's 01:40, 13 March 2006 post, I went back and looked again. The article is still heavily sprinkled with "citation needed" markers. Almost all of the footnotes that have been added are to a single source. A bunch of the "citation needed" markers aren't really needed; e.g., the one about the asteroid named after him can just link to the article on the asteroid, and that's sufficient. But a lot of them are on more important things that need to be made verifiable, e.g., the statement about his impact on Beowulf research. If the article depends almost entirely on two sources (Carpenter and the letters), then that in itself is a problem --- shouldn't the article be discussing, for example, what literary critics have said about Tolkein? And even if it was going to be a two-source article, we'd at least need to know which statements were from Carpenter and which from the letters.--Bcrowell 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a cite for Tolkien's importance in Beowulf studies, but in truth that is already established by Wikipedia's Beowulf article... which mentions Tolkien's importance several times. On the question of 'which facts are from Letters and which from the Biography'... in truth most of them can be found in both. And Shippey's Author of the Century, and The Tolkien Family Album, and half a dozen less prominent books on my shelf. This is basic biographical info... most of it can be found all over the place. We could go to the effort of 'balancing' the citations from numerous sources.... but why? --CBDunkerson 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my vote, since the problem with verifiability has been fixed. This isn't signed the normal way, because I've intentionally disabled my WP account.--Bcrowell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.254.62 (talk • contribs)

Ok, there are now many inline citations, and the reference section has been restructured, using the Teddy Roosevelt article as a model, to address concerns that it did not properly cite it's sources.

Please take another look, and state if there are enough citations and reformatting to meet your objections, or if others in specific places need to be done. Thanks everyone! Judgesurreal777 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OK! There are now 55 properly formatted citations from 27 different sources, including the New York Times and National Geographic, along with various books... ALSO, the BEOWULF section has been significently expanded, and has begun discussing his signifient role in the field of Anglo Saxon literature. Please let it be known if you support the article now, as there are vastly more and very credible citations :) Within a day or two, all of them will be filled in, but 53 is certainly better than 2 Judgesurreal777 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • support, the article is now very well referenced. dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Some idea for further improvement - the long bibliography section could be moved to a separate sub-article and summarised here (I see there is already a poems sub-article, but I think you need to be a bit more ruthless - I know, he is an author; but the important works should be mentioned in the prose already); a timeline could help - see Neil Armstrong, Isembard Kingdom Brunel or John Vanbrugh for examples. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job at referencing. I can support it now. —Cuiviénen, 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. --Terence Ong 09:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - An excellent example of an article! Dee man45 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All citations are filled now (all 62) Anything else? Let us know! Otherwise, line out those objections :) Great job everyone that is helping/commenting. Judgesurreal777 01:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, support. I think more could be asaid about his academic career but at lest it gets a mention now and what I'm after probably could go in a daughter article. A challange for the legions of Tolkein and linguistics fans, how about it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    The 'Academic Works' section hits the highlights, but is missing alot of minor items. I'll try to put together some more info and then we can figure out where to include it. --CBDunkerson 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of hard work on this article! I think it's great (I even like the lead pic)! Staxringold 16:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Incredibly detailed and well-organized. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is detailed and comprehensive without being overlong, and is now very well referenced. It reads well too. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 14:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jon Harald Søby 20:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Comment - so is this to FA or not !!! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Albatross

Self-nomination. Been working on this, on and off, for several months, although a lot of the work was creating related articles (like all the individual species). Been to peer review and fixed almost everything as suggested (with one or two exceptions as noted). Hopefully you'll find it well written, well referenced, well reseached and illustrated. It covers all the salient points about the family, though many books have been written about them and no doubt I'll be breaking some sections off into their own articles in the future. And, if you'll forgive me pre-empting a question, as far as I can tell, from reading many books and journal articles, the wretched things do not fly and sleep at the same time. If this manages to get featured it would be the first family to do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: The taxonomy section is a bit confusing. I'd exepct to be told on what basis x split the genera or grouped them back. Also the detail about what separates Albatrosses from other Procellariiformes is in the next section, while it makes more sense to have it under the Taxonomy section. Circeus 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd exepct to be told on what basis x split the genera or grouped them back I'll try and clarify that. Also the detail about what separates Albatrosses from other Procellariiformes is in the next section The major difference is in size, the nasal tubes and the legs, all of which are morphololgical. Rather than repeating it I'll make a not in the taxonomy section to that effect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to clarify why the lumping of the genera happened in 1965, though to be honest reading the papers again it looks like there was a great deal of "cause we say so" in the reasoning. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a reference to Lumpers and splitters is in order ;-) Circeus 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
awesome! Never realised we had a page on that, though I guess it is needed. I linked as suggested, anyways. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stunning article, very strong on references. Very close to FA quality overall, and on many aspects, exceeding it. I think the major unresolved issue is around the number of species; given the disagreement over this internationally, I think the only option for this article is to present all views with similar weight.

My only other suggestions as to areas where attention is needed are mostly quite picky. I've listed them on the talk page rather than cluttering this page up. Finally, many apologies Sabine's Sunbird for not getting round to this earlier SP-KP 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiii. presenting all views? Given as how each scientist involved in Albatross research has a differnt view, it would triple the length of the article. Hows about I expand the paragraph on the question of the number of species with arguments for and against 14 and 21 (and 24?). I'd suggest having two lists in the Species section, but the way it is set up now makes it clear which of the 'new' species came from which old species. I'll also make it clearer that the 21 species is an interim taxonomy, but just as the 21 species taxonomy may be wrong, the 14 certainly is (at least insofar as the Tristan Albatross is more distinct from the Wandering than the Amsterdam). I'll address your picky concerns, uh, as soon as I see them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Picky comments are there now, sorry! Yes, I take your point about "all views" - I guess I thought maybe there are just the two main schools of thought - "14ish" and "20+" ... the species list isn't really my main concern, it's more that (usually) when a species total is mentioned, a definite figure of 21 is given, whereas we ought to be using a more neutral form or words - but I appreciate that's a difficult task! SP-KP 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's going to be horrifically difficult to discuss the IUCN redlist status of the family without making reference to 21 species, since that is the number they quote (as does BirdLife). And I have put in parenthesese that this is their number. The only other time the number of species is mentioned is in the taxonomy section, in the first paragraph (where I will per your request be more even handed) and in the section that directly deals with the disagreement, which I'll expand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if ranges of different "species" overlap, but maybe you can avoid the question by referring to the number of breeding locations? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don;t think that helps, most species breed on multiple islands and there can be as many as 7 different species on one island. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The controversy surrounding how many species of albatross exist seems like a topic for a different article altogether, I'm okay with just a passing reference to it in this article, but a fuller discussion of the conflict should exist elsewhere. As for the albatross article itself, it looks great to me. The references for this particular article are very well done. RyanGerbil10 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per reasons above. But, I do have one nitpicky suggestion. Footnotes usually go after punctuation, i.e. "...end of sentence.[4]" instead of "...end of sentence[5]."--Fallout boy 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support, and that suggestion about notes has been pointed out to me on my talk page and will be followed up (either by me or the suggester)> Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update I have picked through and corrected all of SP-KP's minor issues (bar one, see talk page for reasoning) and hopefully addressed his points on the number of species. I have also redone the punctuation around footnotes as suggested, and added a family tree to the taxonomy section to clarify what is being said there. I will be doing an albatross taxonomy article once this has been finished. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With the "number of species" issue resolved, I'm very happy to Support. Well done to Sabine's Sunbird for a great article. SP-KP 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - An enthusiastic support, I should say. Sean WI 21:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is an excellent article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-wholeheartedly. PDXblazers 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done! Excellent use of images and references! — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. These are two points from peer review that I think would merit addressing (you haven't crossed them out, so I assume they've not been tackled):
    • Inclusion of current threat statuses for each species would be a useful addition
    • Some info on places where albatross viewing is part of the local tourist economy would be worth including (e.g. Kaikoura) - but only if this is a significant phenomenon - also, how does it tie in with conservation? is there eco-tourism with money going back to conservation organisations?)
    • Since SP-KP mentioned it, I'm now intrigued to learn what the unguis is. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, to adress those points - adding the conservation status to the species list makes it look horribly cluttered, look at Anas for what I mean. The conservation status of any one species is easy enough to see by looking at it's individual page. If a lot of people feel strongly that the conservation status should be there I'll relent but the status should be added without using the template. I really think it is sufficient to say that 19 of 21 are threatened, which two are critical and leave the specific details to the individual pages.
I will follow that up, I meant to do so earlier.
Albatross bills have 9 bony plates, 2 naricorns, the superior unguicorn, culminicorn, 2 latericorns, ramicorn, inferior ungicorn and inter-ramicorn. Without a photo to illustate this it is simply a dry and uniteresting list, much better to simply say that the bill is composed of bony plates. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I withdraw two of my criticisms. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I added a sectrion on tourism to the culture section, there is not a great deal of information about specific ecotourist projects except the colony I mentioned. It is hard to separate out albatrosses as a draw on pelagic birdwatching trips from the draw of procellariids, storm petrels or anything else, from personal experience I'd suggest that they are what people really want to see but that would consititute original research. As for visits to colonies, it seems logical that the money from that would go to the programmes as most colonies are on unihbaitated islands owned by governments who also manage the colonies, but I'd suggest the ammount of money they contribute is quite small. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent work! Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportComment I copyedited the minor problems I saw, but there are a few little details I would like sorted out before I give full support:
    • As they progress the number of birds they interact with drops until they choose one partner. - Misplaced modifier.
    • ...but in nature it probably comes from the die-off that occurs after squid spawning and the vomit of squid-eating whales (sperm whales, pilot whales and Southern Bottlenose Whales), or possibly some other source - This isn't really saying anything: "It probably comes from this, or possibly some other source" is true about everything.
    • even for the smaller albatrosses, it takes anywhere between 170 and 140 days. It's odd that the larger number is written first. I didn't correct this because I want to make sure that it isn't a typo (e.g. 170 and 240, or similar).
    • Regarding the albatrosses and culture section, the first thing I did when reading this article was search for "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", glad to see it's in there. However, there is no mention of referring to a burdensome person or obstacle as being an "albatross" or an "albatross around one's neck", which I believe also stems from Coleridge.
Overall, it's a great article, I enjoyed reading it. Once these little details are addressed, I'll support. Pagrashtak 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
hopefully I have adressed your concerns. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm supporting now, that was pretty quick! Pagrashtak 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Now wherefore stopp'st thou me ? deeptrivia (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic work. I've removed the redundant ref info so that the same data isn't duplicated multiple times throughout the article, and made the image caption a link. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish literature

Self-nomination. I have been working on this article for about a month. I have submitted it to peer review—where I received several suggestions, all of which I implemented—and have also got it accepted as a good article. I believe that it is in a fit state to be accepted as a featured article, and that it would be a good addition to the featured articles on literature (especially insofar as there is a relative paucity in that section of non-English literatures). I am aware that the article is long; however, I think that this is to be expected in any respectable treatment of an entire national literature (though I am willing to accept suggestions as to what might be trimmed down). Moreover, as per the Wikipedia featured article guideline stating that an article "should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles", there are as of yet no "daughter" articles treating the relevant topics in detail (a problem I hope to remedy at some time in the future), and so I believe that—at the present at least—the article's length may be further merited on those grounds. —Saposcat 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • support The article is very comprehensive, with proper in-line citations and multiple references that are academic works instead of webpages. Proper links are implemented for those of us who want to read more about particular sub-topic. Temporary account 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It irks me a bit that the infobox would not be at the top, especially as there is more than enough vertical space to have both the box and the image. Is there any particular reason it's down in the first section? Circeus 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to Comment. I suppose there's three reasons it's not there. First: the associated articles are still skeletally thin on anything worthwhile, and so I'm hesitant to highlight the infobox when it doesn't (for the nonce) lead much of anywhere. Second: the infobox, to a certain extent, highlights the division between folk and written literature that is being talked about in the "two traditions" section. Third: I think that—just as it irks you to not have the infobox at the top—it would irk me to have an image and an infobox so closely together; I'm not a big fan, aesthetically speaking, of vertically stacking. If others agree with you, though, and insist that the infobox is best moved elsewhere, I would have no real qualms about doing do. —Saposcat 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply to Reply to Comment. On second thought, I tried it and liked it—and so have changed it. Apologies for my long-winded pigheadedness, and thanks for the suggestion. —Saposcat 10:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's awesome to have such a well-written article on a topic like this, the annals of Wiki's FAs are seriously lacking in literary topics. RyanGerbil10 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • support per RyanGerbil10.--Bcrowell 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The article is well organized, but the prose is far from "compelling". P.S. Mayakovsky never wrote "free verse". --Ghirla -трёп- 09:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. As per Mayakovsky, I must admit I was somewhat fooled by his quote, "Trochees and iambs have never been necessary to me. I don't know them and don't want to know them. Iambs impede the forward movement of poetry" (found here), but just now I've checked here and found: "Mayakovsky's verse may strike a reader as free of the conventional restraints of meter and rhyme, yet close analysis of his lines reveals a carefully structured and complex poetic artifice concealed but not destroyed by the breakup of the line into conversational phrase patterns." As this latter site is specifically devoted to 20th-century Russian poetry, I assume it's rather more reliable; i.e., you're right, and I have altered the sentence about Mayakovsky's influence on Nâzım Hikmet accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out. P.S. I'm sorry that you were "far from" compelled by the prose (ah well, so it goes). Any specific complaints or points in regards to that? —Saposcat 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely done and sourced artile on turkish literature. Wikipedia needs more comprehensive articles about national literature like this one. BlueShirts 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • object i peer reviewed this article. its good but:
    • headings should never have pics directly below them. so pic of nasreddin hoca should not be directly below heading - move it to right
    • ths will make it stack under kaygusuz abdal so move kaygusuz pic somewhere else
    • ottoman garden party pic - move to right
    • still dont like title "Early modern turkish literature" (as per PR) - change it to "early 20th century turkish literature" or something
    • move pic of tefvik kifret to right
    • pics dont have fair use rationales (esp. memed my hawk) Zzzzz 17:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply to object. All suggested changes have been made, including a fair use rationale for the "Memed, My Hawk" picture (no other pictures used were claimed as fair use). However, I am highly doubtful of the claim that "headings should never have pics directly below them", as a quick look reveals that such a situation is present in at least three current featured articles from the literature section alone: Augustan literature, Irish poetry, and the Voynich manuscript. I do not doubt that a more thorough search of other featured articles would reveal similar instances. —Saposcat 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
layout is good now. just 2 comments: the Folklore heading is now not left-justified. is it possible to do something about that? and i dont like the turkish lit infobox stacked below the picture, would prefer it further down. Zzzzz 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the reason the box is in its current location is because I complained the exact opposite. Such templates are designed specifically with the intent to be in the article lead, as far as I'm concerned. Circeus 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply. I have fixed the Folklore heading's non-left justification (I can't be sure if it is fixed in all possible browser/skin combinations, however). As for the infobox, so as to avoid a vicious and eternal circle of trying to satisfy everyone by moving it up, then down, then up, then down, I'm just going to leave it where it is right now. There is some reasoning for its being located further down (see my stricken reply to Circeus above), but I think that Circeus' argument about the infobox being in the lead is more normative across Wikipedia. —Saposcat 06:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive and well written. deeptrivia (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I suggest removing the self-refrencing, "This article will concern itself" in the third paragraph. Your prose seems so organized I don't want to touch it. :-) Wonderful article. --Banana04131 19:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to Support. Self-referencing has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out, and for the vote of support and the compliments. —Saposcat 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rama's Arrow 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks good overall. However, I have a minor objection in the article talking about itself in the third paragraph of the lead. If you want to define the scope, please do so as done in Indian Railways. Will support once I read the article completely and if I don't have any objections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to Comment. Self-referencing has been removed. Originally it had been put there partly to hedge my bets against the nationalist sentiments that sometimes tend to disrupt Turkey-related articles; but hedging one's bets is, of course, not appropriate for a potential featured article, so I'm not hedging them any longer. Thanks for pointing the problems with the lead out. —Saposcat 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Johnson (politician)

Self nom. Biography of Ohio's lieutenant governor. Illustrated, referenced, thorough account. Previously had a FAC nomination here and a peer review here. PedanticallySpeaking 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Much better! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral. Some sections, including the last sentence of the lead section, could do with a rewrite. Once the prose is improved, even just by a tiny margain, I'll support the nomination. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've redone the second paragraph of the lead and proofread other parts of it. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still not so sure, it appears that the whole article may require a copy-edit. The final section is also awkwardly-worded in specific places. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you identify some of those "specific places" so I might be able to work on them? PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The article is good, but needs a bit of rewriting. Some of the subsections are too short, and the section headings themselves are unencyclopedic in tone. Very close, would be prepared to support. RyanGerbil10 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Several sections have been merged and renamed. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pleased with the size and number of the sections now, as well as their order. The tone of the section titles still strikes me as a bit uncyclopedic, but I'm not going to be that picky. My only remaining concern is that other users have found problems with the copyright status of pictures. As soon as that is cleared up, I will support. RyanGerbil10 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Picture license tags need to be updated. Gflores Talk 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I can't speak to all the license tags, but those should always be kept up to date. As for the article, there is quite a lot of it, maybe a slight bit of trimming? However, the issue I have that would sway my vote is the "Runs in Columbus" section. The text makes numerous references to what The Columbus Dispatch says, it would be nice to have individual refs for each article with the given quote, rather than the giant ref #7 that is there right now. Staxringold 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, but if I did that, then there would be an objection to too many footnotes. See the comments here and here. PedanticallySpeaking 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Over-refing is better than underrefing, and this is nowhere near the level of Katie Holmes. To start off with, I added in div resizing so the refs don't take up as much space. This still uses the old ref style which isn't great (though not enough by itself to downvote), has a massive ref #7 that has no sense being grouped together, and a massive bibliography of sources that have unknown connections to the article. Staxringold 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And same as last time I would ask what information do you have about Ohio's copyrights? The page from which these pictures was taken, http://ltgovernor.ohio.gov/ , contains no copyright notices. PedanticallySpeaking 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We must assume that an image is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. Why don't you just email the webmaster and ask if the images are copyrighted? That's what I did once with another US government website. Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no contact e-mail addresses on any page on this site. And what is the basis for "assum[ing] an image is copyrighted unless otherwise stated"? I have never seen a copyright notice on anything produced by the State of Ohio. PedanticallySpeaking 18:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a basic part of American copyright law that all creative works produced on or after March 1, 1989 are copyrighted, regardless of the presence or absence of a copyright statement or copyright registration with the Library of Congress. --Carnildo 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The press office of the Ohio Department of Development, of which Johnson is director, informs me by e-mail "We do not have copyright on the photos." PedanticallySpeaking 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
And I repeat, do you have specific information on the State of Ohio's stance on copyrights? PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The onus is on the person claiming the material to be PD to prove his claim, not the other way round. I would support, but the header image is fair use, and is supposedly produced by the Ohio government -- would this not indicate that the Ohio government does claim copyright on its materials? And the four other images of people in the article are all tagged with {{PD-OHGov}}, yet the tag states the image "was produced by the State of Ohio, which does claim copyright in the work." Furthermore, the Ohio Department of Development message you quote is a bit ambiguous -- does the Department alone not have copyright, or is it the whole state government? If, as I am presuming, a number of those photos were not produced by the Department, the Department would not be able to claim copyright on those photos -- but that doesn't make them public domain. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I omitted the word "not" from the template. I have corrected this. And if the Department of Development, which Johnson is head of, can't release the photographs, I don't who I am expected to contact. PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting concerned -- the template is currently on TfD. Anyway, I have contacted the webmaster to enquire about the copyright status of content published on the website, so hopefully we should be able to settle this soon. Also, the Department that Johnson heads has no more claim on copyright of photos of him than, say, General Motors would on the copyright of photos of Bill Ford, so it's not surprising that they would deny copyright on images not taken by their personnel. The only copyright they would have is on photos of Johnson taken by the Department. (Anyway, this is probably a moot point.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm tired of this entire exasperating discussion. I've removed every image save the one at the top. Will that earn your support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I will not object for now; if we can confirm that the images are PD and they are added back to the article, I will support then. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Two or more external links will be better. Brandmeister 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what else I could link to besides his official site.PedanticallySpeaking 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Carnildo. Otherwise, it's very good, though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If I removed all the photographs would that lead to a support vote? PedanticallySpeaking 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No. The article should illustrate him, at least. Perhaps show a picture of him on the campaign trail, and tag it as fair use. If the campaign is discussed by the article, that would be fair use, I think (IANAL). Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would note that when I removed the offending photos from the article the last time to address these concerns, the nomination still failed so its hard to see what I can do to satisfy people. As for "a picture of him on the campaign trail", I have no such photos. PedanticallySpeaking 15:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Needs a copyedit, especially the WP:LEAD: lots of pronouns, "He managed his campaign and he was appointed." Instead, try "becoming Mayor Joe Mayors Chief of Staff after managing Mayor's 1991 campaign, and leaving that post when appointed by Mr. Appointment Guy to the Ohio Senate in 1994." Also try, "After being elected to two [Senate] terms and rising to the second highest post in the Senate, Governor Bob Taft in 2001 asked [Johnson] to join the cabinet as Director of the Ohio Department of Development and then appointed [Johnson] [Lieutenant Governor] in 2005 [why? who retired or died or what?] to complete the lieutenant governor's unexpired term. If the office of governor became vacant, Johnson would succeed to that office. Johnson is thus currently first in the order of succession for the Ohio governorship. Kaisershatner 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, except for explaining why there was a vacancy. That seems too much information for the lead but the information is contained in the article's body. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support while I feel that the photo copyright issue is significant, I am not educated enough on the topic, in terms of this article or in general, and since it has been mentioned enough, I feel it is unfair for me to drag it on. Therefore, the article is superb otherwise. Another great work! Nice photos, the external links section is a little short and looks out of place being so short after such a long references section (perhaps could be rearanged? but is that customary otherwise?), but I know it may be tough to find external links. Anyway, great overall, very nicely done! --Lan56 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article and I suspect that a politician might not be the easiest to write about in finding good references. Overall welldone.--Dakota ~ ° 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Mainly per DakotaKahn; but shouldn't there be an infobox on the politican like the one on Dick Cheney, or similar? Also, I think the references section size should be reduced to something along the lines of, say, 90%; or was this not considered "the thing" nowadays. Kilo-Lima Vous pouvez parler 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral. This is a very well-written and exhaustively researched article, and it's an interesting read even though I hadn't heard of the subject before. However, I feel that the issue involving the copyright status of the images is important. Also, there appear to be several duplicate wikilinks to The Columbus Dispatch and others, and some of the solitary year links could be removed in accordance with WP:CONTEXT. If those images, as well as the links, were removed (or their status as public domain material confirmed), I'd definitely vote support. Extraordinary Machine 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Another user went through and removed these links and was then reverted just prior to your edit to the article, Extraordinary. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the edits that removed the year links, and have also removed the duplicate wikilinks. Thanks for clarifying the image copyrights situation. Once again, very nice work. Extraordinary Machine 17:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and meets all FA criteria. Only nitpicky suggestion is that I'd suggest using the cite.php reference format.--Fallout boy 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me, but could you add Wikipedia:Persondata please? That'd be great. Good job. Gflores Talk 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article, well researched. Well done. AriGold 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac

Danielk212 and I have been working very hard on this article for quite some time, and we now believe it to be of featured article quality. The article was recently peer reviewed, though it recieved very few comments. Danielk212 and I have attempted to communicate with Mara Vishniac (Roman's daughter) to ask for pictures we could use and to fact-check, but she's been too busy to help; fair-use images will suffice for now. We are still trying to reach her, but can't wait any longer. Roman Vishniac was an fascinating person and certainly deserves a featured article in this encyclopedia.-- Rmrfstar 11:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Too many red links. May be some of them need fixing to redirects if exist. Brandmeister 13:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am blanket opposing all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 16:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawing my oppose, consider it a strongly worded suggestion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many red links. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Possessing red links does not preclude an article from being featured, according to an earlier discussion. However, the sheer percentage of red links in this particular article is staggering... do none of those names have articles? Surely some of those links just need redirects... not redirecting links is an actionable concern, just as linking to too many disambig links would be. And the earlier discussion was about one or two red links... not an article full of them. It doesn't look kosher this way. I'd say, make some stubs at the very least... Fieari 16:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the ref ordering is unusual; most FAs follow numerical order in the text. It doesn't look good to start at 8, jump around to 22 and then finally back to one. In addition, the note at the bottom of the "biograph" section doesn't really fit, and there are some external links in the tables that could be changed to refs. There's also some formatting issue, especially near the bottom. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to fix the non-sequentially numbered references, see below for my comments on the other system.
Are you talking about the "timeline" note? I just felt that a reader who wants to see a timeline should know that there is one in existence.
I purposefully reduced the number of references and used URLs for simple publication data: those sources are not true "references" and readers should not refer to them unless specifically looking up that publication.
What are these formatting issues near the bottom? And thank you! -- Rmrfstar 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! The refs look better, but still a few issues: the two tables near the bottom still have some external links instead of refs, which should be fixed. In addition, one of them still has the "citation needed" flag, indicating that a source is needed for that part of the table. Also, there are still some external links in the prose, such as in the "impact" section. Finally, I still don't agree with the note For a convenient timeline of Roman Vishniac's life, see page 95 of Roman Vishniac published by ICP at the bottom of the section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
All of your objections have been addressed. -- Rmrfstar 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Great! Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support- if the ref issue is cleaned up. I don't believe the red links are a problem, though it would definetly be better to get rid of at least some of them. AndyZ 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Concerning the redlinks, I don't believe that many of them could be redirected or deleted; there are just many obscure topics referenced in Roman Vishniac, such as cinemicroscopy, which does deserve its own article. On the subject of the reference style, I should say that I worked for about an hour trying to convert the article using Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp and could not do it to my satisfaction. There are simply too many references to the same sources, references which are necessary. Even a partial conversion increases the size of the article by kilobytes and it's already 38K. See User:Rmrfstar/Workspace and User:Rmrfstar/Workspace2 for two (incomplete) versions that I drafted. Neither of them are any better than the current system, in my opinion. But I'm not very familiar with the new system. Perhaps some more knowledgable person should give it a try. -- Rmrfstar 02:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not try using {{note}} and {{ref}} and the corresponding templates? I'm pretty sure that some of those can address this issue. Alternatively, you could also try the new m:Cite/Cite.php format, which is more efficient than the use of templates. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Two m:Cite/Cite.php implementations are exampled on my two Workspaces (linked above):Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp is the same as m:Cite/Cite.php). Neither this, nor ref/note style, has any advantages over the current system, old as it is, besides the numerical numbering. Newer is not always better. One of the problems with such new systems is that they either have an entire "note" for each inline link, or they have tons of obnoxious letters next to each reference (see Workspace2). So I appose the conversion of this article to a newer citation style. If, however, after hearing my arguments, the consensus is against me, I shall convert it to the style decided upon.-- Rmrfstar 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have repaired the footnotes such that there is a baseline version that is in line with footnoting style. Perhaps citing the roman work less often would make the footnotes less ugly? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I see what you did, you only put the entire reference in the inline citation once, so you didn't increase the size much.. smart. I glad that problem's been solved. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
      • And I did trim down the references to that often used source; it's now not usually cited at the end of a paragraph, outside the last period. -- Rmrfstar 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Reads well, good references, seems comprehensive. More pictures would be nice (a separate gallery page, even) but this is just a comment and the authors seem to be working to fix it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Minor oppose, a gallery of fair use images would be very problematic in terms of Wikipedias fair use policy, there are too many fair use images in the article as is, the book covers for example are pushing WP:FUC as they are there as decorations rather than images to represent commentary on the books etc. --nixie 05:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That is exactly the reason that a gallery has not been created. As is explained in detail on each image's page, the images used are all important in illustrating the subject. I've held off on adding more because more may be viewed easily in the External links section. If there're one or two particular images you feel may be removed without negative consequence, name them. To keep everyone up to date, I've just mailed Mara Vishniac a letter (with article enclosed) asking for freely licensed images. DanielK212 and I are also attempting to reach JDC and YIVO, looking for images not owned by the Vishniac estate.
      • Also, the book covers in the References section are not just eye candy, but are very recognizable images relating to Roman Vishniac (A Vanished World largly increased his renown and Children is currently in print and relates closely to all current appreciation of Vishniac's work). There is little commentary on the books, but they are used in an educational fashion (also next to the place where they are actually referenced) and they don't violate any WP:FUC, I think. -- Rmrfstar 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • While it is patently obvious that his images appear on the covers of his books, I still see no fair use rationale which describes why these covers are fair in this article.--nixie 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I have added such a fair use rationale for both cover images. -- Rmrfstar 10:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The images Image:VishniacChagall.jpg, Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg, Image:VishniacMara.jpg, Image:VanishedWorldCover.jpg, Image:ChildrenVanishedCover.gif are tagged as "fair use", however, none of them are discussed within the article. The presence of critical commentary is an essential part of Wikipedia's fair use policy. --Carnildo 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Where is "critical commentary" on WP:FUC? All that Wikipedia's fair use policy says is that "There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include: [critical commentary]", but this list is by no means exclusive. I argue that all of these images "contribute significantly" (WP:FUC) to the article either by identifying the subject named in ==In Eastern Europe== or by showing the reader very well known book covers to associate with the subject. -Rmrfstar 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have put a little commentary on the Mara picture in ==Religion==. I know not what commentary could be included for the other images. The article is not on them, but on the photographer of them; yet they are still necessary to illustrate the subject. -- Rmrfstar 00:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • If there is no commentary, then the images are being used to decorate the article, not illustrate it. --Carnildo 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't see your reasoning, and the two are not mutually exclusive. In any case, there is absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy on this subject. Your cited "critical commentary" is not necessary and the images are all of "acceptable copyright status". -- Rmrfstar 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I have changed my mind; there is no longer any issue; the second cover image has been removed and the first one is now accompanied by critical commentary in the intro. -- Rmrfstar 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
            • And the other two images I objected to are still there. The "critical commentary" on the book is also pretty sketchy -- I'd expect at least a paragraph, maybe a whole section, if the image is used. Half a sentence just doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 07:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Update -- I have just removed Image:VishniacWisdom.jpg, because I think it is not absolutely necessary to illustrate the subject. The ones left are Image:VishniacChagall.jpg and Image:VanishedWorldCover.jpg, both of which are crucial. Please detail what policy is being violated by their inclusion in this article (in their current form). As I said before, "critical commentary" is not a fair use criterium (see WP:FUC); no Featured article criteria are not being met. -- Rmrfstar 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
                • If they're really that crucial, then why doesn't the article text give more than a brief mention of either? --Carnildo 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Nothing more need be said. The brief mention and the detailed fair use rationalse explain their importance. What more could possibly be said that would enhance their educational value? Let's not be superficial and write for the sake of writing. Are the purposes, meanings or significance of the images not clear? And please answer the question: what Featured Article Criterium is not being met? -- Rmrfstar 02:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • No, the "purposes, meanings and significance" are not clear. I'd think that was obvious from the fact that I'm objecting. And as for which criteria are not being met, try #4, "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", emphasis on the "acceptable copyright status" part, and #2, "It is well written": leaving the reader to guess as to why certain images are included does not constitute "well written". --Carnildo 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • If their meaning/significance is not clear, that is one thing, but they are of acceptable copyright status; they meet all of the fair use criteria. Anyway, I have tried to explain more clearly the significance of the two images by including detailed captions for these two images. Are they sufficient? -- Rmrfstar 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                        • Much better, though if you could replace Image:VishniacChagall.jpg with the Einstein photo that is discussed in the article, that would be even better. --Carnildo 04:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                          • I was thinking about doing that. I have a copy of the Einstein photo, though it not with me right now. Next weekend I'll get the picture, scan and upload it. I didn't do it initially because I didn't want to put pictures on the Internet that weren't already there, and I couldn't find the portrait on the Internet. -- Rmrfstar 11:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                            • Mission accomplished. -- Rmrfstar 13:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Additional comments three indents down. The lead could be tightened up. Particularly the second paragraph; I'm not sure why the brief family history is included here. And in the third paragraph, the list of awards is perhaps unnecessary as well. As a style of self-contained lead—a mini-article—I suppose it does work, but I found it takes the focus off the rest of the article. Consistency across WP biographical articles is probably not a consideration here, but I looked at a few FAs and the leads do tend to concentrate on the "highlights". --Tsavage 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you; I agree and shall work on this tonight. -- Rmrfstar 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • How is the new lead? It's not much shorter, but it's neater and more relevant. See diff here. -- Rmrfstar 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's a little better. I still find the second paragraph distracting, and probably not necessary at all in the lead (kids, cancer are important to him but secondary to the photography and science he's known for). Also, there's a lot of "well-known" and "famous" for one short third paragraph. I don't have time right now to fully commment, otherwise I would "object" if I did. The article is interesting and seems complete, but the prose needs a fair amount of tightening up, for style and consistency. For example, in the lead, A Vanished World is published in 1940, but the table says 1947 (a typo?), and "shtetlach" is unexplained. Early life says, "Dr. Vishniac was not able to publish a paper detailing his findings due to the political atmosphere"—but the atmosphere is not explained. Sentences like, "Even when he grew older, Roman Vishniac lead a very full life", "The items that were in his possession include..." (collection?), "in the dim indoor home of a poor Jew" are kind of awkward and/or bland. "Famous" is used noticeably often, in at times unspecified ways. The subsectioning in "Photography" is somewhat confusing, mixing places and periods (Eastern Europe, Zbaszyn), with "Impact" and "Photomicroscopy" (a Legacy section might be good at the end, it could include impact, info about his death instead of in the lead, etc). I'm certainly not tearing into the article for the sake of it: I really enjoyed reading it and am happy to know about Vishniac (I started looking through the Web for more on him), it's just that a good copyedit is needed to make this really polished. I'd help if I knew more about him... --Tsavage 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've tried to address all of your specific concerns. I'll do at least one more good read through and copyedit to-day. -- Rmrfstar 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It's better. I'll try to help out with a bit of copyediting if I see anything. --Tsavage 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Review update 18-Mar The specific concerns I had have been addressed (struck above). The lead I find much improved and rough spots in the main text largely smoothed out. I still find the writing a bit awkward in parts (for example, the first para of the "New York" subsection, or sentences like Vishniac, being a Jew, had to struggle immensely to take the 16,000 photos he did.), but since I was only commenting, I'll leave it at that for this review: outstanding problems fixed, writing still needs tightening up. (It never ends, huh?!) Thanks. --Tsavage 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I shall continue to copyedit and improve the writing. -- Rmrfstar 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, after a closer reading there are several more things:
  • The see also list seems excessive, those things that are or could be linked in text should be removed from the list
    • I have cleaned up ==See also== and the section now conforms to Manual of Style: all of the topics linked relate to the entire article and should be useful for the reader as a "navigational aid".
  • I can't see the logic in putting the small section on Zbaszyn on its own, it makes the TOC longer and does not really stand alone from the material that preceeeds it, merge it into the trips section (the trips section could use a better name).
    • I have merged in Zbaszyn and renamed the section.
  • It is not really clear why the "Biology and his philosophy" isn't included with the "photomicrography" section. The material on his religion could easily be worked in to biography
    • Biology talks about Roman's unique philosophies concerning biology, what he did in the field of biology and how all of that relates to his religion, (and it does). The topics are too closely related to be separated. I changed my mind and moved stuff around in accordance with you suggestion, how does it work? -- Rmrfstar 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no discussion of his work in the context of the work of his contemporaries, who else worked on similar subjects etc. I suppose it is alluded to in the see alsos, but it's be more interesting in text.
    • From all I've read, I can find no definitive statements that his '30s work was especially important to more contemporary photographers; it was not so groundbreaking. The Steichen quote is the best that I've found. Related photograhpers are in the ==See also==, yes; there is no direct link between any of them and him: none of whom I know mimicked him etc. Anything that could be written would be speculation and not enough to warrant a paragraph of text.
  • I'm still not convinced both the book covers are necessary, I'd include A Vanished World where it is first discussed in the article and remove the other.
    • I believe the fair use rationales justify both covers' inclusion and position. I changed my mind again and took your advice. -- Rmrfstar 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no legacy section, which could be useful and interessting- and I it would give you the scope to talk about exhibitions and books realesed after his death as well as his influence on contemporary photography.
    • I don't think such a section would be helpful. The exhibitions and books released postmortem were not so special, and his influence on contemporary photography was not great.-- Rmrfstar 13:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

--nixie 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC) There has been no response from this user on this page or his talk page concerning this nom since March 9. -- Rmrfstar 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support. A lot of improvement has been made and I think this is ready. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support-While I feel this article is somewhat short, it meets requirements. --Kahlfin 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Roman Vishniac is, if anything, too long, at 38Kb. But, it is completly comprehensive and nothing much can be removed; I think it's a good length. -- Rmrfstar 13:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Support-I can hardly see how this article could be viewed as somewhat short. Roman Vishniac is longer than the Tooth Enamel article, and that got on the main page. Cryptic C62 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In all fairness, they're different subjects and Kahlfin has a right to complain about the size of the article even though others may be smaller; however, as I argued above, I don't think Roman Vishniac is too short. -- Rmrfstar 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire

Self-Nomination This article has had a peer review and I believe its well-written and comprehensive plus its one the very few Iran-related article that has been listed as a good article and has been feature article in Deutsch (German) WP and Norsk (Norwegian) WP. I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the Pre-Islamic history of Iran (Persia) specially the Sassanid dynasty and its influence on the Iranian culture after arrival of Islam. If you have any comments about the article I'll be 24/7 in WP during this week, ready to respond and explain. Amir85 12:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Good work, though I'd recommend removing an image or two since I'm not sure if every one would qualify as fair use. Other than that, congratulations on a job well-done! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is extremely long, but appears to adhere to summary style nonetheless. I personally don't believe in length as an actionable objection for an FA, so I won't object here. However, others might be so inclined, so beware. RyanGerbil10 04:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. That's much more impressive than I thought, and I appreciate it is organized as a former empire state, not just a history of... article. There is however room for improvement: 1) merge all history chapters (origin, etc.) into the history section 2) add a section on geography and administrative division 3) Minor: why the category for the fall (651) but not for the creation?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work: well-researched, comprehensive, and interesting. It is long, and it seems like some of the sections that link to other articles (Religion and Art, science and literature, for example) could be somewhat abbreviated. But the article is FA quality already. bcasterlinetalk 06:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Fantastic article, ample pictures, lots of sources, and very informative. It doesn't get much better than this. Weatherman90 04:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The "sassanid rulers" table is butt-ugly.
    • Quite a few refs could use combination.
  • Circeus 14:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Concerning the "In modern media" sub-section of the "Sassanid army" section, can the analysis be made more specific to the Sassanid Empire, rather than the game of Rome Total War? Specifically, their starting position in the game-map and campaign difficulty level seem more game-focused than real-life Sassanid Empire-focused. Since the article is about the real-lilfe Sassanid Empire and only people familiar with the computer game will likely spend much time reading this section, a comparison (or explanation) of the computer-version and real-life version would be benefitial. Specifically, how do the two compare visually (did they actually look like that?), comparison of unique (or other) units/characters (war elephants, fully armored camel riders) or empire's strength/weaknesses (financially, defensively), etc. Also, was there a source used for this section? Specifically, I'm looking at the image caption which reads "the 2005 hit PC game" and the paragraph "Overall, many consider the Sassanids...the strongest factions in the game..." (emphasis added). "Hit" seems subjective and "many consider" seems like an opinion disguising itself as a conclusion. --maclean25 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The game has a stereotypical view (The usual confusion of a Semitic culture instead of totally different culturally, racially and linguistically Persian culture) towards Sassanid Empire (a Persian dynasty) which means other than few units or names, from supposedly soundtracks for Sassanids to buildings and architecture of Sassanids in the game, non of them are related to Sassanids or Persian civilization. In fact they belong to Semitic Babylonian civilization.
Some users suggested removing that section, I may have to consider removing that section and adding it to Sassanid Army if census is reached. About the paragraph "many consider the Sassanids...the strongest factions in the game..." sources of this conclusion are 1. From in game description of Sassanids which states "Excellent mixture of units", none of the other faction have such, 2. From various Forum threads in the game's official website [6]. Amir85 06:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I just finished reading.... Damn, that's one comprehensive article. Very good stuff Thethinredline 08:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Something is wrong with the opening sentence: "The Sassanid Empire or Sassanian Empire (Persian: ساسانیان Sassanian) was the name given to the kings of Persia (Iran) during the era of the third Persian Empire from 224 until 651." I think either The Empire was the name given to the Kingdom, or The Sassanid Dynasty was the name given to the Kings. Kaisershatner 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Good question ! I should had it clarified before, Sassanid Empire is a term more commonly used rather than direct translation of its Persian word Selseleh Sasanian سلسله ساسانیان which means Sassanian dynasty. In Persian the word Sasanian alone also means the Sassanian dynasty. Amir85 17:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Brilliant throughout. Timeline would be the icing on the cake --PopUpPirate 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Not often do you see an article this comprehensive and informative on a subject this large and challenging. Great work. RobthTalk 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support It's very comprehensive and scholarly. --ManiF 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Detailed and well written.Zmmz 01:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Third nomination. Has already been on peer review. I think it's ready now. Huge thanks to Polaris999. LordViD 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent references and footnotes, well written, comprehensive and (amazingly enough, for a topic like this) reasonably stable and very NPOV. This has been through a ton of reviews and it looks like the reasonable objections have been addressed. There's lots of discussion on the talk page indicating responsible editing. Good article. Kafziel 19:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are still many hyperlinks inside main body, there should be transformed into proper references. There is also at lest one {{fact}} for which citation should be provided. The 'The intellectual and artist' section is stub-lenght, and the 'Aftermath' should probably be renamed 'Legacy' (more fitting to a person). Finally I find it strange that 'support' and 'ciricism' sections are such short - I'd expect CG to have his own subarticle on that. As I am not a specialist in CG, I don't know if this is truly comprehensive or not, but by comparison to many our other FAs (and not only), this looks rather suspiciously short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is still 48KB long after getting rid of the list-like sections. That is an upper bound for almost all articles, per the Summary style FA requirement. The article seems well-balanced as is and comprehensive. Adding more detail will make this article longer than necessary to efficiently cover its topic. If anything, we need development of more daughter articles that will go into more detail on various parts of this subject. --mav 20:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the moment; though this is a major improvement, more work is needed. I strongly recommend making the reference system consistent by converting embedded links to normal <ref> citations. Please provide sources for the statement, "although some sources assert that he was actually born on 14 May 1928", and add a citation to the Motorcycle Diaries book that is referred to later in that section. {{fact}} appears in the Criticism subsection; this should be addressed. Also, I'm confused by the supplementary sections—organizationally it's lacking, but I think that the websites in "Writings about Che Guevara" belong in "External links", and the printed works that aren't references should go in "Further reading". The "Guevara in fiction" should probably go above "Published works", since it's part of his influence. Use {{web reference}} for citing web pages as references, with at least date accessed included. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right; the book already appears in the references and probably doesn't need a cite here. All my concerns have been addressed; I now support. --Spangineer (háblame) 20:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - The lead section needs to be longer so it can properly summarize the most important aspects of the subject and the inline hyperlinks need to be converted to a consistent referencing format. Spangineer's objection also needs to be fixed, before this vote becomes a real support. --mav 20:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ouch...that's a lot of work. I'll be working on all your objections soon. LordViD 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Right...I've (hopefully) addressed most objections. The remaining;

#Piotrus - I can't find anything to add to "Intellectual and artist", so I'll probably merge it into another section. As for the Criticism and support; I believe they're just the right size. #Spangineer - I don't see the need to add a citation for The Motorcycle Diaries. As for the supplementary sections; I've implemented your suggestions, though I need help in organizing them. #Mav - I don't believe the lead needs expansion, as it already covers the most important stages of his life; Birth, Cuba, Congo, Bolivia, death, and legacy. LordViD 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As of this point, with a fat lot of help from Polaris999 and Spangineer, I believe all objections have been addressed. LordViD 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Fantastic article - I think the bottom section consisting of Source Notes, Content Notes, Printed Matter, Websites, Documentary Sites, Forums, Photographs, Other, On-Line Sources...... isn't the way to go, but it's certainly comprehensive. Practically half the article is citation, which is ridiculously OTT - but no reason to object. Good luck. --PopUpPirate 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Well written article. The Early Life section may be a little choppy, but one the whole, a great effort and very well referenced. AreJay 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Object. The article is sorely lacking in cultural impact which certainly goes beyond a few movies and references in video games. Are you implying that despite all the stuff he wrote, he did not influence currents of academic thought and has not been quoted by social movements he was not directly involved with? Indeed, many people follow "Che the icon", and the article does a great job covering that aspect, but what about "Che the thinker"? If Sartre noticed him, then there must be more to Che than the ubiquitous picture in the t-shirts of all those teenagers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

comment. I think it's a very good article, well sourced and comprehensive. I read quickly through it, and felt that this article is primarily focused on biographical information. Thus the article is complete and comprehensive, even without the cultural impact. Temporary account 07:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
CommentJust because the article focuses primarily on biography doesn't mean that it should. There are important aspects to Che Guevara beyond his own life story, and I think that merits mention in the article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support I forgot to add support on the previous post. Regarding the reply to my comment: This article is already very dense and long compared to many other FACs and it is comprehensively written and well-sourced (it's got primary, secondary, content notes, endnotes... etc). When I opened the article, I learned everything I wanted to learn about Che, and if you are looking for more Cultural stuff, look at first two sections in the Legacy part of the article. Personally I don't understand about the comment about "Che the thinker." If you really read the article, you should know what was his philosophy and his influences readily, and plus, the article isn't implying that all his cultural impacts are in the movies and TVs. I guess this is too fastidious. Temporary account 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Support, esp. for good pics. The article is worth of it. Brandmeister 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Support per Kafziel. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Object - Per Rune Welsh, see my comment above. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. To Rune and Cuivienen; I have nothing more to add to Temporary account's comment. Che wasn't a philosopher, he was a fighter. Having said that however, I note that all of Che's ideas and philosophies are discussed throughout the article. LordViD 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Che Guevara isn't famous for his poetry or philosophy. I wouldn't expect a section about deep thoughts in this article any more than I would expect one in an article about George Bush. ;) Kafziel 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not expecting a change of focus in the article (that would be ludicrous). The comment above fails to acknowledge that Che was a fighter with philosophy, or therwise he'd have been just another mercenary fighting for Castro. For instance, if I remember correctly he had something to say about permanent revolution that later influenced other writers to some degree (like Tony Cliff). Now, you can spin off a whole article on that alone (e.g. Maoism or Trotskyism although these obviously had a greater impact than Che's) but a mention of facts like this deserves to be at least summarized in Che's biography. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any comment by Che specifically addressing permanent revolution although I do not doubt that he expressed an opinion about the concept at some point in his lifetime since he was very interested in the ideas of Trotsky. As explained in the section "Congo" of the main CG article (i.e. the article being discussed on this page), during the time that Guevara spent living clandestinely in Dar-Es-Salaam and Prague (late 1965 to mid-1966), he wrote the draft of a book on philosophy. He subsequently arranged for this draft to be transferred to Cuba, at approximately the time when he returned there to participate in military training with the future members of the guerrilla troop he would lead in Bolivia. He left this draft in the care of his wife, Aleida. It happens that this manuscript is considered "hot", because certain sections of it contain what the Cuban Communist Party views as "non-orthodox" interpretations of, and contributions to, Marxist theory. For this reason, the Cuban Communist Party and Castro government have never allowed the draft to be published in its entirety. (Recently, some excerpts have been printed, but those which the Party considers controversial were specifically omitted.) Until I am able to study the complete, unexpurgated contents of this, his final work on philosophy, I will not feel competent to write an in-depth discussion of Guevara's contributions to the discipline. Polaris999 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is comprehensive enough about Che and nicely referenced. Some object that the article didn't address "Che the Thinker" and therefore sould fail this FAC. I find this preposterous since Che's philosophy guided his actions. It's hard not to get his ideas by reading this comprehensive article. BlueShirts 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Could it be improved? Probably. But in many ways it is exemplary, thanks in no small part to Polaris999's steady work to keep the article from becoming either a hagiography or a kakography. The careful citation and the notes explaining subtleties are a model of how to handle a controversial subject. I think this is already in many respects an example of our best work, and should become an FA. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've been looking at this article for several weeks now. It's got an amazing wealth of information, and it appears to be very well organized and cited, a model for all wikipedia articles. Just by the sheer popularity of the article, Che being a cultural icon, i think this deserves featured status. --Subterfugest 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: The section that now is "Legacy" "Support" and "Criticism" has come a long way since "Hero Cult" and "Critique of Hero Cult". savidan(talk) (e@) 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It has been a very rewarding experience to work on this project over the past several years and see how the contributions of numerous Wikipedians, representing many diverse and sometimes conflicting points of view, have finally come together to create a worthwhile article. The recent peer review was extremely helpful in bringing about this result. While I feel certain that most of us who have contributed to this article in the past will continue to work to improve it in the future, I believe that in its current state it presents a comprehensive and balanced overview of Guevara's life and, in addition, offers some important biographical details that I have not seen included in any other encyclopedia article about him. Polaris999 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support it seems fairly complete and well-written. -- user:zanimum
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Some good Capitalist Support Some trimming might be warranted, however even as it, it is inconceivable that this cannont become a FA Thethinredline 11:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

The article discusses a 1970s work of popular fiction. In comparison with the only 2 other featured articles in that category, i find it superior to The Foundation Series, and roughly equal to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-- although Illuminatus doesnt have the same degree of "multi-media" aspect, so concentrates more on the novel itself, its creation, themes, and significance. It was built around the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels" guidelines, and aims to provide full 360-degree coverage of the subject while avoiding original research. All major assertions are sourced. peer review raised 2 issues, both have been addressed, & it was successfully accepted for Wikipedia:Good articles status. would be interesting to see it on the mainpage before The Da Vinci Code movie is released - so the general public can see where Dan Brown stole his ideas from! ;-)

  • Support selfnom Zzzzz 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
they do now. Zzzzz 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Object The lead doesn't adequately summarize the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD. WP:NOR and WP:V problems. Lots of unsourced speculation, such as "This suggestion that hippy culture was somehow being controlled by secret forces is typical of the books' ambiguous attitude towards the New Age."; whose opinion is that? Ours? Same with "The trilogy is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, with an absurdist plot built of seemingly plausible, if unprovable, components." and "theatre philanthropist and all-round cosmic thinker Ken Campbell". There is a lot of unsourced opinion here. Some sentences are confusing. "Atlanta Hope is a mock right-wing version of [Ayn] Rand." -- what are we saying here? I suspect that an editor is saying something about the politics of Ayn Rand, but I'm not even sure what that editor's opinion is, even if we wanted it in the article. The article needs someone to go through it and trim back some of this speculation. Incidentally, that one "See also" item would be great to work into the text if it is actually important. Jkelly 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I have added a few fact tags for the last few items that seem to be unsourced. I also made a couple of minor copyedits. I look forward to supporting after these last couple of statements are fact-checked. Jkelly 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for specifying your objections; I'll take a look at them and see how they can be addressed. I can't speak for the other editors on the article, but I don't know enough about Ayn Rand or her politics to have an opinion on them, and I think the fact that Atlanta Hope is a parody of her is pretty universally held (I would have thought it was obvious from the book title Telemachus Sneezed) and should be easy to source (I think!). The see also you're referring to: OM? Шизомби 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I suspect Operation Mindfuck could be fit into an appropriate existing paragraph, but I'd support the article regardless of what's done with that once the other objections are addressed -- it's a minor point. Jkelly 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
i had a stab at addressing your comments. most have now been done, BUT (1) i couldnt see what was wrong with the lead - it summarizes the article well. and (2), is the "cognitive dissonance" thing really an opinion? just seems like the right word to describe a story that throws multiple viable & contradictory viewpoints at you. please reply! Zzzzz 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The lead doesn't mention the word "fnord", doesn't mention numerology, doesn't mention counterculture, and doesn't mention the authors' "follow-ups", all of which are entire sections within the article. Jkelly 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In general, I think a lead should summarize the main sections. The subsections are another matter, they vary by author and subject, and in this case, are mostly very specific areas that make most sense in context of the article, but are difficult to summarize without causing confusion. I think the main sections, where there are subsections, should have subsummaries (some articles jump directly from section heading to subsection, which is usually a problem), and a lead is a summary of main section summaries. IMO, as a broad "rule"... --Tsavage 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
i tried to satisfy both of you - lead has been expanded as per jkelly, and followups section has been given subsummary (& OM is incorporated into text). jkelly, what about "cognitive dissonance"? can you elaborate on that complaint? i just added some citations for the claim, but dont know what specifically about that sentence you have a problem with.Zzzzz 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
ok the last few unsourced statements now have citations (plus some extra ones) as per jkellys request. all good now? Zzzzz 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Support, with special thanks for the parties involved in being so responsive to concerns. Jkelly 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. DenisMoskowitz 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 23skidoo 19:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe it compares favorably to the other works of fiction featured on Wikipedia. So, basically, I support per nomination. Fieari 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, I believe it meets the criteria. Шизомби 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets criteria, good inline citations. --Danaman5 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm impressed. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This article is ten times better than the book itself. I never managed to read more than 50 pages through all this gibberish. I finally know what this book has been about. JoJan 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely done article about one of the most hilarious books ever written. BlueShirts 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As a general reader, I found this to be solid on all counts. It was a clean read, the tone inspired trust, the references look reassuring (the range, not the number of...!), and I left well-informed and without unanswered questions. PS: It is a long read, but I didn't find excessive detail or boring bits, and the sections and subheads seem well-organized if anyone wants to FF. --Tsavage 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is noticeably better after response to objections... --Tsavage 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
Additional note: After Tony's objection below, I re-read the article. I did make a lot of unintended allowance for imprecise, casual, sometimes less than clear writing due to being caught up in the...spirit of the subject. I do agree in general with that aspect of all of the objections to date (although the variation in WP writing style between articles and topics has to be taken into account as well). I'm not changing my vote, as "fixes" have proceeded rapidly, and I don't have a problem with the overall content and references. However, I'll read it again in a couple more days (if it hasn't suddenly vanished...). --Tsavage 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds bizarre, but I'll buy it. RyanGerbil10 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yep it hits all the right notes--PopUpPirate 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent set of Notes and references, nice use of images. As a fan of The KLF I consider the little section about them spot on and well written. --kingboyk 00:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets all of the criteria. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - a solid work rendered out of an often-confusing subject. -Litefantastic 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice. Beautifully balances the books' content and influence. Small suggestion/question: Would it make sense to rearrange the Plot section to include subsections for the individual books? (not having read these, I can't speak to it) Staxringold 00:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think that might overly complicate things. Since the books were intended as a single volume by the authors, and are most commonly available in a single volume today, I think it may be best as is. Шизомби 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Heh, as I said, I trust you on this a lot more than I trust myself. Twas a minor suggestion, it reads fine now and doesn't need any divides IMO. Staxringold 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
what about expanding that section to 2 pgraphs instead of one? Zzzzz 12:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: [Objections below now addressed. Andrew Levine 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)]
    • Lead makes no reference to the Principia Discordia, which was a huge influence on The Illuminatus! Trilogy, if I understand the article correctly.
    • "Some of America's founding fathers are alleged to have been members of this sect." Needs to be sourced.
    • "Hagbard alternately battles and represents the Discordians and the Illuminati, the conspiratorial organizations who are either colluding with or fighting each other." What? This is confusing. If it means what I think it does, the confusion is surely deliberate on the part of the novel's authors, but that's no excuse for us to be so obscure. Our audience should not have to go back and re-read a sentence because they thought they may have misunderstood it.
    • "See Also 23 (numerology)" -- Why?
    • "Quotations" sections belong on Wikiquote, not here. The only quotations in an article should be integrated into the prose.
    • Andrew Levine 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment all above issues are now corrected, but i disagree about putting principia discordia in the lead. doesnt make sense to make a reference to something even more obscure than the article subject itself in the *lead*, it is well discussed later anyway. so imho it should not be put in the lead. i put a reference to Discordianism in the lead, is it enough? but all other issues i agreed with, & are corrected.Zzzzz
  • Comment What the people voting in favor of this article don't want you to know is that they're actually part of a vast, worldwide conspiracy, involving the masons, the kindergarten teachers, Opus Dei, and the cattle mutilators. Of course, they won't let this comment stay up for long, because their web of power is even now spreading its tendrils into Wik...--Bcrowell 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It has improved, although it's not yet compelling prose. Tony 09:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Very poorly written. Here are a few examples.

"their artificially intelligent onboard computer"
"... as an emblem on a uniform and so on,.."
"Within the book this is used as an example of the conspiracies teasing us by showing hints of their existence which we refuse to believe ..."
"The Illuminatus! Trilogy is particularly broad in terms of content,.."
"at one point hallucinating his own execution."
"he is finally broken out of jail"
"for example, as an altar, a tattoo, etc."
"All views of reality ever mentioned in the book ..."

Even if the writers of these novels intended their prose to be quirky, the prose here is not quirky by design. Our users deserve to read about the subject in either plainly written or cleverly unusual English. This is neither. Tony 12:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment I'll agree that "Within the book this is used as an example of the conspiracies teasing us by showing hints of their existence which we refuse to believe ..." could benefit from some rewriting, but I'm not sure why you think the others aren't "plainly written" or why they are "quirky" or "cleverly unusual." Do they violate some rule of style or grammar? Шизомби 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • They're mostly vague, grammatically incorrect or syntactically ambiguous. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the 9 examples given have all been cleared up. if there is more, please list them and whats wrong with them (as i had to randomly guess what you personally didnt like about the above). Zzzzz 22:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It meets all the criteria for a featured article.Tankred 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. —xyzzyn 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 15:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this is hippie literature at its best. Nixdorf 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as whacko as the composition appears to be, this work is a reference for almost any "conspiracy" literature (or hack-work) which followed. Wilson & Shea were far ahead of culture consciouness on this. 68.75.166.22 13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good article on a good subject. GlendaJanssen 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Summary

Objections:

Synthesising the various comments, the main objections are:

  • verifiability: The references are too thin, either not sufficiently authoritative, or not sufficiently verifying the contents
  • comprehensiveness: Elements, such as merchandise sales figures, design history and cultural impact, are missing.
  • comprehensiveness: Insufficient context for the subject matter is provided, requiring previous familiarity with related subject matter in order to understand the article.

Examples indicative of these general objections include:

  • Temporary account -
    • Bulbasaur is a fan page that try to read professional.
    • Nothing important is said about this fictional character: no "making of", no cultural impact.
    • Use of Time/CNN as sources are dubious at best, pointing to the whole Pokemon franchise, not specficially Bulbasaur. And many references are taken out of context. All other sources are fan webpages, not considered proper for FA.
    • This article is just all plot summary (in anime and in game section) and product information (in other media section). In another words, things only fans would care. Plot summary is clearly not enough for FA.
  • BlueShirts - [absence of] "issue name and number as evidence of claims supported in the article"
  • Tsavage - "the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny"; "In summary, NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article"
  • Andrew Levine -
    • "based on what Tsavage and Temporary Account have said. This is basically a fan-page gussied up to look like a FA with the help of some trumped-up citations"
    • "I would like to see information including: ... sales information on Bulbasaur-specific merchandise ... how the character (as appearing in the animé, the card game, etc.) was created ... Bulbasaur's individual cultural impact, separate from the rest of the Pokémon franchise ... quality in the prose"
  • Spangineer - "referencing is weak"
  • Tuf-Kat - "referencing is insufficient"
  • Doug Bell - "I could object simply based on what Temporary Account and Tsavage" [but also] "many unexplained terms"; "lacking any "big picture" description of Bulbasaur"
  • Gnangarra - "no information about Bulbasaur's designer(s), no creation elements for the character, no evolutionary drawings"; compare Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

Participation:

Support: 32 - includes 8 "strong support", 2 reluctant or weak supports, 9 without criteria-based reasoning (e.g. "Well done", "for the third time", "has become fabulous", including 3 without any comment), 1 Pokésupport
Object: 8

The total of participants, and particularly the total of supporters, is at least 200-300% higher than average FAC participation.

Notes:

I have attempted to summarise the support and the objections above. Please feel free to amend if you think I have taken your comments out of context (I have tried not to), added in irrelevant material, or missed an important element of objection out. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far. I have refactored again - please try to keep this as short as possible -- ALoan (Talk) 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this set up with a numerical summary of supporters and objectors? Once valid objections are established, it would seem to be more to the point of the process to summarize the substance of the objections, and then maybe note if there was only a single objector. This isn't a vote. If we're looking for guidance from voting stats, we should also show average voting totals, for, say, the last X (a month's worth? two?) of candidates, since there is an obviously disproportionately large number of supporters for this single FAC. But again, I don't know why those figures are summarized. (I've edited accordingly, to better reflect the FAC process.) --Tsavage 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Also note that none of the objections are addressed. Temporary account 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

Right, after the previous, special edition 2-disk FAC (1, 2) and 2 peer reviews (1, 2), I have decided to renominate it. Since the FACs, it has had a full, comprehensive rewrite and I have asked people who hate Pokémon/aren't Pokémon fans to review it and they have said (after some alterations) that they fully understand everything it says. It is well referenced and I believe the prose to be brilliant. Without wanting to violate WP:BEANS, I can't think of anything else I could do to improve it. If there is anything that you can see and I can't, I'd be more than happy to rectify it but I don't want this to be a debate about whether we want Pokémon on the main page, the precident it will set for the rest of the Pokémon creature articles or the general notability of Pokémon creatures generally. Please keep this directly on-task to the article and whether it meets the criteria for featured status. --Celestianpower háblame 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - I was against this article previously, feeling that it didn't focus on Bulbasaur as a fictional character enough, and was too focused on how Bulbasaur was portrayed... but now this looks good. Notability is established, details are given in terms of fictionality as opposed to suspension-of-disbelief, it looks pretty comprehensive, follows guidelines, is referenced... I think this works as a FA. Since the subject came up frequently last time: to future voters/reviewers- "Subject matter" is not a criteria of featured articles. Any article that is notable enough to exist on WP in the first place, is notable enough to be featured if well written and comprehensive etc. I say that this article is. Fieari 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I did not vote the last time this article was up for FA status, as I was unsure if the article deserved a full support vote. I was very close to supporting the last time, and now after reading the revised article, I can with confidence vote support. KnowledgeOfSelf 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support, for the third time. The revised version of the article is, by comparison, far better than the previous one. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article reads well, even for someone like me who doesnt understand pokemon in the least. Banez 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for the third time. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support, since this time it's been well improved since the last time we've done the FAC votes. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 20:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Feels like I'm supporting a whole new article. Marvelous. RyanGerbil10 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - There is absolutely nothing bad to be said about it now. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This puts the old article (and every other pokemon article) to shame. Dee man45 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I'm not sure what would constitute "trumped up" citations, short of them being completely fabricated (which, as far as I could see, they're not) considering the article is about a fictional character. It's not like there's a huge POV dispute here. Major improvements make this a worthy article (while the earlier incarnations were not). -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article with detailed information. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral I will remain neutral due to my having an article up for FA consideration, but I just wanted to point something out regarding the article. I personally think the writing is very stilted and, in the first few paragraphs at least (I admit, I haven't read the article in its entirety), uses incorrect punctuation and word usage. For example: I believe the use of the word iterations is incorrect. Perhaps British usage is different, but according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word means 1 : the action or a process of iterating or repeating: as a : a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result b : the repetition of a sequence of computer instructions a specified number of times or until a condition is met 2 : one execution of a sequence of operations or instructions in an iteration
Then this quote: "Bulbasaur... is one of the 395 fictional species of Pokémon from the Pokémon franchise - a series of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. Bulbasaur is one of the first Pokémon a player can have in the first Pokémon video games, Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue;" This is way too repetitive. It is not "brilliant" writing as per FAC requirements. Find another way to write this without repeating "Pokèmon" over and over. Also, replace the semicolon with a period/full stop.
Then this quote: "Bulbasaur is also a commonly appearing Pokémon in the Pokémon anime." No offense, but does the person who wrote this speak English as a native languange? You can only use the gerund (ing) form of the verb "to appear" when you are talking about something happening at this moment. Otherwise, this should read as "Bulbasaur commonly appears in Pokèmon anime."
Finally, this quote: "CNN refers to Bulbasaur and its later evolutions as “the Carmen Miranda of Pokémon figures”, due to the “increasingly exotic foliage on its head” as it evolves and according to Time magazine, Bulbasaur was considered one of the “lead critters” in the original series." This is a run-on sentence. It needs to be broken into two or three different sentences. I don't have the time now to give more examples. Regards, --Jayzel 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do speak English natively and I don't like the insinuation otherwise. To you're specific examples:
  1. Use of "appearing" - I'll fix that.
  2. Use of "iterations" - what do you suggest I replace it with? I, personally, would use it like this but obviously this is technically inaccurate.
  3. Repetition of "Pokemon" - Okay, I'll go and fix that too
  4. CNN/Time - I'll fix this too.
Thanks for informing me. Regards, --Celestianpower háblame 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I offended. I'm an English teacher, so I can be anal at times. I like the way the paragraph re: iterations has been re-worded. Regarding the repetition of the word "Pokèmon", try using "characters", "franchise", "game", or even "they" and "it", etc., as replacements. --Jayzel 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the problems I had with the opening paragraphs myself and changed my vote to support. The arguments of some regarding sourcing are invalid, in my opinion. We are not dealing with a controversial subject that needs every sentence cited. Regards, --Jayzel 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to copyedit - that is what a wiki is about! And don't hold back with a vote just because you have another article on FAC.
On your specific points (i) I think you can "iterations" in that sense - i.e. the repeated instantiations of Bulbasaur the Pokemon universe - but perhaps another word would be better; (ii) The word "Pokemon" is bound to appear a few times in an article on a Pokemon, no? Which repetitions would you remove? And what is wrong with a semicolon? (iii) No offence, but why do you think "appearing" can only mean something happening at the moment? But anyway, perhaps "recurring" would be better? (iv) Well, I would remove the first comma, and add a semicolon before "and according to Time". Shrug. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to help out with copyediting, but at the moment I do not have the time. I have my regular job and family life in addition to projects here I am working on. Regarding semicolons: They are only used as a replacement for the word "and" in lists. That is their only function. Regards, --Jayzel 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Busy: aren't we all; semicolon is not quite so prescriptive. (The "colon: Capital letter" usage looks jarring to my eyes, btw.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to step in here to come to the aid of the semicolon. That's not the only function of a semicolon, Jayzel. In fact, what you state is not a valid use of the semicolon at all! How about joining independent clauses without a conjunction? Delimiting a list when the individual entries contain commas? You can't use a semicolon as a replacement for the word and in a list as you claim. Consider the sentence I like cake, pie, ; cookies, where I've replaced the word and in a list with a semicolon, which results in a ridiculous sentence. My apologies for the English diversion, please continue with the lengthy process. Pagrashtak 19:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but there you use the seria comma and that it wrong. Without the comma before the conjection, it would look like: I like peas; beans; cheese which is still wrong. A semicolon only separateslist entries with commas like:
I like chips, eggs and beans; peas, carrots and parsley sauce; icecream and mashed potato
Which would be right. Sorry for this tangent - do get on with reviewing the article ;). --Celestianpower háblame 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you replying to me, Celestian? Because you're saying the same thing I am. Pagrashtak 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. Excellent content. Even though I'm not a Pokemon fan, and don't know much about Pokemon, I understand the article very well. --Terence Ong 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pokésupport. Esteffect 16:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • comment. Ok, lol. Do I sense any sarcasm? Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - WindFish 23:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Super Sunday support. I'm amazed at how well-written and referenced this article is. I've never been a fan of Pokémon, but I certainly learned something once I completed reading this article. The nominator deserves a barn star (or whatever they're called)! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • comment. Is anyone going to give a superdoper super sunday support next? Temporary account 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. per above. Staxringold 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This article has become fabulous thanks to the work of the PCP! Highway 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Promotion I have to say it is much improved...nice job.--MONGO 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Having been been one of the dissidents last time around, i see no reason why i should not support it now. It is a better article. Thethinredline 08:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 22:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, grudgingly support. I friggin' hate the fact that there are articles about individual Pokemon characters on Wikipedia. I think it would be a sad day for Wikipedia if such an idiotically trivial article is ever featured on the main page. But I have to admit that it's informative enough, sourced (although the lead photo needs a fair use rationale), and reasonably decent all around. God forgive me for supporting this. Kafziel 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's far and away the most creative support I've seen in my long three-four months on FAC. "Super Sunday support" doesn't hold a candle to it... :) --Tsavage 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate these idiotic commercial imps. I despise their fans who mistake this website for their playground. I do doubt my senses because of this, but grudgingly, annoyedly, head-against-the-wall-bangingly support. A small step for an article, a giant leap for this once-noble venture - towards a Teletubbiepedia the mere thought of which makes me blush with shame. Kosebamse 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (Sorry Kafziel for the apparent plagiarism, but I ashamedly admit I've already been pondering this step for a while.)
  • Support This page has just steadily become better and better. I've held off on supporting until now, but the page really does look FA-quality now. The level of information has reached FA quality; the only thing that could hold it back is the prose (not really brilliant--then again, that's hardly actionable) and the weak introduction--do we need information from 2003? Really? Oh well. I support anyway, because the article has good pictures, references, information, and more. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that the article has had a substantial rewrite as part of this process, I truly think it deserves FA status. Anyone looking at this section needs to take most of the objections previous to this point with a grain of salt, as many have been addressed (although their original poster has refused to strike any text.) That said, I see any continuing criticisms of the references to be quite silly. As this is an article about a video game character, (A video game I despise mind you) it is niether logical or reasonable to expect references that come from a peer reviewed journal or the like. The references cited are perfectly adequate and truthful and I find the accusations of "padding" to be not Assuming Good Faith. As to the subject matter, like it or not, this is a cultural phenomenon, even if it is not your particular culture. This warrants an article, and this article warrants FA status. I only wish other articles of this type were so well written. pschemp | talk 04:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you think the references are valid then just say so. Please do not mock anybody who wishes to comment on the quality of the references used to write the article. --maclean25 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm...not sure what to say to that except that I was merely stating that I found the continuing criticism of the references illogical. Not sure where the mocking comes in. pschemp | talk 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; merely being fictional doesn't make it any less reasonable an FA. It is stable (can't find any vandalism since May 2005), well-written (phrasing seems clear, especially considering it deals with a reasonably esoteric subject) and interesting. The lack of any non-fair use images is slightly annoying, but something like a Pokémon would probably have no free alternatives available. I'd judge this too be as good as Wario, a similar, featured, article. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I was in favour of Bulbasaur becoming a FA before, I spent just over an hour trying to find something to be picky over with it and couldn't. --Alf melmac 08:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yes its an article about a fictional character (pokemon at that) but its a very good one. It clearly meets the requirements for FA status; it seems to me that some people want this article to be the unattainable perfect article before they'll give it any credit. --Lewis 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support An excellent article - kudos to all those who invested their time into making it shine. Nicolasdz 10:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if anything else, to get it off of the Featured article candidates page. This thing has gone through, I think, two peer reviews, been the focus of an entire active wikiproject for over a month, and has been nominated and improved upon three times. If this thing can't get FA status after all that, it just proves that there are articles out there that no matter the amount of work put into them, will never be able to become FAs. If that's true, then what is the point of even trying to improve upon those types of articles?--Rayc 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Object

  • Object This article still reads like a fan page but with more mature and professional language. Example: "Bulbasaur cannot speak and are only able to communicate by repeating syllables of their species name ("bulb", "bulba", "saur") using different pitch, tone and body language to convey moods" sounds inflating, especially the words "pitch," "tone," "body language." This is basically saying that the creature cannot speak, but people still understands him (the links of those words seem unnecessary in my opinion). What's different "tones" of his speach? Any examples? Unlike wolf howls or bird chirping to mark their territory, I think there's nothing distinct, special, and important about the way Bulbasuar speaks. This is just one example of inflating this Bulbasaur to make the article seem more professional; there are many other examples if you read closely. I think if you take away these extraneous language (often unfounded and withour source), and look just at the bones, this article is just a game/fan/stat page, which many others have already pointed out before. Temporary account 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you name any unfounded, unsourced statements? I would think "tones" should be self-explanatory. How is the description of the sounds they make "inflating"? I don't actually understand this objection... Fieari 22:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll give more examples if I have time. But now regarding the "tone": I watched Pokemon, and it seems to me that there is really not much to elaborate or add about the communication between the trainers and the creatures. Are there any meaning to Bulbasaur's use of pitch or tone when it shouts "bulba" or "saur?" Does high tone or low pitch or high pitch with low tone mean anything? If you think so, cite the episode number and instances. I can't think of any. Also, do you have any reference as to Bulbasaur is a reptile? For all I care, it can be thought as a mammal, or a plant for that matter. Where is your source? Also, I think the article is still geared to people who already know what Pokemon's about, since without playing the game, a reader is not going to understand what is attack points, levels, classes of Pokemon...etc. Temporary account 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        I'm going to nip the "non-fan" bit in the bud. I asked 3 non-fans who know nothing about Pokémon and they understood everything that I said in the article. So that is totally untrue. --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • comment. I have basic knowledge of Pokemon having watched the anime and played the game (on GB only), but really, I don't think the article is geared to Pokemon amateurs. As previously mentioned, a person with no knowledge of Pokemon is not going to understand what's attack points, levels, transformation...etc of Pokemon, and this article treats these topic casually as if everyone knows them already. Don't you agree. The people you asked probably have general knowledge about how a turn-based strategy game works, but imagine asking your grandfather to read the article, I don't think they will know about the levels...etc.Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I did ask my Grandfather actually and although he didn't understand the point of me reading it to him (I tried to explain FAs but he wasn't having any of it ;) ) and he also understood, on the whole, everything I said. Non-fans can understand it. Even people have never used a computer can so just admit defeat on this point - near-enough everyone can understand it. --Celestianpower háblame 20:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • And another comment, I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature. If you substitute Bulbasaur with any other pokemon, and write about their game roles, TV appearances, stories...etc, it is just another same article, don't you agree? Temporary account 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I don't agree, and I don't think this objection is actionable. This article is specific to Bulbasaur, and replacing it with another Pokemon would change the article substantially. The particular example you have called out is unactionable at best. I too have watched Pokemon, and the tones Bulbasaur uses for speaking are fairly straightforward- low tones for sad situations, higher tones for happiness and situations of stress. However, such details uncalled for and may even be original research. Asking for specific citations of episodes and instances would detract significantly from the quality and readability of the article, adding large amounts of trivial and technical data which the casual reader has no use for. As Pokemon articles stand, this one is unique, comprehensive, and meets all FA criteria.RyanGerbil10 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Think about this: ALL the sources cited here mention Bulbasaur, but invariably also mentions other well-known Pokemon such as Squirtle or Jigglypuff (ex. CNN and Time). Thus in theory you can also write and submit these other Pokemon for FAs as well. Anyways, back to Bulbasaur. Temporary account 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          Yes, I agree with this interpretation. We are discussing this article - not others. This is comprehensive, well-written (a subjective criteria that many on this page alone agree with) and referenced (though possibly not fantastically: nonetheless, referenced), stable (no edit wars) and neutral. It meets all of the criteria. Length is not a criteria and objections based on this are not relevant. --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • comment. I think a lot of people will disagree about if it's clear written or not, or clearly sourced for that matter. See above and below, please make it better if you can instead of defending your previous assertions. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Every claim you make in a FA needs to be sourced. If you treat Bulbasaur like a animal species (which this article does), and mentions it uses its tone to communicate, the readers will need examples. Also, who says Bulbasaur is a reptilian, and is taxonomy really important for a Pokemon? Essentially, this article is composed of: introduction, appearance in game, appearance in anime. Do you really think this warrants a FA? All the prose reads like taken from any fan-page or anime summaries. Almost all the sources are game guide books, anime books, or TV guides, which are hardly considered appropriate sources at all. The guidelines for FAs are pretty short and nonspecific. It says an article must have verifiable sources and written as...etc. Surely this Bulbasaur has sources, but are they any good? If you have any Pokemon biases or any biases at all, throw them away and just read this article and compare with other FAs. Think about it. Temporary account 00:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I disagree that this article treats Bulbasaur like an animal species. It used to... which is why I objected to it previously, but it's been changed to emphasize the fictional aspect, and provides a discussion of the character as a fictional character. Compare your objections to other current Featured Articles, particularly Captain Marvel (DC Comics), which is often hailed as a prime example of everything an article on a fictional character should be. It talks about where the character appears, features of the character, references to the character... a lot of the aspects of the Captain Marvel article can't actually be reproduced in the Bulbasaur article, such as influences, since that information has never been published. But you'll see that the tone of the Captain Marvel article and the tone of the Bulbasaur article are similar. They both try to include the same sorts of information, and in the same way. Fieari 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
              Again, I agree with this. It does not focus on the creature as an animal species. The reference to reptillian was aimed at allowing readers not familliar with Pokémon to understand the information. An image of a reptile is easier to comprehend than an animal made entirely of plants. Making paralels with the real world is essential for improving readabnility. Anyway, I changed it to "reptillian-looking", happy now? --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Somebody raised this question in the last FAC, but it's not addressed yet: any source citing bulbasaur is actually a portmanteau of "bulb" and "saur." Temporary account 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment. Ok fine, but it's still hand-waving at best. Maybe add that Bulbasaur is a mammal based on what user BlueShirts said? I think his claim is equally supportable. Why not just add that it is a genetic hybrid between plant and mammal? Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Exactly my point. What I wrote a couple paragraphs before is that "And another comment, I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature." See how much information a reader can get from reading Captian Marvel, and how little you learn about Bulbasaur in this FAC. If Pokemon is a FAC, maybe, but I don't think there is much to be said about Bulbasaur. Plus, you can easily shorten the article if you take out extraneous wordings or minor details about Bulbsaur's appearances...etc. Even though Captain Marvel and Bulbasaur are both fictional characters, one has rich history (in real life and also in comic books), but the other one doesn't. I think this is very clear, and no spin here. Temporary account 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Tell me the pointless wordings and I'll remove them. Nobody else seems to have this problem so it seems you're on your own - Bulbasaur is just as relevant a subject as Captain Marvel (who, incidentally, I'd never heard of). And as I've said many times before, length is not an FA criteria. Comprehensiveness is and this article is comprehensive. --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Comment. Wait a minute here, the FA rules cleary states on section 5 that the FA should be of appropriate length. Thus what you said about that length is not a criteria is just totally wrong. Temporary account 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment. You reiterate my point. FA rules are pretty lax if you read them carefully; I agree with what others said, that a lot of articles will meet FA criteria, but not all will become FAs based on the problems that I am addressing here. Do you really think there is that much to say about Bulbasaur even if it's comprehensive, compare with other FAs. You can be write three paragraphs about a barren subject to be totally comprehensive would be an analogy. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Of appropriate length means long enough to be comprehensive - there is no minimum or maximum length, so the criterion is about comprehensiveness and not length alone. Worldtraveller 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Pretty much what temporary account says. Plus the article totally lacks inline notes (or just sources) for characteristics and anime sections, with one scant IGN source for the video game section. I mean, why not reference the pages for a myraid of pokemon books? And to me bulbasaur looks like some sort of proto-mammal by the way his legs extend directly down instead of sprawling out like most reptiles. It's got ears for god's sake. BlueShirts 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've added "reptillian-looking" as it is supposed to resemble a dinosaur, hence the name. As to the references, seeing as everyone likes comparing it to vcaptain marvel, where are the references for the "Fawcett years: the Marvel Family, allies, and enemies" section? Or "Shazam! The New Beginning"? Or "The Power of Shazam!"? Or "Captain Marvel in the 2000s" or "JSA membership (2003–2004)"? Or "Day of Vengeance"? Or "Other series"? Or "Character biography" (like the characteristics section of Bulbasaur)? Or "Powers"? Or "Supporting cast"? Or "Cultural influences"? Or "Appearances in film and television"? I agree with Rubne Welsh below - this is just a vendetta against Bulbasaur because it's a Pokémon. Raul will be able to see through all of this to the core fact of the matter that Bulbasaur is a great article, meeting all of the criteria that should be featured. --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
These sections on captain marvel at least have the issue name and number as evidence of claims supported in the article. Can we have some specific episodes in which bulbasaur is significant? Itonly makes sense to have the season number and episode number to illustrate whatever you're trying to say, especially when adequate references are sorely lacking. BlueShirts 19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The nomination was promising, and I read the article with full attention. Unfortunately, it hasn't changed much: some rewriting, but the structure and content are substantially the same as in the previously submitted version. In light of the recent Talk page discussion about checking FAC references, I picked this FAC (partly because I'm quite familiar with it already) to see how much work it would take to check out...references. The results in this case are rather disappointing, to the point where I'd say the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny. Here's what I found:
    • Bulbasaur CotW, pojo.com. - supports "The Bulbasaur card is considered "common" by collectors and generally can be found with relative ease. This is a plain text page on a fan site, a stats-style listing of Bulbasaur characteristics, with no apparent discussion of collectability.
      • Looking at this reference, it says, "Name:Bulbasaur, Type:Basic Pokemon, Card #:card 44 of 102, Rarity:Common. That certainly is a discussion of collectability. Just because the information is in list form rather than a text discussion makes it no less valid. pschemp | talk 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Approaching the surreal. First, how can I trust anything on a plain text page, with no author information, no title, no date, that begins: Hello again... Time for another CotW (and since I did Charmander and Squirtle...)... And what makes you think that "Rarity" refers to the card, not Bulbasaur's frequency amongst the hundreds of others of fictional species? Because it says "card #" right before? Isn't this a list of Bulbasaur stats, which notes as one of them its card number? Is the CARD color then green "green". Is the CARD weakness "R"? Is the CARD species "seed"? What is a CARD retreat of "1" mean...? Maybe it refers to the card, or to Bulbasaur, or to both Bulbasaur and the card...if they're not one and the same...or...????? The discussion here is "credible references". I don't doubt that Bulbasaur is a common card...I just CHECKED THE REFERENCE... --Tsavage 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC):
            • Comment; the rarity value comes from the card itself. All cards are marked with a dot in the bottom right corner (visible on the card here), the shape of which indicates rarity (circle: common, diamond: rare, star: very rare). Therefore, it is an offical, verifiable comment. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Surreal? Lets see...the title of COTW stands for "card of the week", which is easily found out if you go to the main pojo.com site. So, this is definitely referring to the card and its rarity, it is not a list of stats and not "Bulbasaur's frequency amongst the hundreds of others of fictional species" as you suggest. This info can be found in the archives of that site, it is hardly a random text dump with no context as you suggest either. I have no previous experience with either this website, pokemon or even video games and this was clear to me. pschemp | talk 08:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello again... 
Time for another CotW (and since I did Charmander and Squirtle...)...
Bulbasaur/Ivysaur/Venusaur
Name:         Bulbasaur  
Type:         Basic Pokemon
Card #:       card 44 of 102  
Rarity:       Common
Color:        Grass  
HP:           40 HP
Weakness:     R 
Resistance:   none 
Retreat:      1
Species:      Seed 
Level:        13
Pokemon #:    1
...
    • Pokémon, Pashmina Hot in Britain, Mimitchi - supports "Bulbasaur and other Pokémon toys beat out Furby to become the most popular and most bought toy in the United Kingdom" Besides the dubious value of the entire assertion (limited scope, outdated reference to 1999), this use of the source material is questionable, if not an outright misrepresentation. The article is only an early pre-Christmas rush assessment of 1999 UK toy sales, which goes on to say that it is "based on sales to the end of November" and "'Pokemon is looking good, but the scenario changes everyday, so I'm making no predictions,' said spokesman Gerry Masters."
      • This reference is not currently being used. pschemp | talk 07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Pokémon banished from another playground, CNN (5-Oct-1999) and PokéMania, Time Asia (22-Nov-1999) - supports comparison with "Carmen Miranda" and that Bulbasaur is a "lead critter" in Pokemon. The apparent importance--Time says! CNN says!, particularly by positioning the material in the first paragraph of the lead--seems quite exaggerated when the sources are examined. In the first instance, the CNN Miranda remark was a minor bit of editorial color, part of a description of three Pokemon characters, and the only mention of Bulbasaur in the 900 word article: As any good "Pokédex" on the Web can tell you, some of the lead critters are: Pikachu, the popular favorite, an "electric" Pokémon all yellow and cuddly; Jigglypuff, classed as a "normal" Pokémon who appears to be a large lilac head with cat ears and feet, little more; and Bulbasaur, a "grass/poison" type Pokémon who evolves into Ivysaur and Venusaur, each with increasingly exotic foliage on its head -- perhaps the Carmen Mirandas of Pokémon figures. The Time aricle also mentions Bulbasaur briefly, one mention with other characters in a 3,750 word in-depth Pokemon article: For example, of the three more popular Pokémon, Hitokage, a salamander with a ball of fire on its tail, became Charmander; Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur; and Zenigame... Also, "lead critters" comes from CNN not Time, as represented in the article.
    • NOTE: The non-website material is c. 1999 (one book. "Perfect Guide", is out of print), and this is not explained - Why are the references all from the period when Pokemon was first blowing up worldwide, yet there is no timeline context in the article? Has Bulbasaur vanished from the media in recent years (six years being nearly forever in the digital/gamiing world)?
      • I don't understand this note. Even if Bulbasaur has not been as popular as it once was, that doesn't make it non-notable or the references invalid. This is not a current events article. pschemp | talk 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Guides:Super Smash Bros. Melee, IGN.com - supports "Bulbasaur also appears as a trophy in Super Smash Bros. Melee...". IGN is a major gaming site owned by Fox; perhaps their content is to be reasonably trusted. However, it seems curious to cite an arbitrary second-hand review source (one of number of big game sites) to support product info about another game title. Either no citation is required, or the Nintendo game guide or other official publication would be a more appropriate source (citation padding by including any random source handy that has the desired content is not helpful).
      • On the contrary, I think this reference, not being from the usual or "official nintendo" source shows that Bulbasoaur is indeed a large enough phenomnon that it has been copied as Nintendo history into another game. At the very least it supports the factual claim of the sentence, which is exactly what a reference should do. pschemp | talk 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Essentially this reference is a secondary or even a tertiary source when you examine it closely. Basically, you can just go buy the game and use the game manual as a source, and in this case, it will become a primary source. So I don't really understand why IGN was used; if you have a primary source, why not use it (even though it would still be hard to cite a game manual using MLA style)? This IGN reference only reiterates what's known from the game manual. Unless there's some effort to make Bulbasaur's appearance more important with respect to the article than it really is. Temporary account 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Bulbasaur’s Bad Day, Amazon'' and Pokémon Tales, Volume 3: Bulbasaur’s Trouble, Amazon - support the brief summaries of two children's books featuring Bulbasaur. In each case, the summaries here are rewordings of extremely brief (1-2 sentence) Amazon.com book summaries. I'm not sure why these are in References, linked to Amazon? As sources for the book summaries, Amazon with its 20 total words of source material each is...insubstantial. As evidence that the books do exist? Either way, it seems like citation padding. (When I say "citation padding", I mean that the source does not contribute to verfication or to further research: it adds no additional context and/or it is not "reasonably credible", like a textbook, published research paper, or whatever. The "padding" means that it appears on the Reference list, making the list longer, but in fact does not turn out to be a proper source.)
      • I don't think this is padding at all. Very few video game characters get anything near the things that can be found for Bulbasaur. This adds the context that the subject is notable enough fo a book. This is in no way dishonest as you imply. pschemp | talk 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is padding going on. Consider this, FA should be like a high school or graduate paper with appropriateley cited sources. Now, these Amazon websites aiming to sell you merchandise is one thing, but they have very poorly documented information about what these books are about. To me citing Amazon is like citing someone posting their stuff to sell on Ebay. So why do you want to use them as sources? Temporary account 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • McDonalds’s Pokémon Series I & II, Rita’s Pokémon Store - supports coverage of a MacDonald's Pokemon card promotion in Japan. The stated name of the site, which seems to be a fan site/online store, cannot be found on the linked page, nor on the site Home page (which says "JawaAtLarge's Neofriends Page"). Author and/or source of the article are not given, nor is it dated. Was it written there, or copied from elsewhere? Basically, this reference appears to be a paragraph of entirely unattributed text plucked out of cyberspace.
      • This link looks like its been abandonded in favor of neopets, so I found another and substituted it. pschemp | talk 06:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm in the inner circle. The Guardian - supports In a Guardian Newspaper satire about Ken Livingstone Mayor of London, the writer references Bulbasaur as one of the Pokémon Ken wants to trade. A questionable use of the source, and its purpose in the article is unclear: to establish "notability"? As trivia? The source article is parodies a London, UK city council meeting, where instead of proceeding, the Mayor and others sidetrack into a Pokemon trading session. Bulbasaur is mentioned only once, along with other Pokemon, in a much longer Pokemon riff. The entire Bulbasaur mention is: "But before I kick off the meeting proper," said Ken, unloosing the belt on his safari-suit, "may I just ask anyone who has a Bulbasaur worth 40HP or a Charmander worth 50HP to tell me at once, because I am in a position to arrange a swap with a Geodude, also worth 50HP, and a Diglett, admittedly worth only 30HP but with a resistance factor of 30. Any takers?", in an 850 word column. The article is not about Bulbasaur, the mention is about Pokemon, not particularly Bulbasaur, and it's not even clear whether Pokemon is used for a reason, or whether any "playing at business" activity could have served the same purpose. In any case, a stretch.
I really can't understand why you think this reference "[doesn't] hold up to even mild scrutiny". The section is about Bulbasaur "In other media" (i.e. outside the video game and anime). The citation verifies that Bulbasaur was referred to a satirical article in one of the most important newspapers in the UK in 2000 (and it happens to be the first Pokemon mentioned). The summary in the article is 100% spot on: how can you say taht "NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article"? This sentence is 100% accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
ALoan: With all due respect, this seems to have really gotten under your skin. You've picked one reference, and launched an attack (in the mildest sense of the word) on my entire references review. You quote me out of context -- "the references as a whole don't hold up to even mild scrutiny" -- I didn't say THIS reference didn't hold up to even mild scrutiny, I said, as a whole, the average impression after checking them ALL. In a CLOSING COMMENT, after presumably the reviews were read, I did say that even individually they "don't really hold up" (the "really" is an intentional modifier, as in, with some variation, I can't believe all common nuance needs to be explained), and presented my opinion. To the real issue: "In other media" is an ill-defined section: the first sentence of the lead identifies Bulbasaur as part of "the Pokémon franchise – a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media". The article looks at VGs and anime, and then lumps the rest into "other media". Presumably, then, the one single newspaper reference is of some particular importance here, and that's reinforced by a citation (referencing is, as far as I understand it, not simply a way to prove that every statement isn't made up by the author, it is to provide the context in which the article's synthesis is based, and it generally indicates some added importance). Here, emphasis was put on this Guardian mention simply by including it alone (was Bulbasuar never otherwise mentioned in print?), when in fact, checking the source, Bulbasaur is almost entirely incidental, many Pokemon were named, and I can't see how replacing Bulbasaur with any other Pokemon would have at all changed the Guardian piece. So, the "important" newspaper item proves by checking to be not at all Bulbasaur-specific, so hardly notable. The fact that the sentence in the article wasn't fabricated—yes, it was mentioned in the Guardian...—is not the point here, it's that the quality of the source. Else, let's just list sourcable mentions of anything and everything, and create mile-long references signifying nothing. Remember, I was evaluating REFERENCES... Looking at this from, say, the "compelling, even brilliant" writing angle, ending on that Guardian reference is ridiculous, it's a random, contextless bit of data, as presented, it is beyond trivial (subtrivial?): SO WHAT if Bulbasaur was mentioned in passing in one column in one newspaper...? Is this relevant to an encyclopedia article? Why? Once deleted, this reference would vanish. But, I was simply checking references... Is verifying the verifiability wrong? "Excessive"? --Tsavage 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Tsavage, with respect, I was addressing your comments on this one reference - "A questionable use of the source, and its purpose in the article is unclear" - not on any of the others. The references are there to verify the text, and this one does. Whether the text should be there in the first place is another question entirely. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
ALoan: Please correct me if I'm wrong. "Verification" requires two things: fact-checking and checking for accuracy. (I'm not attempting to lecture you or anyone else here, I'm certainly not "qualified" for that, but in the interests of this extended Bulbasaur review...) If X is quoted, "I like lawyers," and the source more fully reads, "I like lawyers only once they've left this mortal coil", the literal fact-checking part is satisfied, however, accuracy is clearly not (if the statement was simply, "X likes lawyers", obviously both fact and accuracy are wrong). All situations not being as black and white, if I say, "Bulbasaur has entered modern newspeak," and list three or four or 10 instances (in the text or only in the notes), Guardian satire being one, then this ref seems fine for fact and accuracy. But if I list one instance of "newspaper" in an "other media" section, even without a contextual explanation, the impression (no matter how well or poorly it may be conveyed in the actual text) is that there is SOME NOTABLE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE to this. Context does have its role in...communication, in encyclopedic writing. There is a degree of subjectivity involved here, naturally, but in terms of a review of References, and particularly where questions are being raised about every reference, my point here was simply that any contextually implied importance of this Guardian mention with regard to Bulbasaur specifically is not supported by the material. To extrapolate: IF a pattern indicating something like a keyword search for a topic, followed by incorporating every possible result directly and without regard for importance or context, had been done, that would be most notable when evaluating SOURCES. That was the full meaning--"this mention was of the most minor significance with regard to Bulbasaur"--which I imagine is clearly apparent to some without all this explanation. (At risk of putting myself further into a "ranter" category, I'm replying here because you seem to be a regualr reviewer and also involved in admin of Featured areas (lists?), and so, your practical definitions are perhaps influential on others...) Thank you. --Tsavage 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I still think the sentence you quoted is accurate and verified by the citation. End of story. The sentence does not say anything about hom many times Bulbasaur has appeared in newprint or how important the references are (although I think it is interesting that a serious newspaper includes a reference to a Pokemon, if only in a satirical piece). Anyway, I thought this article was good enough some time ago, and it has only got better since then. If you do a comparative analysis of our respective voting records, you may find that my standards are not as high as yours :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"End of story"? "Final reply" (History comment)? "My standards are lower than yours" (paraphrase)? Vaguely depressing stuff, but, whatever... --Tsavage 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Did anybody read the Guardian article? To me this is just a trivia and not a really good source. So what if it's verifiable (personally I think it's not, it's just a parody). To me this seems like padding because Ken was not doing any endorsement of Pokemon at all. Unless if there's some celebrity or others endorsing this particular Pokemon, there's really no importance of tying a celebrity with a Pokemon through some obscure and tenuous link, as this citing this Guardian article is doing. And about standards, I think everyone should strive for the higher and be critical. Why would you want to be lax and blind? Temporary account 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Barbo, Maria. The Official Pokémon Handbook. 1999 and Loe, Casey, ed. Pokémon Special Pikachu Edition Official Perfect Guide. 1999 - These game guides are given as general references for the article. The 1999 date of both books raises again the question of timing of sources. These books were written, for one, in the 150 Pokemon universe, which later expanded to the 386 Pokemon world of today (according to this article). The use of possibly outdated sources is a concern. Has Pokemon/Bubasaur not changed or evolved, even as the "franchise" expanded and the number of characters more than doubled?
      • I happen to own the Official Pokemon Handbook referenced by this article, and I can say that the information presented in the article is a factual representation of the book. As for the criticism that the book is too old to be used as a reference, I do not see why it is valid. Bulbasaur has changed very little over the years in terms of appearance (I am not aware that it has changed at all) and description. Tsavage makes the point that the 1999 guide was written when only 150 Pokemon existed, which is true, and that now there are 386, meaing that the 1999 guide is no longer a valuable resource. Just because there are now more Pokemon does not mean that older sources existing for older Pokemon are now obsolete. This would be a valid argument if the book was cited for one of the 236 new Pokemon, but it is not. Other sources may need to be checked, but criticism of the 1999 Pokemon guide in unfounded in my opinion. RyanGerbil10 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Statistical analysis of Bulbasaur, Individual animé episode summaries, May's_Bulbasaur - listed as general references. By appearance, these are three fan sites that could be any of thousands. There is no evident reason to assume anything more authoritative or definitive from their material than, for example, using this article to reference itself.
    • Long list of links to to other WP articles, included at the beginning of the References section This is a little odd--can WP really self-reference?
In summary, NONE of the references really hold up, individually or taken together, when attempting to verify the article. --Tsavage 22:48, 23 February 2006 (EST)
      • In summary, your outrageous claim that NONE of the reference hold up is perposterous. I have personally looked at all of them, and there has been no incorrect information, nor has article "padding" taken place. I am further disturbed by the people who have agreed with you below, as it appears they have not really taken the time to check the links individually as I have. pschemp | talk 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If you don't understand any of my comments, you could start with this: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "References" aren't just pointing to anything that says the same thing you're saying in the article... --Tsavage 07:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Right. And since none of the citations are usenet posts, bbs, blogs or personal websites, your point is?pschemp | talk 08:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I think Tsavage really hits home regarding the issue. I looked through the sources as well, and really except for game books (which are not really quality sources at all), none of the sources are reliable, with their reports either inadequate or distorted. This indicates that there's an effort to do citation padding to make this article look more important and substantiated than it really is. With this in mind, I don't think the article is of FA quality with "only" game manuals or strategy guides as reliable sources. Temporary account 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Do the sources satisfy Wikipedia: Reliable Sources#Evaluating secondary sources and Wikipedia: Reliable Sources#Using online sources? --maclean25 07:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, references from 1999 are still very valid. Bulbasaur hasn't changed (at all, I don't think) since then. More have been added to the franchise but the original 150 are still the same as they always have been. What a silly objection. You're just searching for reasons to oppose when there aren't any to be found. Also, about the Guardian, the writer had 150 Pokémon to choose from, why choose Bulbasaur? Because it's the most famous. Also, on the subject of Amazon, I think we can trust it not to publish stuff about books that don't exist. References padding? That's tosh! What better proof can you get that the books exist? Also, CNN/Time. Thjis goes back to the Guardian thing - why choose Bulbasaur? Because it's one of the most well-known, popular and notable. Isn't it surprising that they all mention Bulbasaur, when none of the other Pokemon they menntion are the same? Why put it at the top of the article: It's all to do with telling the reader why they should read the article. --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, and about the links to the WP articles on the games. These reference the games - information about stuff has been taken from there - like the plot ...etc... --Celestianpower háblame 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on what Tsavage and Temporary Account have said. This is basically a fan-page gussied up to look like a FA with the help of some trumped-up citations. Although in theory any article capable of passing AfD can become featured, the reality is that for subjects like Bulbasaur there is probably not enough information that can be added from credible sources and not enough that can be done to make it interesting to a general audience. Personally, I think that those who are intent on getting Bulbasaur up to featured quality would do better to focus their energies on promoting the main article Pokémon itself. Andrew Levine 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    How preposterous! We can work on this if we want. Every single article that can pass AfD can become featured. It meets all of the criteria (see the comment about this above) so should be featured! Fan page? Pah! It's the most encyclopedaic and comprehensive information about Bulbsaur anywhere on the internet! I've never seen a fan page looking like this one and I've seen some pretty terrible fanpages - have you? --Celestianpower háblame 21:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; the referencing problems that Tsavage mentions are problematic, especially those relating to making statements not explicitly backed up the sources cited. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I continue to hold the opinion that referencing is weak—I objected to the use of Amazon references in Celine Dion, and I'm doing it again here (not to mention Serebii and other fan sites, the not particularly forceful CNN quote, etc.). --Spangineer (háblame) 04:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I have to agree that the referencing is insufficient. For example, there's not a single citation in the anime section. The bit about Livingstone is absurd -- if there's a reason why that's relevant, it's not clear from the rest of the article. As another example, the only cited fact in the video games section is Bulbasaur's appearance in Super Smash Brothers -- this begs the question of where the other 4.5 paragraphs in that section came from. Tuf-Kat 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, currently the anime section is covered by the Seribii link but I can convert those to footnotes I guess. The video game section is covered by the games themselves in which Bulbasaur appears, also listed in the references. I can remove the Livingstone link if you like. --Celestianpower háblame 23:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    Right, try this on for size. --Celestianpower háblame 17:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I think I could object simply based on what Temporary Account and Tsavage have said. However, reading the article I also find many unexplained terms. Reading this as someone completely unfamiliar with Pokémon, the following terms and phrases were unlinked and unexplained in the context of the article:
  • Pokémon breeder
  • learn any damage-dealing Poison attacks naturally (both damage-dealing Poison attacks and learn naturally are unexplained and unreferenced)
  • Grass/Poison-type (links to general type page, but there is no Grass/Poison type discussed on the page and no discussion of what it mean to have multiple types or how attacks are resolved in this case)
  • Special Attack and Special Defense statistics
  • standard Attack statistic
  • evolve
  • level
  • learns moves
  • advanced techniques and the power increase
  • unavailable in the wild
  • very valuable (what kind of value? monetary or game play...can't tell)
  • trade
  • Pokémon Island
  • the River
  • the Cave
  • Smash Coins (is not defined in the referenced article Super Smash Bros. Melee)
  • Pokémon Master
  • Indigo League tournament
  • Bulbasaur cards have appeared in the Base Set (and Base Set 2 and Legendary Collection), Gym Challenge (as Erika’s Bulbasaur), Expedition (two cards), EX Team Magma vs. Team Aqua, and EX FireRed & LeafGreen (two cards).
    (yes, the article links to Pokémon Trading Card Game, but it does not provide any description of sets before launching into this rather extensive listing of sets, so there is no context established as to what sets are or why they are important)
  • Drake, the Orange Crew Supreme Gymleader
  • Pokédex, and the National Pokédex
There are some other miscellaneous issues with the article:
  • The article talks extensively about attacks and attack types, but other than the two links at the top to Solar Beam and Leech Seed attacks, there is no discussion and no linking to discussion of what attacks are or how they relate to Pokémon types.
  • The article has no reference for this statement: "Nintendo has stated that, unlike the video games, Pokémon in the anime are genderless with a few exceptions."
If the article purports to be a featured article, it must stand on its own without requiring that the reader either has familiarity with the subject or has read other material on the subject.
Finally, I will repeat Temporary Account's opening statement: This article still reads like a fan page but with more mature and professional language. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I've tried to link to or explain as many of these topics as possible. A couple, such as Pokémon Breeder, should be relatively obvious given the context (someone who breeds Pokémon), and the statistics (Attack, Special Attack, Special Defend) are very difficult to explain, so instead it's easy just to show what the end result is (in the same way that explaining how to perform brain surgery is difficult, but explaining what it does is easier and has the same effect). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "someone who breeds Pokémon" is not at all obvious. What does it mean to breed Pokémon? This is in the context of a game and as such is unexplained. And "very difficult to explain" doesn't seem like the type of comment I would expect concerning a FA.
One other thing I forgot to mention in my original comment was that the article is lacking any "big picture" description of Bulbasaur. How is Bulbasaur significant and how does it relate to anything outside of Pokémon? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
By "difficult to explain", I meant difficult to explain directly. Explaining that a high special attack statistic would increase the damage points statistic of non-normal type moves would probably still be too complicated and require explanation of the damage points system, which is itself complicated, while explaining what effect a high special attack figure has on Bulbasaur's move set makes it clearer. I've now linked Pokémon breeder to Pokémon breeding. Thanks. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How is Bulbasaur significant and how does it relate to anything outside of Pokémon? I don't see any significance other than it's one of the first couple pokemons you can acquire. BlueShirts 20:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, just doing more "wikifying" or linking various terms in the article to other wiki articles does not clarifying anything. In other words, it doesn't solve the objection. On a side note, "Pokemon breeder" isn't at all clear, since from what I understand, Pokemon aren't "bred," they are captured. Temporary account 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the idea of linking is that to explain, for example, the entire concept of Pokémon breeding, which is only a minor part of the article, would take up a lot of space. By linking to the appropriate article, Pokémon breeding in this case, hopefully misunderstandings (like the above) can be cleared up. After all, the article on George W. Bush shouldn't contain an in depth description of baseball, even though he owned a baseball team briefly. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, my comments about adding more information about it's "cultural significance" are not addressed (see comments section), and neither are Tsavage's comments about referencing problems. In the end, this article is just all plot summary (in anime and in game section) and product information (in other media section), don't you agree? Temporary account 21:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How does the (apparent) revelation that Pokémon are bred in any way contradict your previous knowledge that Pokémon are caught? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To me the "revelation" and Temporary Account's confusion over the term simply illustates the problem that exists in the article with explaining the terms. The article is just relying on too much familiarity with the base subject matter and introducing too many unexplained terms. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We can’t explain all the mechanics of the games (stats, trading, etc.) in detail, we would be accused of padding the article with irrelevant information not specific to Bulbasaur. Responses to some of your specific points:
  • A Pokémon breeder is someone who breeds Pokémon. This is obvious. If you need to know more about Pokémon breeding, it’s linked and briefly explained later in the article. Nonetheless, I’m going to remove the “Pokémon breeder” bit, because that’s not important, what’s important is that Bulbasaur is recieved from an NPC in Yellow.
  • Both “damage-dealing Poison attacks” and “learn naturally” are fairly common-sense. “damage-dealing” is self-explanatory, Poison has already been addressed as a Pokémon type, and learn naturally is also self-explanatory. It cannot learn them naturally, therefore it either can’t learn them or must be taught.
  • You are, quite simply, wrong about the Pokémon types article. It does discuss about how attacks are resolved in the case of multiple types.
  • “learns moves” learn, transitive verb: to acquire knowledge of
  • “advanced techniques and the power increase” Oh, COME ON. This refers directly back to what has just been said.
  • “Pokémon Island” again, self explanatory, a location in the game this sentence describes. The River and the Cave are clearly two of the “varied environments” referred to by that sentence. I agree you couldn't be expected to understand “the River” and “the Cave” by themselves, but with the context provided, it’s common sense.
  • The article on Super Smash Bros. Melee is not referenced by that sentence, merely wikilinked in it. Instead, the guide on IGN, which does explain Smash Coins, is cited.
  • A lot of your questions about the anime, manga, and TCG are again things which, if fully explained, would add a great deal of general information not suited for an article specific to Bulbasaur.
  • Pokédex... hmm, perhaps it could stand an explanatory sentence, and it could also be wikilinked.
That doesn’t cover everything, but it does hit a few points. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't create that list to try and push a point. I simply jotted down the terms that I encounted where the meaning was not clear and was not discovered with a reasonable amount of effort. That said, I may have missed some things, but there are a number of the points above where I think your familiarity with the subject is perhaps making it difficult for you to appreciate the confusion these terms caused.
  • A Pokémon breeder is someone who breeds Pokémon. This is obvious.
    The Wikilink is fine, but to state it again, it is not obvious what it means to breed Pokémon.
  • learn naturally and learn moves
    Sorry, but I don't know within the context of the game what it means or requires to "learn moves" and the article would have made more sense if this was explained. Also, the qualification "naturally" seems to be intended to differentiate this from some other form of learning, creating additional confusion.
  • damage-dealing Poison attacks
    This seems to imply that there are non-damage dealing poison attacks, but I don't know because it is left to the reader to speculate on.
  • A lot of your questions about the anime, manga, and TCG...
    I don't even know which of my questions you are including in this group, but I think this is missing the point that a featured article should stand on its own. This doesn't mean that it includes every detail (such as the specious analogy of explaining baseball in the George Bush article offered above by Smurrayinchester), but neither should it assume knowledge of related topics. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to provide short explanations of terms accompanied by a link or reference where more in-depth information is available.
  • Pokémon Island, the River, and the Cave
    These are proper names that are used in a context that seems to assume familiarity. What is the issue with describing what they are (probably no more than a few words, I'm guessing)?
A large part of why this ends up reading as a well-written fan article rather than as an encyclopedia article is because it seemed like you needed to be a fan in order to "get it". – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose An exceptionally interesting article covering the fictional character within it's fictional enviroment. What the article lacks is the design elements of the character it's developement from thought and pencil drawing to its fully developed game and cartoon persona. There's no information about Bulbasaur's designer(s), no creation elements for the character, no evolutionary drawings. Gnangarra 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Best comparison to what I'm saying is the way in which Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse articles are constructed Gnangarra 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Trust me - I've been trying but that information just doesn't seem to be available. Donald and Mickey have changed a lot over time but Bulbasaur just hasn't :(. --Celestianpower háblame 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No bulbasaur has yet to changed publicly as Mickey wouldn't have over his early years, computers are better repeatition so indiviual artists would have less influence any way, yet someone would have started somewhere it probably isnt exactly llike it is now. Suggestion have you tried a direct request to Nintendo explaining or even showing what has been created here and asked for their assistance. I know corporations tend to hide their individual employees, but when you present whats here to them and explain how much it can enhance this article and even flow on through other Pokemon articles. Even challenge them on the basis of providing for the future generations, challenge them historically shouldn't Bulbasaur(Pokemon) have record like that of Mickey's 75 plus years on. Would you not like to think that in 75 or 100 years from now something you did is still being discussed, do you think we all would have a similar dream if suggested it was possible. Corporations have bigger thoughts and stronger egos to be ask to provide to an encyclopedia is by far more prestigeous than providing information to gossipy fan clubs. You can always show the response within the article not matter what they say Gnangarra 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment. This is starting to look more like a vendetta against the subject matter rather than a good faith attempt to bring the article to featured status. At the time of this comment there are 47 other featured article candidates that could use such a thorough assessment of sources as this one is getting, yet I don't see it being done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think there is any vendetta going on here. There is a lot to argue about subject matter, but just throw it aside for a minute and analyze the facts, and facts point that there just isn't that much to write or source about Bulbasaur unless you elaborate and elaborate your language and "trump" up your citations. I read through all the sentences citing the sources and the citations themselves, and I have to agree with Tsavage, that these are really crappy sources. There is no vendetta here, but we are being reasonable critical here. Temporary account 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Given the number of people disagreeing with you on your objections, you may as well give the possibility that you may be wrong a second thought. Also, your need to write "comment + object" to every comment (after having objected already) does not reflect favorably on your argument that this is not a vendetta either. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The number of people agreeing or disagreeing have not bearing on the criticisms raised. It's all just systematic bias. My own nomination of sino-german cooperation didn't even attract nearly one-fifth of the support here. Numbers mean nothing for FAC process, the issues are still there. BlueShirts 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        Thank you Rune - add some scale to the discussion. There is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be featured if you look at the criteria but some people just can't get over the fact that it's a Pokémon article - and it's good. This is what happened before - people desperately searching for criticism where it isn't there to be found. --Celestianpower háblame 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I hope this is not what you truly believed happened in the previous FAC nomination. The article did not pass because it just was not ready. It had plenty of support votes to pass but it was pre-mature. Patience, it is not a race and it is not a judgment on the editors. However, the attitude seems to be ‘nothing wrong with the article so there must be something wrong with the critics.’ It is getting worse this time with others (members of esperanza!?) who are not only rejecting, but also demeaning, criticism. It is one thing to insist that there is nothing wrong with the article, and another to imply that any criticism of the article is anti-pokemon. Some seem to have become so attached to this article that they cannot see the imperfections that others are trying to describe. This is not the perfect article and the FAC process is designed to expose the article to many skilled editors and reviewers who all have different levels of acceptability regarding many issues and criteria. The FA criteria is broad so criticism can easily be found with any article. It is a learning experience (for improving articles to higher and higher standards), rarely an acclamation of good articles. --maclean25 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. You are mistaken, there are lots of criticisms here. Read Tsavage comments, I think if you throw away any biases, you will agree what he asserts. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Seeing how Tsavage's criticism comes under fire not only by CP, but by other respectable editors, I really don't see how your last comment holds water. Other than his I've only seen "bulbasaur cannot become featured" rants here. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
            • My criticism "comes under fire"?! What am I doing that deserves censure? Am I using too many words (there is a 100-word-per comment guideline somewhere)? Am I tying up the proceedings with unnecessary, frivolous comments. I've just spent precious time checking every reference in an article, and presenting conclusions and even convenient, NOT out-of-context excerpts from the sources to illustrate. Is that wrong? What seems to be happening to me (and the handful of other people who dare object), is a swarming attack by a) Pokemon/Bulbasaur supporters (how many FAs get 20-30+ support votes) and b) some others who presumably feel that if we get TOO rigorous in actually looking for what the FA criteria indicate, FA will grind to a halt and WP will have no new FAs. That's preposterous. I do feel personally attacked here (well, a little :). I'm not a) against Bulbasaur or anything like that; b) not out to demolish FACs for sport. I do now concentrate on what I think is the lowest edge of the candidate range, and try to contribute balance by pulling that up—not "raise the bar" (to "ridiculous levels"), but raise the bottom end of the practical standards range we're currently enforcing (and I read/review almost every article between the ones I actually comment on). Bulbasaur is IMO at the very bottom of that range, in consideration only because it superficially conforms to a "good article" structure--the content is just NOT THERE. Because 20 or 30 people drop in to support, that alone shouldn't "give it a star". We could have stars for effort. We could change the FA criteria, merge with good articles. But I thought we're here to find the "best WP has to offer (from those articles nominated as FACs)". Yikes! (and I think my comment, for this topic, is germane to the FAC review, and not off-topic as it would be in most others...) --Tsavage 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No kidding. Like many pop culture phenomenom, Pokemon has a strong fan base. Believers or fans of something like this often look past the flaws just to get a Pokemon FA. As you saw in FAC1 and FAC2 many support votes came from such fans, despite the flaws in the article. If anything it is the blind supporters who have the vendetta in seeing it win a FAC no matter what. The objectors should be thanked because they are the ones who have dedicated their time to reviewing and re-reviewing and arguing the details the article as an article and thanks to them (and Celestianpower) the article has been improved. --maclean25 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I'm not saying criticism is bad, is just that the magnitude this whole issue has taken is absolutely absurd. I'm quite certain there are some hardcore Pokemon fans out there who will support this article in any form it is presented; however many support votes come from people who opposed the previous nominations, as well from people who are otherwise quite involved in the whole FA process, either by giving it the shape it currently has or by writing Featured Articles themselves, so it's not only your average Poke-fan voting here. Sadly it is becoming more evident that also some people will oppose no matter what, hence my observation on the "unusual" attention this nomination has received. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I dont' believe there's an anti-Pokemon movement here. Indeed, if you modify and improve the Pokemon main article and nominate it for FAC, it may well have better chance of becoming FA just because there's more verifiable good sources and topics to write about Pokemon. We are here to prevent any embarrassment wikipedia might face if a sub-par (with regards to other FA) becomes a FA. Temporary account 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Absolutely, because the eyes of the world are fixed on Wikipedia, we might get shut down otherwise. As if there were no WP:FARC or post-FA editing... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
            • So now you're seriously suggesting that it's a good idea to promote to featured status substandard articles that don't exemplify our best work? Anyway, I certainly don't have a "vendetta" against Pokémon -- although I never played the game, I worked in a card game store from 1999-2001 and those little critters paid my salary. Andrew Levine 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Not at all, but this "prevent an embarrassment to Wikipedia" drama sounds like somebody could use benefit from some words of wisdom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I think it applies to you too. Your point? Temporary account 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
              • That we are not "saving the encyclopedia" here my valiant friend. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                • We're not here to save the encyclopedia per se but to write better ones and prevent subpar ones from getting FA status. BlueShirts 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                • For the sake of making this review as full and complete as possible, in fact, Featured Articles is a prime media target, for "fair" coverage, or a total slagging. As we hit the million article mark, and WP has been done to death in the press from every angle, what's left for a hook? Well, a section of articles, conveniently marked by stars, only 1,000 out of 1,000,000, called "The best that Wikipedia has to offer." That makes EVERY article fair game, there is no "representative selection" required, these are ALL the BEST, as a mainstream media reporter, I can pick and choose... And if I'm picking, say, "Ten of Wikipedia's Finest Put to the Test", I'm adding a healthy selection of accessible pop topics to my shortlist: pop artists and songs, movies, recent events,... A topic like Bulbasaur is made to order, what does WP have to say about the "Carmen Miranda of Pokemon"? That's how it works, plain and simple. Why wade through all of WP when you can deal with their self-proclaimed best? Personally, I think overly worrying about "what people are saying" is a recipe for failure in almost any endeavor. On the other hand, there is no faulting QUALITY...strive for the best and all of that... (And unfortunately, this is a really deficient article...really.) IHMO. --Tsavage 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, many people already disagree with you and you've still not persuaded many extra people since your vendetta began. I just think it's so laughable that you think you don't have a vendetta. It is not a deficient article in any way. Non-fans and even people who have never used a computer or computer game can understand it. The references are adequate (your comment that none of them hold up was totally, utterly wrong and a lie - does that help your case?). Many people think it's brialliant writing (including an English teacher). I cannot see anything stopping this promotion other than your vendetta and Raul is clever enough to see through that. The reason he said for it not being promoted before was (and I paraphrase) that he, as a non-fan, couldn't understand it. Now they can. It will be promoted. --Celestianpower háblame 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • Well, I guess as this process goes on, it all gets nastier. I'm not sure why many of the regular reviewers around haven't weighed in. At this point, I'm not entirely sure whether I think I'm simply continuing to present my views and participate in the discussion, or whether I'm trying to convince others: other editors of the validity of my objections and the deficiencies of the article, or Raul654 of the "actionability" (a I believe he said that's what he ultimately looks for...). I know I started out simply reviewing Bulbasaur, and reluctantly at that, because in a previous candidacy, I could guess what a protracted session it might be (you know the history of that, I started late in the process, withdrew my entire comment/vote at one point, and ended up spending two months on this...). Right now, you're accusing me directly of reviewing in bad faith, trying to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" with the FA criteria, in order just not to see Bulbasaur as an FA. That's a miserable tactic. Attacking people and their motives is really usually quite vile in most situations, and here, I find it that and also extremely cynical. Besides being plain wrong. Is the process of consensus and FAC review so messed up that I can mount an effective vendetta based on spurious claims? Categorically, I have NO PROBLEM with the subject area nor the topic itself becoming an FA. I have a problem with the fundamental quality of this article, based on a reasonable, current interpretation of the FA guidelines. To respond slightly in kind, I do on one level find this to be an (even if unintentionally) cynical and bullying approach to FA, where form trumps content, associations between editors influences FAC participation, and the desire for FA status supercedes the quest for article quality. I don't suspect some sort of organized plot, this is human nature, when we want things, we try to get them, and can go to some lengths at that... I realize that's flipping your vendetta argument, but that's how it is: if I can be on a "vendetta", then you can be on an unprincipled quest for an FA star. In any case, however flexible interpretation needs to be, "compelling, even brilliant" should NEVER equal "mediocre, even crappy". --Tsavage 17:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Mediocre, even crappy? What on Earth gives you the right to say this? An English teacher has supported - how can you say you know the English language and what makes good prose better than him? By these long, rambling, vindictive and downright untruthful replies, you only go to emphasise my point that you've got a vendetta. --Celestianpower háblame 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Have you addressed any of Tsavage's reference objections and added those series/episode references yet? BlueShirts 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Threatening to block me (because you can as an Admin, and you're angry) for my comments here (message just posted on my user talk page), doesn't say much for you... If you're getting worked up into a frenzy, I'm not the cause. As usual, IMO, of course. --Tsavage 17:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • I didn't threaten to block you. In fact, I specifically said I wouldn't. If this was real life, we could have a proper argument about it and you would be exposed as the one who was wrong. But, as it stands you're going to get away with it, like you always do. --Celestianpower háblame 18:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Celestianpower, that's the nature of the FAC process. You're going to get feedback from people who dislike the article, for whatever reason. As for the English teacher... "credentials" can't be expected to mean much on the Internet, where middle-aged men can pretend to be teenaged cheerleaders and 10-year-old kids can pretend to be scientists. I can certainly understand TSavage's objections, and they don't get ruled out just because someone claims to be a teacher. I don't think he's intentionally trying to piss you off, he's just making use of the FAC forum to speak to the problems in the article and that's what it's for. Kafziel 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • Why should I be the reasonable one this time? He's deliberately upsetting me and I don't have to stand for it. There are no problems with the article that he's said so I see no reason that he is acting in good faith. I do this in my free time, not because I have to. --Celestianpower háblame 18:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Calm down. I don't think anyone is ticking off anybody. You are disturbed only because some think your article is not of FA caliber. Personally, I don't think you have addressed Tsavage's comments (or other important comments from last FACs). Here's the problem about your approach: You just don't bring out names to support your argument. Thus "one English teacher thinks it's good prose" or "my grandfather understands this" just don't cut it; they are anecdotal, what's the point? For every person you find who support this, I could find ten (it's useless to argue against this point, it's anecdotal too). Also, you can only stand by your own comments, thus don't say Raul will see through it or something to that effect, because if he doesn't, you're implying he is preposterous. One last thing, I think people who oppose here are very civilized, in that we offer SUBSTANTIAL and WELL-FOUNDED criticisms here, and we offer NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, and the criticism only goes to the article, not editors. Temporary account 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Don't patronise me, and don't lie about the criticism this article recieved. It's either been lies or unactionable. --Celestianpower háblame 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • Pipe down and please don't throw words like "lies" and "patronize" around. There are legitimate concerns to be addressed. BlueShirts 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • Now you are getting on my nerves. We on both sides have been so far very civilized in all discourses, and now you are accusing me of lying!? I am personally very offended by it. None of us on the opposing side made any personal attacks. I think you are mad because what we said were TRUE, and you saw that coming, but there's not a darn thing you can do about it. Temporary account 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • About pokemon fanbase support, I find that the idea of mainly all the pokemon fans (whatever you call them) come out of the woodwork to support rather daft. I personally don't like pokemon at all (ok, I really dont like pokemon :) ), but I still managed to see that the article was well written and that I could understand it thoroughly. Even though my exposure to pokemon has been no more than fishing the ugly tazos (or pogs if you will) out of my crisps. Banez 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would just like to point out that an article does not have to be Front Page material to be Featured Article standard. While something too specific like this probably won't be featured on the front page as many people have not even heard of Bulbasaur, that doesn't mean it isn't a very well written article. I am not saying that this is FA material in my opinion, just saying something to keep in mind. As for my own opinion, I'm on the fence here, both sides have valid points, I'll wait a bit and see if I swing to one side or the other. SandBoxer 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it may be worth pointing out that Tsavage made some further comments on my talk page, which Celestianpower has done his best to address. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, for the record, ALoan asked on my Talk page what changes I thought should be made, and last night I posted what I considered to be a reasonably credible editorial outline for this topic on his Talk page. (This is all a little...wearying... I just want to review some FACs... ;) --Tsavage 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment(s) The FA nomination rules clearly state: “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.” Therefore, Temporary account’s comment “I don't think you can write a FA article just based on Bulbasaur. Not that Bulbasaur is a worthless subject to write about, just that there are not that much important information about this creature.” is completely invalid. Assertions like “if you take away these extraneous language (often unfounded and withour source), and look just at the bones, this article is just a game/fan/stat page” need a rationale. That is to say( signing each section so that people can reply directly):
    • Temporary account, instead of what’s wrong with the article, what kind of content( on the subject of Bulbasaur alone, mind you) would you like to see to make it acceptable to you as a Feature? If you can’t come up with an answer, I don’t see a reason to waste any more time addressing your objection. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. What to say? Personally even though the prose is better now and the paragraphs are less choppy, I still believe (what I have wrote before) that this is just a more detailed game/TV guide and summary, which Wikipedia is not. I'd give the article an A for comprehensive though, but as I have said before, you can write three paragraphs about a barren subject and still be comprehensive, just keep that in mind. To make this article FA, I'd like to see Bulbasaur's influence on mass media, society, child development, and many others just because it is a cultural subject, and also development history or designing of this particular character just because it is a video game character, and someone must have put some thought to come up with it. And these shouldn't be a cursory mentioning of few sentences. But I don't see how anyone can make this an FA since almost anything that can be said or stretched about Bulbasaur have been said and stretched (back to the barren subject thing), and it's still not FA in my opinion. I don't think you can easily find any information about those regarding Bulbasaur. As to validity of my objections, remember, the FA rules are very lax, and the most important rule is #1: "It exemplifies our very best work," and even though the article reads well, it's still lacks many features that will make a FA shine. Personally, I think we should better focus our effort in making Pokemon a FA, since what I have mentioned before can be more easily accomplished with Pokemon article just because there are more information about it. And personally sourcing Pokemon will be a less pain in the ass just because there's more sources out there that are not videogame or TV guides or websites (this is another subject we can go into length, but regarding using guides as sources, it's about academic rigor) Temporary account 08:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So, it’s your opinion that nothing can be done to make Bulbasaur a FA. This is going to sound rather pig-headed, but I can’t think of another way to say it, so: The FA rules may be lax, but they are very clear that unfixable objections may simply be ignored. As for the use of guides, if you scroll down a bit you’ll see I asked you about the subject, so I don’t mind if you take that question and write a reply “at length”, or even just clearly and concisely.-- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is start to get more mind-boggling than ever. I thought people would have the common sense to see what's FA and what's not. FIRST of all, if you think I have any vendettta against Pokemon, you're wrong. In fact, I think we should better put our effort in making Pokemon a FAC rather than Bulbasaur. I don't understand why would people keep nominating Bulbasaur for FA, since it already failed twice miserably before. SECOND, JUST BECAUSE OBJECTIONS CANNOT BE ADDRESSED, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE OBJECTIONs ARE INVALID. FAILURE TO ADDRESS ANY PROBLEMS DOESN'T MEAN THE OBJECTION IS UNACTIONALBE. Please think if you've got a mind, I believe this is easy to understand: I asked that more to be added about cultural influences of Bulbasaur and design history of Bulbasaur, and if you can find good sources for it (as any proper cultural subject should have), then add it to the article. But I doubt that anybody can put meaningful input into that, and thus why I think you can't fix the article to become a FA and thus it will not (we will see). Plus, my objections make sense, and they are not frivolous comments like "this article is too short" or "pictures sucks"...etc. In addition, wikipedia is NOT A GUIDE, which this article is essentially, thus I don't understand how you will be able to fix that. THIRD, my point that if Bulbasaur is made FA, then other key Pokemons (such as Char or Squirtle) could be FA is well-founded and should provide some insights. Consider this: the Time/CNN references all point to half a dozen key Pokemons (Char, Jiggly..etc), and essentially the only references outside game books are these news websites. Think: If this article has it's anime appearance, game appearance, and other media re-written for any of the characters mentioned above, and then added the Time/CNN refernce, you've got yourself another FA. This is just plain idiocracy, and I don't see how Bulbasaur is in anyway more unique than others. I am not here to fix the problems for you, that's not my job. And I have to stress again, the rules for FA is that they should have certain characteristics, and this article just doesn't meet rule number 1 (if you have read other best works in FA). I already wasted precious hours on this, but if I'm needed, I'll comment more. Temporary account 20:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, Pokémon is singular and plural. First of all, this article isn’t a guide. It doesn’t give specific gameplay strategies like “give Bulbasaur such-and-such moveset and raise its stats in this or that manner”, it’s simply informative, talking about its history and distinctive traits, strengths, and weaknesses, as is appropriate for a fictional character, be it one from a game, or one from a book. Second, why shouldn’t the Pokémon articles all become Featured? Not as they are now, obviously, but if they were all as well-written as Bulbasaur with information that comprehensive, there’s no reason all 493 of them shouldn’t be elevated to FA status. And whether they should or not, there’s no reason why that would have a bearing on this nomination. -- WikidSmaht (talk)
Well that answers my concern about common sense. Do you think it's possible to make FA out of every fictional character who has as sparse information about as Bulbasaur? Think. And about my comment that this article is a guide, you didn't read closely. This article is like a TV guide in addition to game guide (should a wikipedia FA focus almost in its entirety on plot summmary, esp if this is a proclaimed cultural subject?). And do you have anything to add about my comment about fixing the problems and actionability? Temporary account 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know that its possible to make all the Pokémon features, but I’ve yet to see proof that it isn’t. I’m not sure why the potential of other Pokémon features should be a strike against Bulbasaur. Admittedly, I’m tired now, maybe I’m missing the point. An FA should be comprehensive, and include all relevant information available. If a lot of that is plot, then very well. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Tsavage, I understand that you have a problem with the references. While your view has been disputed( and in some cases, your concerns have been directly addressed with confirmation of printed sources or better links, though you have not deigned to strike them out), I think it worthwhile to ask: What is the nature of the correlation you want between the article and the sources? It might be helpful if you could provide another article which serves as a good example. Also, how far does citing sources and no original research go? If I’m writing a plot summary for The Great Gatsby, can I just say that Gatsby dies? Is the book itself an acceptable source, or do I need to cite someone else who wrote in a review or summary that Gatsby died? You also mentioned content, in passing, so feel free to answer the same question I asked Temporary account. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment... As much as it is obviously not so in practice, I'm still under the impression that this is a REVIEW process, not an article editing session or some sort of improvement hootenanny. I can't imagine the intent of "actionable" is for a laundry list of each individual instance in cases where there are concerns about being "well-written" (2a), "comprehensive" (2b), or even "appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic" (5), or for that matter, "exemplifies our very best work" (1). If I find general poor writing, am I to list EVERY SENTENCE (at times I've personally listed five and 10 sentences as EXAMPLES, and had them "fixed" but nothing else touched)? There has to be a practical line between REVIEW and REWRITE... With editorial reviews like this, you can indeed lose sight of the forest for the trees... --Tsavage 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} rather than complaining. pschemp | talk 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've put more time into the Bulbasaur FAC reviews than went into writing the article, revisions included. Maybe it's "overzealous" (in the "why bother?", not the "fanatical", sense), but I made objections and am following up on them conscientiously. In the maybe three months of this, I could have commented on a 10-20 more FACs than I had time to. It's ultimately up to Raul654 that he sees all this as "constructive" or "on the way to consensus", or "giving all sides a fair shake" or whatever. If there is no consensus after a couple weeks, I'd say, back to the drawing board, and have a cool-off renom period of a couple months. I edit FACs when I am able (although I do have a problem with massive revisions), but I'M NOT HERE TO FIX ARTICLES AT ALL COSTS JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE NOMINATED FOR FA. It seems like FA status is more of the desired end result than just great articles... It doesn't matter that people object, that there may be problems, just "meet the technicalities and get your star"... This is of course the minority trend, but bad culture has a way of spreading... --Tsavage 15:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That’s a ridiculous and unfair statement. I understand your temper may be running short, but it’s unkind to so belittle the work done on the article.( For the record, I don’t think you have any responsibility to fix it yourself.) Anyway, objections to an article on principle don’t matter. They have to be objections to the content which can reasonably be addressed within the context of the specific article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
My temper isn't running short, nor my patience, just my time (it's a seasonal thing)... And I was being literal about the hours spent, as anyone who's looks through this...fascinating multipart review can easily tell. And objections based on "comprehensiveness", "well-written", the "very best work" are not "Principle" they're featured article criteria... They just don't evaluate as neatly as say, copyvio or verifiability (although, even a straightforward references objection can go a little wild, as we have seen...) --Tsavage 16:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
That’s not true, Celestianpower and I have both spent numerous hours rewriting and tweaking.
I also didn’t make myself clear, I guess, I wasn’t saying that those particular things( “comprehensive”, “well-written”) were “principle”, I was just pointing out that they we disagree on whether the article measures up in those respects, and it’s not much use to argue over them at this point.
The “principle” comment was a response to “It doesn't matter that people object”, essentially saying, no, it really doesn’t matter if they object on principle. It only matters whether the article is well-written. By “principle”, I was referring to Temporary account’s assertion that an article on Bulbasaur cannot be improved in such a way as to be feature-worthy. That’s simply wrong, and as it is the basis of his objections, those objections hold little weight. Your objections, while I disagree with many of your evaluations, are more substantive, and based on things which are, in theory, fixable( the disagreement is on whether they all need to be fixed). -- 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I fear that you both missed pschemp's point. She wasn't asking you to fix Bulbasaur at all. You were (at that point) talking about the inadequacies of the FAC process, not Bulbasaur. She was merely asking for you to stop complaining about that and (if it really matters to you), fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celestianpower (talk • contribs) .
Oh. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. -- Tsavage 16:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. (I didn't say anything, but I was thinking the same thing as these guys when I read it, and I did direct some curses at my computer screen.) Kafziel 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Celestianpower is correct in his interpretation of my comment. pschemp | talk 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As you said, in practice, it’s more than just a review. I will admit it’s hard not to take some of your comments personally, as I wrote much of the prose, and took great pains to fix up the rest as well as I could without losing the meaning. Anyway, “well written” comes down mostly to structural issues and opinion,but I don’t really understand why you think the article isn’t comprehensive or of an appropriate length. As for tightness of focus, as I said, it originally didn’t explain every aspect of Pokémon, but then it was criticized for assuming too much. Well, I think we’re at an impasse on content issues, so I’ll ask you again to address my questions about what makes references acceptable. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, a couple days ago, (by request) I went so far as to provide my take on a barebones content outline for Bulbasaur, not particularly for "FA", just as...a decent basic article. It's consistent with the many detailed comments made in the previous recent FAC reviews. It should make my specific views plain, if nothing previous did. The outline is pretty close to basically rewriting the entire article... With a good number of those suggestions now included, yes, the article is somewhat better. "However" (as in, NOT me "stubbornly sticking to..."), the "fixes" are a bit bandaided on there (awkward), and there are still some things missing (as in the outline), so a few more additions and a thorough copyedit are still required. In a less-human, more rational world, I'd suggest this FAC would be politely withdrawn, the article revised, and then, back at it (in, I'm sure, all of 4-5 days), rather than expect the people who've taken time to critique to revise and unravel and adjust their objections based on the original nomination... IMHO... --Tsavage 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the revisions made by Celestian in direct response to those comments, or talking about the current version? I did a fair bit of copyediting work to fix the awkwardness and redundancy, and I thought it a rather good read, now, though I respect that you may disagree. I’m not sure what’s still missing based on your outline. Some stuff hasn’t been removed that you suggested should be, but everything you said should be included, is. Setup, explanation of the franchise at the beginning and of each aspect in the appropriate section, notes on B’s creation and (lack of) change, its particular role within the franchise and each medium, related products, all there. And there were 3 or 4 pictures to begin with, you don’t think that’s enough for an article of this length? Perhaps we can add scans of the cards or manga, but I think the artwork, screenshot, and anime screencap are pretty illustrative.
I'm not sure which version, as I'm still tracking revisions roughly by the couple of days, not the hour or two. How many times should I expect to read this article, anyhow? I think one examination for nomination, a couple of skims if there are minor changes, maybe another overall read in a week or two AT MOST. Should I really count the times I've had to read this article, for two or three FACs, including a Raul654 reset in the middle of last one... A dozen times? Two dozen? I will read again (I last read last night). Q&A... --Tsavage 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Last night was probably my revisions, so, perhaps you don’t need to check it again, yet. When I’m trying to work with an article that changes, I find it helpful to look at the history, and compare the current version to the last edit as of my previous reading. That way I can see if significant changes have been made, and if they have I can just scroll down to read the current version. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have in common the use of diffs... --Tsavage 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that came out wrong. I didn’t mean to imply that you don’t know how to use Wikipedia, I just thought if you checked the diffs it might be clearer who’d made the last revision when you read it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I honestly do appreciate you elaborating on your problems with the content, but you’ve completely ignored my original questions to you about the what you want from citations. Repeating them here, numbered:
1. Why haven’t you responded to the replies to your problems with the sources?
1a. You haven’t said whether you still dispute the authority of the books based on their age, even knowing Bulbasaur has not changed significantly. Also, I added several newer publications, including official guides, which( I’ve just noticed) you asked for.
I haven't seen any real responses or substantive changes. The gist of my objection in this instance was to the references as a whole, and by and large, I don't see that they've changed. I'll address your specifics below... --Tsavage 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, and the "1999". Again, I was reviewing REFERENCES, and in that context, found it curious and notable that the two main newspaper articles, and the main print texts, all dated 1999. Much as I check the dateline or copyright on articles and books I'm looking stuff up in, particular more current and developing subjects, I checked these. Given that much in Pokemon has changed since 1999, the suggestion wasn't that the info from those sources wasn't relevant or correct, but quite logically that they were, used alone, outdated, not up to date. For instance, 150 Pokemon became 386 or 395. One would think other changes also went along with that, and the references should include sources that include the most current info (like, 395)... --Tsavage 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess I can understand why you’d question them, but the truth is that despite the franchise’s growth, neither Bulbasaur itself nor its role in the series have changed significantly. The only major change, I suppose, was the addition of its Overgrow ability. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1b. At least one link has been changed, is it still a problem reference?
All of the references that are "personal sites" are invalid by WP guidelines. As is generally the case, what's "personal" can be argued. Are pojo.net, Scyther's Pokemon Place (hoseted at hostultra.com/~spp, which looks like a personal account space to me), serbil.net media or academic source sites with some independent credibility: staff, print publications, business interests, whatever might help distinguish their content from whatever anyone may want to put on any site? I notice new books: what do the Ono titles have to do with the article, they all have Pikachu in their titles, not Bulbasaur, and are listed as general references...? --Tsavage 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is entirely my fault. I foolishly did not check the new link myself, it is indeed a fansite with little to establish its authority. While pojo.com is a media outlet and a company with publications, I don’t know enough about the rest to give them any credibility. What I do know is as follows: the Bulbapedia is a Wikicity with similar standards to Wikipedia, and therefore roughly as reliable – which may be positive or negative. Serebii.net does not appear to be a business, but is far more comprehensive and better respected than most fan sites, so I don’t know what its status really is.
As for the Ono books, also my fault, they are volumes of the manga (they do all have “Graphic Novel” in their titles) and should be citations for the specific plot points they contain, I’m just not sure of the proper way to go about using them as such. I did also, however, add the most recent official guides, and those should serve well as general references for the article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the pojo.net home page, it is a kind of portal ad site/links directory with linking to keyword-related Pokemon products on other sites. There is no company information, no apparent links to internal pages on the site. I don't doubt it's a "business", but not so in the "credible" source sense, and, from what is readily available, as likely still a "personal" site as not. --Tsavage 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that’s probably because you’re visiting pojo.net, a cybersquatting ad site, and I’m talking about pojo.com, where the reference actually points. An honest mistake, but an important difference. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't track down how I got to pojo.net, but in any case, pojo.com is of the same "personal/fan" type of site. It opens with a Pokemon blog, is filled with Pokemon info, runs Google adwords and other ads and says it's been around for seven years. The copyright notice notes: "This site is not sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise affiliated with any of the companies or products featured on this site. This is not an Official Site." I'd guess its making a tidy sum from Google alone so has a "business" motivation, and I don't doubt it's well-run and if nothing else, kept in line by its discerning audience. And I personally would look up certain types of info on this site. But in terms of a formal reference, it isn't an established credible source. I probably wouldn't even note this alone as a FAC problem, but when the majority of other refs are ALSO "fan sites" and such, all being presented as References (WP:V, not just, "places where they also said this"), it is a significant problem. --Tsavage 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
2. What is the nature of the correlation you want between the article and the sources? It might be helpful if you could provide another article which serves as a good example.
There is no nature of what I "want", these are references, meant to support the text. Where they're inline, it's obvious. Where they're general, relevance should be fairly obvious from the titles (see Ono, above). If you're asking about my concern with stuff like Livingstone, I have a problem with citations that don't clearly represent, or misrepresent, their sources. I went through that in a comment above. When several citations point to the same amount of info in the source as included in the article, I question both the quality of the sources and the construction of the article from them. When two book synopses are cited to a commercial site that contains the same one-sentence book review, rephrased (Amazon), I have a problem. When major media publications are named (CNN/Time Asia), I expect more info in the source article that has been summarized here, not exactly that amount of info... When "mentioned in a satire" is stated (Guardian), I expect that mention to be somewhat substantial... One or two instances, such as to verify a quote, are fine, several like this, and...like I said, I wonder about source quality... This references review wasn't my entire problem with the article, it was just a references review. --Tsavage 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn’t mean to imply that it was your entire problem, you also expressed concern for the content. Really, much of the information in the article is covered by the general references, I guess that’s why I don’t have as much problem with the inline references being to minor points, though I also don’t consider them deceptive, as you seem to. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
3. How far does citing sources and no original research go? If I’m writing a plot summary for The Great Gatsby, can I just say that Gatsby dies? Is the book itself an acceptable source, or do I need to cite someone else who wrote in a review or summary that Gatsby died? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're making my point. That's the authors' choice. IMO, inlines in an encylopedia should only be used for quotes, potentially controversial statements, and when somewhat complex concepts are summarized. Roughly that's "my" rule, which is one opinion within the larger WP:V/WP:CITE... It applies more to hard science topics, for one. In entertainment, inlines aren't that useful, because in many of these "press release/product lit" type sources used, every second phrase can be cited, there's not much variation in content complexity or level of summary through an article... Proper footnotes (explanations written out at the bottom), if anything inline, are probably more practical. Don't forget, from what I gather, WP:V was formulated to combat PHYSICS CRANKS, not for pop product articles. We haven't worked out this distinction too well, hence, in part, these long debates on Celine Dion, Bulbasaur, Hollaback Girl,... Pop topics can't be sourced like "normal" academic subjects (and the avaiable sources often won't be nearly as comprehensive as for non-pop cult topics), and FAC can't expect to shove 'em all together with the same type of review, especially around references... --Tsavage 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I’m not trying to be difficult, and I probably sound stupid here, but, huh? That answer is not very clear to me... Here’s what I think you’re saying( please correct me if I’m wrong, I apologize for being slow): In your opinion, for scientific information, such as “a water molecule consistes of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen item”, sources should be cited, but for plot information from the narrative of a work of art( such as a book, film, or game), the work itself is a sufficient source, as long as the article merely states the facts and does not try to introduce a new interpretation of them. Is that right? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not being sarcastic: just read it again, slowly. I think the gist of it will come through. Gatsby and molecular make-up examples are too specific (IMO: no, and no). It's case by case, and here we don't have the convenience of an editor-in-chief and editorial staff collaborating over a whole body work. So, article by article common sense dictates. Citing Rolling Stone is probably not as "meaningful" as citing Scientific American in most cases, although both are general audience magazines, both are OK sources, both belong in the...bibliography. Your question ultimately doesn't concern Bulbasaur specifically. My opinions on each of the citations are there in the review. Basically, be consistent. Don't cite: "Most Bulbasaur cards are of the “common” rarity and can generally be found with relative ease.[12]" and but NOT "Nintendo has stated that, unlike the video games, Pokémon in the anime are genderless with a few exceptions." Prefereably, keep the inlines to a minimum. But that's my opinion, in answer to your question, and nothing really to do with my B refs review. --Tsavage 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, to make it relevant, what I’m trying to ask is, do statements made by the games themselves about Bulbasaur need to be quoted by another source to be fair game for inclusion? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's up to the authors to make those decisions. There's obviously no WP standardardized approach, so when it comes to FAC, each is a separate consideration. Is it consistent? Does it work? Some articles are practically RIDDLED with suprscripted little numbers. Oh, well. I can go, "I object" on principle to every such article, but that's futile. But any sort of reference aspect can be objected to in any one article. In B, the inlines are inconsistent (not applied evenly to the same level of information throughout), and the overall quality of refs seemed poor. That was what I found... --Tsavage 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the reason I ask is because what you took to be a list of other Wikipedia articles at the beginning of the references section was actually meant to be a list of the games themselves( as general references). They’re just wikilinked because they happen to have articles. The reason it’s a simple list, probably not appropriate for a FA, is twofold: 1) I wrote up the list before I knew Bulbasaur was getting nominated again and 2) I have no clue how to MLA-cite a video game.
I don’t know whether this will help or kill this nomination, but the fact is, part of the article was written using the games as references for the plot, and also using information from the Pokéxes( Pokédices? A Pokédex is a small electronic device carried by each main character in the Game Boy games, a sort of field guide for all the Pokémon, which contains information about each species’ habits and physiology). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, "level of summary", maybe that's confusing. In an article that lists critics opinions of seven albums, or a vid game character that lists stuff from four generations or 19 shows, the info is flat, start inlining one thing and you have to do 'em all. In some other articles, there is more variation: organic food there are a bunch of different concepts to be summarized, to varying degrees (certification, fresh vs processed, blah, blah, etcetera). This type of material IMO lends more to inlines where appropriate. Clearer? Maybe... I'm typing like talking... :) --Tsavage 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sort of clearer, I suppose... Because inline refs were used for minor things, the general refs should be made into inline citations for all the info, too? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Except IMO, the other way around would be better, else the article becomes littered with inane inlines. On a topic like this, put the generals at the bottom, and reserve the inline for substantial areas, where significant material from the source has been SUMMARIZED (not sentences paraphrased word-for-word), that sort of thing. In FAC, some might tjem object to "not (enough) inlines", but that's an entirely different...fight, and I'd be...on the side of the fewer is better, this is an general encyclopedia, not a collection of research papers and doctoral theses.... In the absence of a detailed, precedented policy or practice, consistency and common sense (is it readable, does it help the READER?) for the topic should rule. --Tsavage 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As a sub-comment to Tsavage’s source concerns: Temporary account, why are game guides invalid as a source of information on the games they cover? And anime guides for information about the show? Isn’t the entire purpose of their existence to provide such information? I’d love to hear your rationale for dismissing them. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Andrew Levine, same as Temporary account: what kind of content( on the subject of Bulbasaur alone, mind you) would you like to see to make this article acceptable to you as a Feature? If you can’t answer, your objection is invalid. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi, just jumping back into this discussion. For Bulbasaur to be a featured article, I would like to see information including: (1) Useful sales information on Bulbasaur-specific merchandise (to gauge its popularity relative to other Pokémon); (2) Information on how the character (as appearing in the animé, the card game, etc.) was created -- right now there's just a little note that its artwork was designed by Ken Sugimori; (3) A treatment of Bulbasaur's individual cultural impact, separate from the rest of the Pokémon franchise; (4) A level of quality in the prose that ensures that even my 80-year-old grandmother (who is smart and likes to read about many diverse topics, but knows absolutely nothing of Japanese videogame characters) could have her interest held in the subject and finish the article feeling like she understands what Bulbasaur is all about, without any open questions. Andrew Levine 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Spangineer, have you read the responses to Tsavage, and reviewed the current sources and citations? If so, what more are you looking for, exactly? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Tuf-Kat, your concerns have been addressed and your questions answered. Please strike your objection or express your additional reasons for it. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, a lot of information has just been added to explain certain related concepts. I’d like to take this opportunity, before someone calls it “padding”, to point out that when it wasn’t there, there were claims that the article assumed too much knowledge of Pokémon on the part of the reader. You cannot have it both ways. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: it seems to me that a majority of supporters have link to Esperanto, any connections? I might be wrong, but I dont' think it offers a fair view on the article. How can we ask for more editors to check out FAC section. Temporary account 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Esperanza? Anyway, I don’t see how that’s a problem, unless you’re Assuming Bad Faith and suggesting that they’re supporting it based on their link to Celestianpower, rather than an honest evaluation. But, if you really need more opinions, you could ask the regulars from FAC who have yet to weigh in, and mention it to relevant Wikiprojects, like WP:CVG. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza is completely unrelated to Pokémon, if that's what you're asking. A surprisingly high number of frequent contributors are members, and most them don't give a hoot about Pokémon. On a different note, this page is far too long, and it's choking up the rest of FAC. Can some of the comments move to the discussion page? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What happened to "WP is not paper"? There's a perfectly functional FAC ToC and each FAC review is its own page/watchlist entry. There is obviously something going on around the Bulbasaur review, why obscure the discussion? I think everything so far is (still) directly relevant to the article and/or to this specific review. --Tsavage 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
But there is a recommended length limit to pages of 32 kb. This is already at 57 kb, and it's constantly getting longer, which makes the page hard to load on slow modems (over a minute on a 56k modem). Generally, when discussion becomes too long or stifling on these sorts of pages, extraneous comments are moved to the dicussion page. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that’s the point: None of these comments are extraneous, except maybe this proposal to remove them, and the Esperanza issue. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And the WP home page is 164K, so if 32K is a poor accessibility threshold, we've got bigger problems than FAC... --Tsavage 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it just boggles my mind that Bulbasaur attracts 20 supports, and most of the other FACs (before or after this nomination) did not even attract a fraction of attention Bulba received here. I think it doesn't sound right (systemic biases as I have heard, I presume?). Personally, I think most supports are not critical enough or reasonably critical at all, or that there's double standards going on here (compare Rune Welch's and Cuivinien's comments on Che Guevera and Bulbasaur FACs). That's just my observation, and I am not accusing anybody of anything. Temporary account 22:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I’ll certainly concede that they aren’t critical enough. Some of them, in fact, provide no evaluation whatsoever, and just say “Support”. That is problematic and troubling. I don’t see that as necessarily indicative of a bias, though. As for Rune Welch and Cuivinien, I think their issues with Che Guevera are not about lack of enough information in general, but that it is not comprehensive because it completely neglects information which is available on another side of the subject. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, this might be heading slightly off topic, but I just noticed Esperanza as well, it's a community/network in WP with a charter, elections, membership, and so forth, offering "hope and reassurance". I find Celestianpower is the Administrator General (head honcho) of this org, so I am clearer on his "block you" comment on my user page, where he said (about me and this FAC), "If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun." Now, pardon me, but that's all pretty weird. I see that maclean25 also noted the Esperanza connection (above), so it's at least three editors...wondering... Relevant? --Tsavage 00:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well now I'm just appalled at what the comment above insinuates. It *is* off topic and irrelevant. There is no Bulbasaur Cabal. pschemp | talk 13:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not insinuating anything, I'm making a direct statement: "Esperanza" is a some sort of presence and factor in this FAC review. What's going on...? --Tsavage 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Celestian presumably asked them to vote on the article. I’m assuming that the request was “Vote on the Bulbasaur FAC” rather than “Come support Bulbasaur as an FA”... Anyway, I don’t see how that’s a problem, unless we’re Assuming in Bad Faith that they’re supporting it without an honest evaluation. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok. You guys need to stop dragging Esperanza into this. There is no conspiracy to make this FAC pass, and there is no Esperanza voting block. Again, insinuating this is dangerously close to Assuming Bad Faith. And please no, "I was only stating facts" becasue if they weren't a concern, there would have been no reason to even start this topic. Wikipedia is a large project. In groups like this, that are so big that no one person can do or know everything, people who work in the same corners come to know each other. Nauturally people with the same interests will show up in the same areas, and many people who know each other have joined esperanza as it spreads by word of mouth from person to person. Yes, many of the voters are member of esperanza, but there is no esperanza conspiracy, many of the members knew each other before esperanza and the organization has nothing to do with this. Likewise, if I look at talk pages I can see that Tsavage and Spangineer seem to be friends and have voted the same way. This is the nature of a massive group project such as this. This whole conversation is a slippery slope to personal attacks and bad faith accusations. Please stop it now.pschemp | talk 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Esperanza has over 250 members, so the chances that three or four of them happen to meet on a fairly high profile page (FAC) are fairly high. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Except it’s not 3 or 4, I count 14 so far. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you're right. It's a lot more than I had thought. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, it boggles the mind that so many esperanza people comment on Bulbasaur rather than other FACs. And most of them aren't offering critical support at all. Temporary account 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's nothing short of a voting block no matter how you look at it. Most FACs don't even attract that many votes, including both support and object altogether. BlueShirts 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I supporting because of Esperanza, do you think? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Did any of us say that all votes came from the esperanza block? BlueShirts 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Come on, this is a non-issue. Do you honestly think that even a mibnority of the above would just support becasue I'm the Admin Gen of Esperanza? Most are respected members of the community and therefore wouldn't take voting for an FAC like this lightly. This is a moot point generally. You've run out of criticism even vaguely related to the article and have now moved onto the voters here. --Celestianpower háblame 13:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Most FACs don't attract even a quarter of number of votes we have now, not to mention that 14 out of around 30 came from esperanza. Come on, and you accuse us of having a "vendetta" against bulbasaur? And you haven't finished addressing most of the referencing problems yet. BlueShirts 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Celestianpower, the fact is that this article has an unusual percentage of votes from Esperanza. Maybe they respect you more than you think and would support because of that, I hope that they wouldn’t; I don’t know them all well enough to say either way and I’m not prepared to violate Good Faith by assuming they supported for the wrong reasons. It doesn’t help, though, that many of the support votes have little or no rationale. If you asked them to evaluate the article, you really should ask them to look through it carefully and include reasons for supporting. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. Personally, I WP:AGF on such issues but looking at the ones with no comments (4 of them), none are Esperanzians. --Celestianpower háblame 11:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do understand what some of you are trying to say: people should start nitpicking all FA candidates in lieu of just the ones that discuss a topic they dislike. However, from a neutral point of view, I'm torn between support and object. Take it easy and don't let your opinions on the SUBJECT MATTER get in the way. Furthermore, if you are working on this article, don't let the nitpicking get under your skin. Work on what you can; if Raul finds that some object votes are obsolete, he'll be fair. Deckiller 02:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a reasonable position, although I don't think it's that simple. It's a lot simpler. I don't think SUBJECT MATTER (like "persecuted Bulbasaur") is at all the situation here. It is simple article quality. The pattern I've seen with certain articles which I think applies here is:
Pop topic with poor references that don't cover the subject evenly This may be vid games, movies, actors, pop musicians and songs. Mostly press release/PR sources, like magazine articles, fan info, critic sites, and to do with the most superficial elements: review of album vs review of progress of the artist as musician; product specs (description, etc) vs product analysis; etc.
Uneven writing quality Not-so-hot material can still be woven into a decent, even passable article if the writing is clever: material is employed well, readability is good,... In "these" articles, writing is competent, but the use of inadequate material is literal and obvious.
At-first-glance comprehensiveness: follows "FA format" Substantial amount of subheaded text, references, a lead with some sort of summary sizzle, images. "Looks good."
In FAC, relatively large "loyal following" Unusually large vote count, and persistent, energetic, vocal criticism of objectors, which in practice takes on an almost interrogation team aspect, with waves of different "lead objectors to the objectors" over time, coming from different angles: emotional, logical and reasonable, etc.
I think it's missing the point to think it's "really" dislike of the subject as a somehow invalidating underlying motivation for, say, my objection here. I just don't like being made a fool of. This has nothing to do with conspiracies, or initial bad faith, it's just about fairness and FAC. Few people are going to stick with something like this, like Temporary account has, or I have, in this case. Look at Monicasdude, who may behave like a fanatic elsewhere, but from what I've seen here, was a strong objector and is now under RfC/arbitration attack for his "commenting" efforts (I read a good dozen of the examples of his "misbehavior" and they were...I didn't get it...). So, if you want to be FAIR, consider that: Should we let a few substandard FAs in just to "keep the peace"? Should objectors be "less vigorous" when it's "not really necessary"? Condoning these concepts and behaviors SUCKS. They are the end of all that is ideal and noble... They cause cancer... :) --Tsavage 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess the consensus on the objection side is that this article has reference problems that are not addressed and is lacking a major sections that need to be added before it can even be considered for FA (see my comments way above in comments section). I have a feeling that this discussion is dragging too long because Raul hasn't make a decision yet (there are 40+ FAC on this page and they're just piling up). Temporary account 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Tsavage's reference objections need to be addressed. BlueShirts 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may comment, 148 KB is inexcusable for an FAC. I think this to be simply notorious. The discussion is thorough, but I'm not so sure that it had to extend into unruly lengths. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This should have been closed by now, but instead it keeps cycling through revisions. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why Raul is keeping this FAC for so long. Except for some minor grammar and sentence fixes, none of the more important objections are addressed at all. I have a feeling that this FAC is not a FAC at all, but more like peer review, which is a waste of time and space here. Temporary account 23:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

X Window core protocol

Peer review

Self-nom. This is an overview of the base protocol used in the X Window System. It's a bit technical, but I think is now complete and relatively clear (I will not submit it for the main page). It's already listed as WP:GOOD. This article is only about the base protocol: other technicalities of X11 are in X Window System protocols and architecture (which is also in WP:GOOD). X Window System is already featured. - Liberatore(T) 11:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- The lead is slightly too long; according to WP:LEAD it should be condensed to 3 paragraphs. AndyZ 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ok. I have shortened the lead by removing some sentences and reformulating others. It's now of three paragraphs. The middle one may be slightly too long. It could be shortened by removing the definition of request/replies/events/errors, but that would probably make the lead too short. - Liberatore(T) 14:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. First-rate technical article. Redquark 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A solid effort! —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I was originally going to just strike my objection after the changes, but changed my mind. I think the article is a good example of a current "best", for a daughter article on a very specific, technical topic. It gives the general reader an understandable explanation with a real world context, and I think it would also serve anyone interested in programming, interface design, whatever, from novice to expert, a good overview. It does get into detail, but if you're actually interested, it doesn't lose you. In maybe a more typical encyclopedia architecutre, articles this specific might be limited to a word count and so not get into this amount of breakdown, but in WP, where all kinds of things are being tried, for this length, format and subject area, it's one approach to more detailed technical stuff that seems to work. (I am trusting as a non-expert it is comprehensive for the field. Also, it is a single author article, that's been around since end of Dec-2005. Dunno if it was split off or written there, but I'm assuming, because of numerous links to other X articles and related, which have numerous authors, it has been checked out.) I think that's it. Supporting takes effort, too... Object I have a problem with the writing quality and overall presentation of a technical topic. First, the lead is unclear. Reading it as any other article, it did not describe what X Window was about (I went to X Window System to find out it's "a windowing system for bitmap displays"), and the descriptions were rather head-spinning ("The server controls...", "The client interacts...", "A client sends...", "The server sends...",...) and not summary. The main text also reads more like a quick primer on the topic than a description, with too many bulleted and numbered lists, and detailed explanations. I haven't compared this with other similar articles, but on its own, I found the information interesting, but the presentation not. However it's approached, there are better, more summary and readable ways to present all of this material... (I can provide more examples if required.) --Tsavage 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of the lead (I can remove the definition of requests/replies/events/errors, if needed) and removed some lists and unnecessary details from the article [7], but your main point seems unfixable to me. The network protocol (i.e., the rules for sending packets over the wire) is almost trivial: there are just four kinds of packets, and the only constraint is that requests may generate replies, events, or errors. I mean, there are no complicated interaction between packets. The main part of the article is a sequence of sections, each one detailing the various "aspects" of the protocol. Again, every section is mostly a sequence of facts about an aspect of the protocol. I do not see how better can be done with the same material. Could you provide an example of a convertion from a "primer" into a "description"? - Liberatore(T) 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the helpful reply. I thought about it. I guess the core question was, is it "enough" to have an X Window System article, with a section on the X protocol, is a separate protocol article needed, or is it just gonna be technical stuff and jargon. But I guess, yes, this being WP, describing the protocol in detail is useful. So then, a "general reader" reader should be able to put it into a familiar context off the top, and be able to read the whole artilce. I think it actually does that pretty well. The first-paragraph intros to the sections are great, and the edits made things more readable. I'd add to the lead that X is for constructing GUIs ("the standard toolkit and protocol to build graphical user interfaces on Unix, Unix-like operating systems, and OpenVMS"), that I think gives it an even broader context, more people recognize GUI, Unix.... I think only Atoms needs a clearer intro. I'll read again tomorrow, and strike my object, perhaps support. Thanks! --Tsavage 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestions. I have added GUIs and Unix to the lead to place the article more in context. I have also added an initial paragraph to Atoms: you are correct in pointing out that most readers would be left wondering why atoms exist in the first place. Let me know if you have any other specific comments. - Liberatore(T) 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd also add dates. The article may or may not need a history section (it's in the main article, but, to be self-contained), but I think in this subarticle territory, just adding to the lead should be OK, and something like, from the X article: "X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, appeared in September 1987 and possibly the developers' names as well. One other double point that's not clear: a) that this is linked only in See also in the X article, and b) I'm not sure if there's unnecessary overlap with X Window System protocols and architecture. But this article seems to stand on its own, so that's probably another issue... --Tsavage 21:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia

A town of 3,000 people in northeastern British Columbia. Comprehensive and illustrative, yet concise. --maclean25 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review, First FA nomination
  • Support - I see no problems. Looks good all around. Issues from previous FAC seem to have been resolved this time round. Plenty of references, informative, well written. Fieari 07:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Another fine example of what we should be doing for all Canadian communities. Luigizanasi 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
We should be writing good articles for all communities, not just Canadian ones. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. :-) Luigizanasi 18:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice article, but I think it needs more refs -;) (that's a joke). Rlevse 15:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Pleased to see concerns from the previous nomination are resolved. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all. Ardenn 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't suppose there's any chance of getting photos of the area with leaves on the trees? --Carnildo 23:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll need about 3 months to get some photos of green trees. --maclean25 05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I think this fails several FAC criteria. I don't think the writing is compelling or brilliant - in fact it seems very turgid, with sentences like The high unemployment rate illustrates how the existing businesses and industries are not able to satisfy the demand for work being totally redundant, and others such as ...was first elected in 2003 and acclaimed in 2005 very unclear (what does it mean to be acclaimed in this sense?). Nor do I think it's appropriate in length - nowhere does it enlighten me as to why a town of 3,000 people deserves an article no less than 37kb in length. That's the same length as Sydney, and that seems a very strong argument indeed that this article is not of appropriate length. In addition, the article uses references inappropriately, presenting their opinion as fact (The town, one of the most livable municipalities in the province [2]) and unnecessarily citing uncontroversial facts such as the airport code. Footnotes are a distraction for the reader, and many facts simply don't need a reference. 47 footnotes is far too many. Worldtraveller 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As I have been the principal (almost sole) author, there are bits like this that can use some fine-tuning. Thank you for pointing out the examples (which I have fixed), are there any other sections that require attention? if so, how are they technically flawed? However, I am not sure I understand your second point. Sydney and Chetwynd are both articles on towns that follow the same layout as spelled out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. As such, why would they be of different length? Perhaps you are referring to the content. If so please see the sub-articles like History of Sydney and Culture of Sydney, which I have clocked at 58kB combined. If not, what info should be omitted from this article, or sections be split into sub-articles, to make it shorter? Finally, I removed the airport code reference and condensed the 4 school district footnotes to one, reducing the total reference list down to 42. However, as a town of just 3000 people, there is not just a few sources that I can use. There was one book on Chetwynd and it only covers family histories of the early settlers to the area. Other info is scattered over many different places. I am a big fan of Wikipedia:Verifiability and so reference every source used. And I don't want to remove references just to put them in the external links section. --maclean25 05:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sydney is a major city of global importance, whereas Chetwynd is a small town with no claim to international significance. If Chetwynd's article is the same size as Sydney that implies to me that either Sydney's is too short or Chetwynd's is too long. I believe it's the latter as I think only very important and broad topics warrant exceeding the 32kb article size guideline and I can see no reason why this small town should have such a lengthy article. There is much that could be made far more concise, such as the demographics section which is, I have to say, a very boring description of very dry statistics. Really only the population is of interest to the general reader, not its detailed breakdown, though the lack of ethnic minorities may merit a mention. The geography and climate section does not seem to be specific to this town, but rather applies to the area it's in so a detailed description would be more appropriate in the regional article. I would think a vanishingly small percentage of readers would be interested in the pH and type of the soil in either town, county or province. I think the schools info is overly detailed - not really any need to say how many people are on the rolls, or what courses are available - that's more akin to information you'd expect to find in a brochure about the school than in an encyclopaedia article about the town. Second paragraph is again a very dry regurgitation of statistics which could be made more readable by concentrating on the essentials and explaining why they are of interest. Under culture and recreation, the sentence In addition to the town's appreciation of its heritage, it has two public art displays is a non sequitur, and sounds a bit like tourist info material. Programming output of local radio stations does not seem like notable information to me. The politics section includes much that is not really relevant to the town, and which would be more appropriately placed in regional articles.
        • Note that we don't dumb down articles simply because another article isn't as good. If Sydney should have more information, than add information to Sydney, don't subtract it from here. Regardless, Sydney's condition has nothing to do with this article's featured status. Fieari 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • You're missing my point. A city of global importance may warrant 37kb; a small town doesn't. This article is not of appropriate length, as required by the FA criteria. Worldtraveller 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I'd expect an article on a city of global importance to be written in summary style, with much of the information in sub-articles and linked articles: Sidney has sub-articles on history and culture, and links to articles on geographic subdivisions, governmental subdivisions, notable landmarks, notable institutions, and notable events. For a town of 3000, 37k is about right, since all the information is in the main article. The 37k you cite for Sidney is only the tip of the iceberg: Wikipedia's got 500k or more spread among at least 100 articles on Sidney. --Carnildo 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, there I strongly disagree. I think 37kb is too long for most articles, and is ridiculously excessive for a small town. I have pointed out lots of excessive detail in the article, which I believe makes it not a very interesting read, and also much that is not even specifically about the town. I think it could easily be trimmed to less than 20kb without losing out in any way. Worldtraveller 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Looks like I was way off in my estimate: Not counting the 2000 Olympics, Wikipedia has 4,002,833 bytes on Sydney-related subjects, spread across 1,635 articles. Does 36,615 bytes for one town still seem excessive? --Carnildo 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Well I don't know how you calculated those figures, but taking them as accurate then Chetwynd has about 10 times as many bytes per inhabitant as Sydney does. Statistics aside, this article is excessively long for the reasons I've outlined above - pH of the soil is and house by house breakdown of the demographics are among the things that are just not needed. Worldtraveller 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, where we have to worry about conserving space. The questions that should be asked are as follows: Is Chetwynd a notable topic, worthy of inclusion at all, and the answer is yes. The next question should be asked of each item in the article: Is this peice of information a notable fact about the topic, verifiable, not "fan-cruft", useful for someone that might be writting an acedemic paper on the subject? I would argue that every peice of information in this article meets these criteria. We don't cut out information simply because a topic isn't as big as another topic. If it's useful, good information, it stays... because we don't have wood pulp restrictions! Fieari 18:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • The second point is where our opinions diverge - see above for my description of where there is excessive, crufty detail in the article. Worldtraveller 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • As for referencing, verifiability is always the aim but the more footnotes you have, the more you harm the readability of the article. Many facts simply don't need citation, as they are obvious. It is a community station, so its programming uses local content and events probably doesn't even need mentioning at all, let alone referencing. In the 2001 provincial election[39] - what are you citing here? If you're linking to another article you don't need to restate references which back up facts from that article. And I can't believe, for example, that one sentence about the expansion of the town's boundaries requires three separate citations.
        • Verifiability is key, and referencing is very important. Remember, this isn't a print encyclopedia with a staff of full time fact checkers for each article! To have credibility, we need to take steps above and beyond other encyclopedias. Fieari 21:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, but as I say many facts simply do not need citations. The sky is blue, oceans are deep, community radio stations report local events, etc etc. Giving such things citations is not just redundant but looks a bit foolish. Worldtraveller 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
            • First, the footnote to the community radio stations is not used to prove anything (or the sky-is-blue, oceans-are-deep type of examples), rather the footnote is used to provide specific (some downloadable) examples of local content (ie. further reading, not proof of its existance). No, it is not required, but the online nature of the article provides a convenient way of providing further information for those who are interested. (It's not appropriate for the 'External links' section since it was used as a source). Second, not liking too many footnotes is a preference. I like reading through many references. It makes me feel confident that I can fact check anything I'm particularly interested in and I am able to ignore footnotes that I don't care for without being interrupted. --maclean25 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Well I have to say I think you're misusing footnotes, then. You can provide a link to further information by including a link in the references section. Worldtraveller 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Also some poor grammar I just noticed is the sentence Effective 4 December 1996, Chetwynd's boundaries were expanded to include 49 km² (19 mile²) more area. Worldtraveller 12:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with a few comments, after I went through and cleaned up a lot of the prose problems I saw (repeated information; repeated use of words; too much passive voice where the active was called for; too many sentences beginning with "Also, ...")
Well, one, anwyay: Is it common in Canada to use liters as the basic unit of measure for water supply and sewer discharge? My understanding is that cubic meters (1,000 liters) are preferred for this purpose elsewhere in the metric-using world (and I have followed that practice with my work on some reservoir articles here in the U.S.) since they result in smaller numbers. Can you (ahem, given that we're partially talking about sewage) clarify this? Daniel Case 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the edits. It reads better now. As for the measures of sewage and drinking water I do not know the preferred use. My source used gallons (page 12 of 25). I was told to use metric and imperial in the previous nomination so I converted to liters. I never thought of cubic meters. My office suscribes to several Canadian drinking water and sewage systems-related magazines/journals. I will check on monday and let you know what I found on your talk page. --maclean25 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm ... it used gallons? I thought Western Canada was even more into metric than the east. But I may have that backwards. If gallons are the preferred use, put the metric in following parentheses as cubic meters. Daniel Case 14:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Oops, you seem to have a problem. I just went through and identified those gallons as U.S. gallons, based on the conversions given. Maybe you need to go and check to be damn sure they weren't originally Canadian gallons, with your litres being a misconversion. Gene Nygaard 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good catch, they were supposed to be in Canadian gallons, not US gallons. I made the necessary corrections. --maclean25 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Impressive - nice work! michael talk 11:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A good article. --- Siva1979Talk to me 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Amazing detail for such a small town. Staxringold 21:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice balance between comprehensiveness and excessive detail. Article is well referenced and researched, but most importatnly readable. pschemp | talk 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. World traveller seems to base numbers on current importance--seems like a timeless encyclopedia would not be limited by such constraints. If someone could find 36k of info on Coloma, California, at present near ghost town, but a significant factor in the California Gold Rush, I think it would be FAC material. The 'school' section is less than 1K--can you imagine the school inclusionists having it any less? Stewie Griffin is 23k; you're saying a town should have less info than a fictional character?!? I think most of WT's objections are inactionable, as "correcting" them would result in objections from people concerned with telling all about "real" subjects. Also, since lack of references' is frequent basis of objections to FACs, objecting per 'too many ref' seems disingenuous (sp?), or hair-slitting, at best, and thus also unactionable. If the not-compelliing Marshall, Texas is still a FA, this seems more than worthy. (and God knows how may K we contribute to Ashley Simpson, thanks mostly to otherwise sane contrib UserEveryking. And what the heck is grammatically incorrect about "Effective 4 December 1996, Chetwynd's boundaries were expanded to include 49 km² (19 mile²) more area."? FA San Jose, California, which I was part of pushing when it was an FAC, is over 75k, and Seattle, Washington, which again I was part of during the FAC process), is probably well-over 150k counting sub-articles--a frequent boom-bust town surely seems to require near the same treatment. 165.121.26.221 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This appears to be your only edit. Are you a regular user accidentally logged out? Anyway, I've said the article is too long, not because I have picked some arbitrary length it should be, but because it's got verbose, poorly written, frankly boring sections that could be much improved, as I detailed extensively above. My objections are completely actionable, and I really dislike seeing people more concerned with finding ways to describe objections as inactionable than they are with listening to suggestions. The sentence in question starts with an ungrammatical misuse of the word effective and ends with a redundancy. Worldtraveller 23:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - My town is 50x the population and has 1/3 of the content. Amazing article! Tawker 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Donar Reiskoffer 10:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Like something out of the CIA World Factbook... Not intended to be funny, but it made me laugh. :) I read the Worldtraveller objection and discussion, which with all the later edits, mainly boils down to inappropriate length/unnecessary detail. I don't see it. There's no doubt this is a distinct topic, so unless we're trying to formally limit or exclude municipalities (nothing under population X, unless meets other notability criteria, like the IMO not very clear or useful WP:CORP), the more thorough the coverage the better. Nothing here seems excessive once the "who the hell wants to know about Chetwynd" issue is put aside: London, Paris, Chetwynd... Where all of this rampant inclusiveness will lead? Who knows... In THIS case, it doesn't seem to be a practical debate right now in FAC (unlike, say, Early history of Chetwynd, British Columbia, which would have to go a long way not to be a headache...). Hope that's of some use... --Tsavage 07:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I am in partial agreement w/ Worldtraveller (I found what, IMHO, I saw as run-on sentences, clumsy/bulky phrasing, and somewhat "padded" wording that could stand some slight condensation/rewording for flow). That said, those are very minor errors; this is overall excellent work and well-referenced. I knew that Maclean25 gave great advice during peer reviews, but didn't know before that he wrote such articles as these. Well done. Saravask 02:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I write about what I know. I am currently in a position where I have easy access to these kinds of sources. So this is how I contribute. --maclean25 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hesitate to butt in here, as the discussion seems to have gradually pushed the article's defenders into rather, well, defensive, position, but I agree with Worldtraveller that this is a misuse of footnotes. This statement shows several misunderstandings of their purpose:
the footnote to the community radio stations is not used to prove anything (or the sky-is-blue, oceans-are-deep type of examples), rather the footnote is used to provide specific (some downloadable) examples of local content (ie. further reading, not proof of its existance). No, it is not required, but the online nature of the article provides a convenient way of providing further information for those who are interested. (It's not appropriate for the 'External links' section since it was used as a source).
If it's not used to prove anything, it's not appropriate to footnote it. Footnotes, and the whole referencing system, exists for the convenience of the reader, not the writer ("the online nature of the article provides a convenient way of providing further information"), and the convenient place for the reader to find this link is in the "External links" section. (Yes, it is appropriate for External links, not References, if it's not used to prove anything; it doesn't matter that you as a writer found it enlightening. "Source" means that which is used to prove or support something in the article.)
  • Not brilliant prose by any definition. Please take a self-conscious, critical look at each sentence, as many people do (and imo should do) before submitting their work to WP:FAC. I'm sure you won't then leave repetitiousness like "The first Canadian census to include Chetwynd as a defined census subdivision was the 1966 census" or many other infelicities. Perhaps get outside copyediting help. This would do a lot more for article quality than, as WT says, looking for reasons to reject criticisms as inactionable.
  • A very serious criticism from WT that appears to have gotten lost in the wash is this: In addition, the article uses references inappropriately, presenting their opinion as fact (The town, one of the most livable municipalities in the province [2]) and unnecessarily citing uncontroversial facts such as the airport code. I see the phrase "Among the province's most livable municipalities" is still in the Lead section. It's quite inappropriate to speak (in the Lead, yet) this promotional POV claim as if from the mouth of the encyclopedia; a footnote to who actually said it doesn't help. The sentence must be rephrased to show that it's somebody's opinion, and not Wikipedia's. (If such a tired tourist brochure-type phrase deserves being in the article at all; IMO it doesn't, and certainly not in the Lead.) The opposite error is seen in the sentence "According to the Canada Land Inventory, the townsite is on class 5TP soil[18], wherein the soil has limitations, due to topography and stoniness, that restrict its capability to producing perennial forage crops or other specially adapted crops.[19]". It's proper to footnote this statement, but not to use the phrase "according to". It's just information, not POV, and it comes from the authority on the subject. Therefore, do speak it from the mouth of the encyclopedia, don't say "according to", as if it was something subjective and contested. You see? Please go through the article with a keen eye out for this kind of thing, because there's more of it. (The sentence I quote above, ""According to the Canada Land Inventory, the townsite is on class 5TP soil[18], wherein the soil has limitations..." is grammatically strange also, btw. "Wherein", used in such a sense? It could be regional speech, which would be fine by me, but if not, it's just wrong.)
  • I have to agree with WT also that several paragraphs are terribly boring to read. I'm sorry. They include Demographics and Geography and climate, both murderously detailed instead of summarized for the general reader, and without any structure to lift up and emphasize the most salient facts.
  • Finally a simple tip: by adding a separate, alphabetical, References section, you could have far fewer footnotes, while still retaining all the citing information. For example, one single reference to the census, as in footnotes 12-14, with a remark like "all population figures are taken from the census unless otherwise stated", would mean you'd need neither footnotes pointing to the census, nor all those cumbersome mentions of the census in the text. Do strive for conciseness and simplicity, please, and don't use footnotes for decoration. An excess of footnotes weighs down the text and looks faux-exact, when there are simpler ways of giving the exact same information. Bishonen | ノート 13:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC).
    • In response to your comments, I will work over the next couple of days on these following points:
      • There seems to be a conflict between those who value the reading experience (that footnotes interrupt) and those who value the easy verification footnotes provide. As a compromise I will work to re-write the text to remove duplicate footnotes and to remove footnotes to obvious sources. I will move those obvious sources to a General references section.
      • I am, of course, always looking for hints on how to improve the writing. I will take more fundamental look at the writing structure. I have an idea for the Demographics section that may make it more readable. Btw, I don’t think anybody called WT’s criticisms inactionable, rather I considered most of it, like definition of what is acceptable for footnotes and content details, as opinion (preference)-based (not explicitedly, to the best of my knowledge, supported - or refuted - by anything in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines). I recognized his point-of-view, some debate ensued, but I’m not going to do whatever anybody utters here. Now that you have seconded his opinion I will take it that much more serious. If five more people support the opinions then I will start thinking there is consensus on this.
      • I did not fix the “most livable municipalities” sentence because I did not see what the problem was, that is, until you pointed out that it sounds like it is a fact, when it is actually a conclusion to a limited one-time study. I changed it to reflect this. Yes, I will go through the article to ensure this sort of wording is corrected.
      • I have a few ideas for the Demographics section that I will be experimenting with for the next couple of days. Geography? Not my specialty but I will see what I can do.
      • Can you provide a link to an article that uses this system of footnotes/references so I can see how it works? --maclean25 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: This is going to be difficult to state clearly, but I'll try. The article is at an inappropriate length. Encyclopedia articles have a duty to be concise, to state the facts that are most appropriate and to leave out those that are extranneous. What is, in a Ram-bot article, a single line, is here two or three lines of explanation. Further, there is local boosterism throughout the article. POV sneaks in (as Worldtraveller points out), and the POV comes from the notes and gets amplified in the body. There is no countering of a booster point of view to try to provide balance (the usual gesture when one's notes are paid advertisers), nor does the article shrink the tourism writing and take its point of view out. There is a reason that articles on towns of 2,000 don't usually go long. This town does not have a rich historical role, wasn't the place of battles, wasn't the location of notoriety or compact. It is a town fifty years old, with a population of 3,000, and the article gives nearly a sentence per citizen. Geogre 13:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I responded to the length criticism on your talk page. Concerning the booterism/POV I will say that I have little attachment to this town. I have been there 3 times (once on pleasure, once on business and once just stopping while passing through). For the sake of transparency of my sources, the items from this article that came from tourist sources are:
      • the street map, that will published this spring in a regional tourist magazine (see the previous nomination for the reason I had to obtain this)
      • the bit about the trail system up Ol’Baldy hill, from a guide/brochure to the trail system for visitors
      • the bit about the chainsaw carvings, which I read from a plaque on a statue (I have a photo of it if anyone wants to see it – it confirms that it is spelled “Capitol”, not “Capital”)
      • the windmill-christmas lights bit, is referenced a tourism-like source for verification only, but I already knew about it from anecdotes told about it around here, since I could not find any sources to confirm the controversy that people tell me came with them, I omitted that as unverifiable.
The municipality, including one Councillor, reviewed the article for fact-checking, I translated their comment into Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetwynd, British Columbia/archive1. What sections sound like there is tourist-talk? -maclean25 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a bit too much footnotes but excellent article --Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but perhaps right-align more of the pictures? -- user:zanimum
I disagree with this: I like the alternating placement, and we should leave it up to User:Maclean25 to decide this. Saravask 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Wikipedia lists Joan of Arc among its top 0.5% of most visited articles. It deserves our best effort. This biography covers the major aspects of her life and legacy from a background discussion of fifteenth century political intrigues to current developments including scholarly reassessment of her military career, symbolic appropriation of her image by the French political party Front National, and last month's announcement of a forensic examination to assess the authenticity of her reputed remains.

This article draws from a variety of sources and, at 70 footnotes, it is more heavily referenced than all but one of Wikipedia's featured biographies. These references convey expert opinions about the dynamics that led to her surprising rise, early death, and enduring popularity. Joan of Arc was many things to many people and, within the 50kb limit, peer review has agreed that this article covers the subject in a comprehensive, fair, and unbiased manner. Images range from artistic depictions to Joan of Arc's actual signature. I hope this work earns your support. Self-nom. Durova 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Impressive. However, I'd like to know why the info box is as low in the page as it is (it should be in the lead, as far as I can tell), and the year linking seems inconsistent—unless there are extraordinarily good reasons for keeping a year link that isn't attached to a day and month, I'd suggest removing the link. I've only read parts of the article so far, but I'm confused by a few things—first, in the clothing section, it says, "The technical reason for her execution was a Biblical clothing law." Then, it says, "Doctrinally speaking, she was safe to disguise herself as a page during a journey through enemy territory, and she was safe to wear armor during battle." I don't see a mention of her specific violation of biblical clothing law. Does that second sentence I quote refer to the second court's findings? Second, does source 11 really say "no one"? Not a single one? Third, the sentence "It was in this environment of skepticism that Joan of Arc proved herself" sounds both ebullient and nebulous—this should probably be toned down, or at least directly quoted from one of the sources, and made a little more meaningful than simply "proved herself". Proved herself what? --Spangineer (háblame) 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Response: When the saint box was at the head of the article it generated a large amount of empty white space. I was concerned that the appearance would drive away readers. The editor who added the saint box did a good job and I wanted to preserve the content. Other reasons for moving it to the legacy section include her recent canonization and her multifaceted fame. When the editors discussed adding a saint box there was some concern that it would lend undue weight to the religious aspect of the article. I checked the biographies of quite a few other saints who were famous for secular as well as religious reasons and none of them had saint boxes yet. So in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold I may have created a precedent.
Regarding Wikilinks, thank you for the heads up. Someone recently went through the page and added a profusion of minor Wikilinks, even the site check dates in the footnotes. I must have missed a few when I undid the damage. Please let me know if there's a browser issue with the clothing citations. When I go to the passages you identify I see the biblical clothing law referenced in footnote 45, which names Deuteronomy 22:5 and links to the Gutenberg.org e-text. The quote from Thomas Aquinas in footnote 46 should satisfy your question about doctrinal exceptions. Perhaps you skipped the description of her trial and execution in the preceding section? Regarding citation 11, yes. I name deVries, but this is consensus among leading scholars. Sometimes strong statements are appropriate Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I'll take another look at the phrasing in the last spot you identify. Modern readers do not associate skepticism with the middle ages so it takes a full paragraph to communicate why this particular royal court was cautious regarding mental illness. Durova 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm still confused. The first paragraph of the clothing section states that the official doctrinal position on clothing changed over the years. However, the following paragraph doesn't specify the time period. So the sentence, "Doctrinally speaking, she was safe to disguise herself as a page", begs the question of when was it doctrinally safe to disguise herself—originally, or only in time for the second trial. I'm also not seeing the details of the exact causes of her execution. Was she 'caught' wearing men's clothes? The text suggests that she wore men's clothes twice, and that was why she was executed, but how exactly did that go down? It seems like the text is just saying "She was wearing men's clothes, and then she wore them again, and got executed for it". What was the process between being caught wearing men's clothes a second time and being executed? What exactly did she abjure when she signed the abjuration document? Also, could "Nonetheless, her testimony could be brilliant" in the third paragraph of the trial subsection be reworded somehow? --Spangineer (háblame) 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see where you're coming from. In order to avoid redundancy the clothing section elaborates on the information in Trial, Execution, and Retrial. I'll add a few words to direct the reader and clarify some points in the text. You're right. Some readers leap to their favorite topic. To answer your questions:
  • The legality of her use of men's clothes was determined by situation, not by chronology.
  • Church doctrine remained stable. Bishop Cauchon deviated from doctrine and ignored the legal exceptions to Deuteronomy.
  • The Execution subsection explains why she resumed men's clothes and provides a reference. She was sexually assaulted and all her women's clothes may have also been stolen, leaving her only men's clothes to wear.
  • Footnote 38 links to the text of the abjuration statement in the trial record. Footnote 39 links to eyewitness testimony from a court official that swears the court substituted a forged abjuration in place of the one she actually signed.
  • I'll take another look at the phrasing regarding her testimony. The adjective "brilliant" isn't used lightly: the section cites a witness who describes the court's stunned reaction and a Nobel prize winning writer who decided her words were better than anything he could invent. Durova 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Anagnorisis 05:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - exceptional article JoJan 15:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Criterion 2a. Here are examples from the top.
"Joan of Arc has remained an important figure in the collective imagination of Western culture"—"remains", surely, not "has remained"; unidiomatic expression at the end, and "collective" seems redundant.
"the lowest era in French history until the Nazi occupation". "Lowest" is unclear; the comparison with Nazi occupation begs too many questions—isn't there an easier way to get your meaning across?
"She received a wound to the leg"—is that code for "Her leg was wounded"?
"and fell prisoner at a battle"—huh?

It's all like this, so can you get someone else to thoroughly copy-edit it? (Don't just fix these examples ...) Tony 07:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this constitutes a criterion 2a objection? Your second two points carry weight and I'll change the text. I'll also proofread the article again as you advise. My undergraduate degree is in history and I studied writing in graduate school. I have honest doubts about your first two objections. "Has remained" is the correct verb tense to introduce a list of authors that spans several centuries. A culture is the product of many minds so the idiom "collective imagination" does seem appropriate. The remaining statement is a truism of French history, as commonplace and uncontroversial as the assertion, "Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia was a leading cause of his downfall." Respectfully, Durova 15:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed "collective imagination" per the discussion below. 68.101.254.59 19:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --DanielNuyu 02:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem with 'has remained', if you want to emphasise the evolving research; it's just more vivid in the present tense. The problem with 'collective' is that it's redundant. What else is a culture but collective? 'important figure in Western culture' reads better - it's what you want to say, isn't it?
  • Yes, that does read better. Changing per your suggestion. Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A few minor quibbles:
  • The "See also" section should be trimmed of everything already linked in the text (which may be everything there).
Good point. I'll trim. Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "This ended in disaster when Armagnac partisans murdered John the Fearless during a meeting under Charles's guarantee of protection." - citation? Richard Vaughan's John the Fearless gives a rather different version of this.
Footnote 7. My other sources are in agreement so you've piqued my interest. If you'll take a few moments at my user page, would you summarize Vaughan's account? Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention her letter to the Hussites shortly before her capture? (It's a minor detail, but a somewhat interesting one, in my opinion.)
Joan of Arc facts and trivia would be the place for that. Durova 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Other than that, looks quite nice. —Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Support now that the trimming has been done. —Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Don't see any major problems that would bar featuring. Johnleemk | Talk 10:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A well written and comprehensive article. Tankred 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Really impressive article, I learned a lot. --Wzhao553 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Insanely strong support. One of the best articles that I have ever read from any source on any subject, ever. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support but note the following JFPerry 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the Leadership section, it states that Meung_sur_Loire was recovered on 15 June. I don't believe that this is true. After capturing (recovering) Jargeau, the French army proceeded to Beaugency, on the way seizing the bridgehead at the southern end of the bridge leading into Meung which was on the northern bank. Apparently, this was done so as to prevent the English in Meung from crossing over to the south bank and attacking the French from the rear. Meung was abandoned by the English only after Beaugency fell.

Also, the English relief force under Fastolf arrived in the vicinity of Beaugency prior to the assault on same. Then, after a stand-off, they withdrew. Only then did the French assault and capture Beaugency. Then, adopting Joan's plan of immediate pursuit, they followed the retreating English relief force, overtaking them and defeating them at Patay.

Source: Kelly deVries

JFPerry 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I worded the account carefully to maintain accuracy within the 50k space limit. The previous paragraph specifically states that Joan of Arc's plan was to recover the bridges along the Loire. The mention of Meung-sur-Loire links to an article I wrote about the battle that explains the distinctions you raise. Regarding Beaugency, DeVries's study has been criticized for its difficult chronology. "That English leader [Fastolf] finally arrived outside of Beaugency on 17 June while Joan and her army were attacking the town." (p. 106) You seem to refer to Jean de Waurin's report, which was not a full standoff and describes an encounter at the very end of the day after the battle had ended. Fastolf was between Meung and Beaugency when he noticed the French in battle formation surveying his troops from the top of a hill and gave orders for his own forces to take battle positions, expecting an attack. Before they could obey she told Fastolf to go and camp for the night.(p. 107) Guillaume Gruel's account contradicts Waurin's story. DeVries lends more weight to Waurin's version and then leaps backward in time to describe the battle at Beaugency that had taken place earlier in the day. A further difficulty is that, a few pages prior, she describes Arthur de Richemont's arrival before the battle in vague terms that could lead a reader who skims to confuse some descriptions with Fastolf. To summarize, Fastolf arrived just a few hours too late to join forces with the defenders. Durova 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose all the informraiton on references should appear in this article, not in a separate article - it is an unnecesssary fork and makes the upkeep confusing for future editors. Consider putting the notes in two columns like in Hugo Chávez, which would take up less space. Only sources consulted for writing the article need to be listed.--nixie 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a very strong opinion. Actually the limiting factor is article memory: footnote format only alters cosmetic appearance. Do you have a specific policy violation to cite? The editors did a review when we made the change and agreed this satisfies all official policies. It's quite common for studies with this level of citation to provide a bibliography with background reading, not all of which are referenced directly. Durova 08:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Although there doesn't seem to be any specific policy or guideline it is a logical conclusion from Wikipedia:Verifiability and reading though WP:CITE that the references for an article should appear in that article. There are no featrued articles with separate bibliographies and I can think of several equally detailed articles that include their references, a featured article is supposed to be a complete package. The information exists, all you need to do is move it.--nixie 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're the first editor to raise this issue. If this starts to become a chorus I'll follow the recommendation. Sounds fair? Durova 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to list the sources being directly cited, at the least. Or why not use Chicago Manual of Style-type footnotes and have the full bibliographical information in them directly? —Kirill Lokshin 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No, my objection on criteria 2c is completely (and easily given the information just needs to be moved into this article) actionable and does not depend on the backing of anyone else. --nixie 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
So far you're the only one who interprets 2c that way. Your preferred solution would cause a violation of criterion 5. I'll look into other alternatives. Durova 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, there is no increase to the length of the text (which is what is most often assessed on FAC) by including the references.--nixie 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried your solution in the sandbox. Unless I'm mistaken, the official "hard limit" for FA is 50k. This article needs to stay within that limit to maintain stability. The sister article on the Catalan Wikipedia ballooned to 165k. [8] We have an editor whose main contribution is to the supplementary pages and aids them in ways that make them better resources for students. The bibliography has been a separate list page for four months, two peer reviews, and an RfC. This really seems to be custom rather than policy. I'd like to win your support and make this unanimous. Durova 09:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no 50KB limit, see Scotland in the High Middle Ages at 79kb as a recently featuered article that provided all its sources in the article and does it well. It doesn't make it easier for anyone to have the refs on a separate page, say I'm a student and I print this out at the library in a hurry, only to find the refernces missing - which makes the text much less useful. Even EB1911 included reference information (where it had it) with the article--nixie 23:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Image:Le Pen.jpg needs a fair use rationale too.--nixie 01:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could discuss this on my user page? I'd like some advice. Durova 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 5000th Edit Level SUPPORT - I stumbled upon this article in December of 2004 and, hoo-dilly, was it not even close to featured. The biggest issue was its neutrality (or lack thereof). At the time the page was being owned by a couple of folks with a specific viewpoint. They weren't necessarily forcing their POV, they just weren't letting certain views in (same thing, I guess). I was one of many folks that tried to work through a compromise, but not knowing much too about the subject, couldn't do too much and eventually moved on. Now, 13 months since my last efforts, the page has moved forward light years. This is an amazing article on an endlessly fascinating subject, and its a testament to the wiki process and The Project as a whole. Great work. Neutral(!), well sourced, and well-written. Just plain great work. Shazaam! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object on a few minor grounds:
    • On references, there are few things more horribly distracting than the name of a person, the first words of an article, being followed by a footnote. And one horrible distraction is followed immediately by another, a footnote after the year of her birth. It would be far better to note these discussions in the main body of the text, extremely easy to do in the 'Origins' section.
The comment about her name is interesting and I'll see about accommodating it. Regarding the footnoted date, it's the lesser of two evils. Some other reference works provide a January 6 birthdate, which is a hagiographic claim that references the Epiphany and depends on very weak evidence. It would violate NPOV to assert a precise date as fact, but visiting editors kept adding it over several months. We tried notes on the talk page and markup comments within the text, which were all ignored. The problem ended when the footnote got implemented. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed the footnote about the name. Durova 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that looks a lot better, and can see the desirability of retaining a footnote for the date so certainly won't object if that stays. Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Section titles seem a little bit odd in places - origins? Makes her sound like some kind of theory or abstract concept. Also 'biography' - surely the whole article is a biography.
"Biography" contrasts with "Background" and "Legacy." Please improve the heading titles if you have something better. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
How about 'Life' instead of biography? Maybe that would sound a bit odd... 'Early life' for 'Origins'? Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Changed to "Life" and "Childhood." I'd like to maintain parallel construction with single word headings. Durova 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • See also sections are usually unnecessary, links should normally be provided in the main text if a subject is relevant enough.
I'll cull this down some more. Given how most people skim, there seems to be a need for quick pointers to the three branching Joan of Arc articles. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Culled and incorporated other links into the text. Durova 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That now looks like an exemplary use of a see also section. Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Writing style - there are many examples of short sentences which badly disrupt the flow of the article. I just corrected a couple but it really needs a thorough edit to merge sentences where appropriate. Worldtraveller 00:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone tried that last month and the result did more harm than good. It introduced syntax and subtle changes that made the material vague, such as an ambiguous introductory statement where the reader might interpret that the duke of Bedford was nineteen years old when Joan of Arc died. To answer more fully (and digressively), when I was in graduate school I needed emergency surgery. For the following five days I lay in a hospital bed and had two options for entertainment: Mexican soap operas or Henry James. After 60 pages Mr. James had me flattened. I started counting punctuation just to see which of his sentences was most convoluted. When my surgeon made her rounds she wondered how I liked the novel and I asked her to remove its semicolon. This experience gave me a lifelong appreciation for healthy subject-verb-object sentences. My condition improved when I got my hands on some Hemingway. Durova 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha, well I can see that Henry James might give one a liking for a more pithy writing style! Ignoring if you can, though, the fact that I managed to get two spaces in the wrong place in this edit, would you object if I were to do a bit more work like that on the article? To me it would read much more smoothly with a few more joined sentences like what I did in that edit. Worldtraveller 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do. Your edits so far have been quite good. I'll keep an eye out in case a change affects factual accuracy. Thanks for the help. Durova 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful article for pretty much every criteria. Staxringold 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work! Gflores Talk 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There was much discussion in the past archives of the article to move it away from such a religious view. However, we see this FA is catagorized under Religion and beliefs. — Dzonatas 05:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Nice work all round. I would support this if the citations were properly listed. At the moment one has to do further work to see what book or journal is listed. you could use the cite book, cite journal and cite web templates. --Bob 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers is a controversial science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about powered armor warfare from an infantryman's perspective. The book has always been a personal favorite of mine, so this is a self-nom. I unsuccessfully nominated this article for FA status at the beginning of February. Since then, the article has been extensively rewritten and received a thorough Peer Review. Several other editors and I have spent a lot of time copyediting and cleaning up this article. To be perfectly honest, there isn't much more we can do on our own. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it. Thanks again.

  • Nominate and support. - Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are two objections which I anticipate, so here are my pre-emptive responses. First, copyediting: this article failed last time because it had not been properly edited. However, we have made a good-faith effort to make this article presentable and would appreciate a little slack. If there are any glaring errors, let us know and we'll fix them immediately. Second, the book covers: though several users have expressed some concern about the number used, no one has lodged any formal objections and we are confident that they capture the spirit of the novel. Palm_Dogg 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As I brought up on the talk page, this article has WP:NOR problems. The entire "Comparisons to Heinlein's other works" section is basically literary analysis by a Wikipedian editor, as is the sentence Since Heinlein compares the Arachnids on more than one occasion to Communists, it's more than likely that they serve as a foil for the individualistic Terrans. We're arguing that certain critics are wrong, and "drawing conclusions" (in the words of a Talk page contributor) that are not only not verifiable, but, in fact, a creation of our own new analysis. We don't get to make judgement calls about whether reviewers and critics are right or wrong in their interpretations, and we don't get to originate our own. Jkelly 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Striking objection, but not supporting until examining image question in more detail. Jkelly 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As I explained on the talk page, I disagree.--Bcrowell 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As do I, this NOR policy needs to be handled a little bit more flexibly than many editors seems to want to contemplate. Is not the process of finding and including "reviewers and critics" comments original research of it's own type. I understand the policy aim, but we need to avoid being too "slavish" about it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a very different thing to cite the opinions of named, reputed critics and to include such analysis in the article without attribution. Andrew Levine 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that was quite what I was saying. All references to reviewers and critics shoudl be properly referenced. Quite agree. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
My point was that it's not "original research" to gather such opinions. Andrew Levine 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page, it sounds like there is no source for the specific passage mentioned there. Unless a published source has promulgated this idea, it is original research that has to be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the passage in question. Palm_Dogg 08:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still miss anything about the various comic books based on the novel. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I threw in a line about the comics under Adaptations. Palm_Dogg 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is also a current comic book series based on the book, by a company called Markosia.[9] --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I have never actually read this selection, even though it has always been one of those i knew i should; but having said that, I found the article rather long winded and much too analytical to really be NPOV. Overall the article is very informative, but much too in-depth; if you want to have this sort of analysis, you could probably add an external link to another site that has done such a thing, but this isn't really the place; this article needs to be stripped down to the facts. (eg. Johnny then went to the river with his mother; and this represents his freudian blah blah blah. SHOULD be simply: Johnny went to the river with his mother.)
    • Could you be a little more specific? You're not giving me much to work with :). Were there any particular areas that you think could/should be trimmed down? Palm_Dogg 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it's good; however, shouldn't there be some sort of symbolism section? But it doesn't really matter becuase it explores far more themes thanthe symbolism. Hillhead15 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Too many fair-use images. Most of those book covers are being used for decorative purposes only, which isn't permitted under Wikipedia's fair-use policy. --Carnildo 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Removed two of the images and added detailed captions to the rest. Palm_Dogg 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You've added captions describing the covers, not commenting on the covers. There's a difference between the two, and that is what determines if the images are being used to illustrate the article, or are merely being used to decorate it. --Carnildo 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Until some sort of consensus can be reached, I have removed all but three covers. This nomination is about the article, not the images. Palm_Dogg 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this article is pretty comprehensive about the subject. BlueShirts 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Outstanding article - Check-Six 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Cautiously Support Although I love Heinlein and really think more people should be exposed to his work, I have a few reservations as to the suitability of this article for featured article status, given its at times technical/specific nature. Also, very very minor detail, the aliens are sometimes referred to as the Bugs and at other times as the Arachnids, with no statement that I saw saying these terms are synonymous. In the end, I support given how well reaserched and written the article is. Nicolasdz 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Tossed in a line at the beginning of "Plot" about the terms being synonymous. Palm_Dogg 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

George Washington Dixon

Self-nomination. An interesting figure from 19th century America who is today mostly forgotten. His story touches on American popular culture, blackface minstrelsy, yellow journalism, spectator sports, and many other areas. The article draws from all major contemporary works that discuss the man (primarily Cockrell and Browder). There are a lot of footnotes. I know that some people don't like footnotes, but I feel that all of the ones I've included are necessary. The article is 32 kb long. Without the references and categories (this guy did so much in his lifetime that he belongs to a ton of categories), it drops to well under the limit. Peer review netted exactly one comment. Thanks for any comments! — BrianSmithson 15:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support: I know you're going to get some complaints about the references, but I don't think ref formatting is all that important. The information is there, and I'm fine with it, so I'll leave that to someone else. I do think it's important to not link to random dates and years in articles, though. 90% of the dates in this article could be unlinked. Clicking on "September 12", for example, doesn't add anything to one's understanding of the article, and makes for needless clutter. Otherwise, A very interesting and well-written article. Seems comprehensive and stable, with relevant pictures and (in my opinion) good references. Kafziel 19:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree about linking dates. The problem is that users who have set preferences for date formatting will not see the effects of such unless dates are linked. The article follows the policy set forth under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting. I'm not sure if there's an easy compromise between allowing users' preferences to work and not overlinking. — BrianSmithson 20:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good enough explanation for me. Changing to full support. Kafziel 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting slice of Americana. Well written, too. --Jayzel 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written and nicely done. PDXblazers 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A very nice article, interesting subject. Reboot 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Eric A. Havelock

Self-nomination. This is intended as a general-purpose introduction to a very scholarly subject. My goal was to have material that would be of interest to readers on multiple levels, so I recognize that some of it gets a bit technical. I had some useful help with the lead from a peer review, which is here. Please note that, as far as I know, neither additional biographical material nor a usable photograph of Havelock is likely to be forthcoming. All of Havelock's personal effects, papers, and photos are in the Yale archive, from whence nothing ever emerges. I'd be grateful for any advice for improving the article. Chick Bowen 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Pop some external links at the bottom if you have them tho! Nice article. --PopUpPirate 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I put in some external links--there's some good stuff out there, actually. Chick Bowen 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is very well written, but the intro seems weak. Reading the intro leaves me with a fuzzy feeling that I still don't know the basics of the man. For instance, it doesn't state clearly what Havelock's profession was (professor, essayist, teacher, etc). The lead is my only concern. --NormanEinstein 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Support. The changes help. Looks good. --NormanEinstein 02:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've put information about his principal university positions into the lead. I hope that's clearer. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's a good read, has plenty of cites, a fact check on a dozen footnotes appears to demonstrate that they are correct to the associated content. Very encyclopedic and stable.--MONGO 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, NormanEinstein and MONGO, much appreciated. Chick Bowen 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A picture of the man would be awfully nice. If you can get one, the {{Infobox Biography}} template would be appropriate to add. Also, I see one or two identical references, which you can combine using the name="foo" and <ref name="foo" /> syntax. Circeus 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your edits to the article, Circeus. I would love to find a picture. Do you feel strongly about the double references issue? I'm used to print, so I prefer things to be closer to traditional Chicago style, and also that the references will function as regular endnotes if the article is printed out. Do others see it as inefficient or redundant? Let me know if so and I'll make the fix. Chick Bowen 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderful article!--Bcrowell 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, every biographical article should include a picture of the subject, except for individuals of whom no picture seems to exist (e.g. Matthew_Brettingham). I consider any other biographical article to fail criterion (2b). A fair-use image would be well justified here. Andrew Levine 03:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid you've misunderstood what I said above. It's not that I can't find a free picture, it's that I can't find a picture at all. As I've said, I would love to find a photograph of Havelock. If you can help, please do. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, critera 4 states that "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article", and though it would be great to find an image, it does seem as if no pictures seem to exist of Havelock also. AndyZ 13:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Criteria 4's "images are not a prerequisite" really only applies to subjects which pictures can't illustrate well (like Psychosis). However, in this case I did indeed misunderstand what Chick said about "no usable picture" and since none seems to exist, I am striking my oppose. Andrew Levine 20:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand the confusion now. When I said that I meant that there are apparently pictures locked away in the Yale archives (at least one of the items catalogued there is a box of photographs). But there's no way Yale is going to let us scan any of those pictures, so they wouldn't do us any good, fair use or no fair use. Thanks for striking your oppose, Andrew. Chick Bowen 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. That's a fine piece of work. I hope you do locate a photograph of Havelock, but this is good enough to feature without it. Regards, 68.101.254.59 06:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, one may want to ignore the "voting to delete" I wrote in my last edit summary. I seem to be hanging around WP:AFD a bit too much! Sorry about that; this article is fantastic! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written, but I would like to see a photo of the man as the lead photo. Staxringold 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Manuel I Comnenus

The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Manuel's reign was a crucial moment in the history of the Byzantine Empire, a topic which itself has only recently begun to recieve the attention it deserves as one of the major epochs in world history. But what makes Manuel so fascinating is that his fate was so closely bound up with that of the empire he ruled, and that at this most crucial point in the history of his empire, it was his judgement which determined whether Byzantium would rise again like the phoenix of legend, or whether it would decline and drift into impotence. This article has had a peer review and is a self-nomination. Bigdaddy1204 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks quite nice. Any chance you could add {{Infobox Military Person}} to it? —Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I had a go at putting the template in but it didn't work; but feel free to add the template yourself if you can fix it :) Bigdaddy1204 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the infobox- I couldn't find most of the information though, so I left them as HTML comments. AndyZ 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight object on the basis that many images are irrevelent or misleading. For example, the satellite photo of Greece is captioned as "Byzantine Europe". Not quite accurate. The "rural Byzantine church" photo seems a tad unlikely since the Byzantine Empire has been gone a long time. Orthodox church, perhaps? The map of Egypt shows present boundaries - colonial boundaries. Not accurate. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Byzantine Catholicism is an extant religion. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)\
      • I see, forgive my ignorance. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I've tried to deal with the points you mentioned, and have replaced the anachronistic map of Egypt with something more appropriate. Hopefully the changes have solved the issue :) Bigdaddy1204 20:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Great article. Support now! :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Excellent. (I do have to mention that I think the first footnote for each book referenced should include the bibliographic information and the subsequent ones can read "Harris, p. 20" etc., but this should not obscure the general depth and interesting writing in this article.) Well done! Kaisershatner 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support now; quite a good article. —Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Great article. I agree with Bigdaddy1204 when he makes note of how topical the subject matter is.80.42.27.166 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I realise now that I forgot to Support earlier. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose. Images seem to have little bearing to Manuel, they could illustrate an article on any other contemporary Greek emperor as well. The one in the lead is hardly a "fresco". The very first red link - referring to his famous mother - completely turned me off. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      We know the Trebizond Gospel was commissioned by Manuel's ancestors because on this Wikipedia page about the Greeks: [[10]], it says: "The 11th-century Trebizond Gospel was commissioned by the Komnenoi family of Byzantine emperors." The "fresco" description has been corrected. I've also removed the red link. Bigdaddy1204 18:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      OK, I remove my vote. By the way, when adding a caption to the gospel image, I should have been thinking about Andronicus. If you want something really contemporary, use Nerezi image uploaded by me to Byzantine art: it is really representative of the period and was commissioned by the Komnenoi. It's up to you, however. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you on the image, I've found a place for it here [[11]] in the section I've been writing on Twelfth century Art & Culture on the Byzantine Empire page Bigdaddy1204 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I appreciate the well written prose, but neutrality of the article is questionnable. Manuel I is praised (especially in the introduction) as a great hero and victor. However, the most important event of his reign is arguably the Battle of Myriokephalon (as the end of Byzantine attempts to reconquer Anatolia), which he lost. In general, the introduction is not very well balanced. Too much space is devoted to Manuel's chivalry ant personal friendships. Moreover, it mentions "Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms", though it was just the case of Antioch and not Jerusalem. Similarly, the Kingdom of Hungary is claimed to have been "reduced to a client status" (The Danube frontier section). This is too strong for a description of Byzantine influence over Hungary (which was only temporary and Hungary under Béla III should be described rather as an ally). The "Assessment..." section seems to argue that Manuel was generally successful, though unrealistic in his ambition. IMO, more space should be devoted to the assessment of military defeats because thay showed that the Empire is not in capacity to reconquer the lost territories in Asia Minor and Italy. Finally, some of the pictures are redundant (the satellite picture of Greece and the picture of the Nile, for instance).Tankred 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. And I really like how Bigdaddy1204 responded to my comments.Tankred 21:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On the "Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms", the statement 'it was just the case of Antioch and not Jerusalem' is simply not accurate. In his landmark work "A Short History of Byzantium", John Julius Norwich says that by 1170, Manuel "had imposed his suzerainty over the Crusader states of Outremer". Furthermore, according to Jonathon Harris in "Byzantium and the Crusades", Manuel "had secured an acceptance of the empire's hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem". Both authors are quite clear on that point.

As for the kingdom of Hungary, on page 209 of Michael Angold's "The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204", he says that Béla III was acclaimed king "only after he had taken an oath to uphold the interests of the Byzantine Emperor". When summing up the section, Angold says "The western Balkans were now under Byzantine control and Hungary had become a client state." Clearly, Angold does not think that it is 'too strong' to describe Hungary as a client state.

I disagree that the pictures are redundant. I will remove them if you really want, but I do not see that they harm the article in any way; rather, I feel that they complement the text and liven up the appearence of the article.

On the positive side, I will edit the introduction to fix the points you mentioned. Also, in response to 'more space should be devoted to the assessment of military defeats', I will have a go at doing just that. Bigdaddy1204 19:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I look forward to reading a more balanced introduction and a more carefull general assessment of military defeats. In the maentime, I am withdrawing my objection and I really would like to change it into support after you rework the introduction. As for the pictures, you are right, they are no harm. As for the Crusader states, you convinced me. As for Hungary, the Byzantine influence was really strong by the time of Béla III's coronation. But during his reign, Hungary quickly became an ally ruled by a friendly and powerful monarch. Anyway, although I still think that the "client status" is not an appropriate formulation, it is not a reason to oppose such a good article.Tankred 19:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now re-worked the introduction in line with your suggestions. Also, I have completely re-written the section on the battle of Myriokephalon, adding much more detail to the defeat and its consequences. My thanks to you for pointing out the introduction: I had not noticed until then that Myriokephalon was absent. Hopefully the additions have fixed the article :) Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm also not comfortable with some of the images and some of the, I don't know, let's say slightly bombastic writing, but about client states - Hungary and the Crusaders acknowledged at least some sort of dependence on the Empire. I don't know about Hungary but the King of Jerusalem even visited Manuel (unfortunately we don't know what he did there, so Norwich, Harris, Angold, etc are really just speculating, and of course in reality Manuel had as much control over Jerusalem as he did over, say, Venice). Anyway, I think I would support this. Adam Bishop 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, as per the Bishop of Adam:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, as per Machine in the Ghost:>--Ghirla -трёп- 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Weakly support with the following concerns: (1) the absence of Magdalino's Empire of Manuel I Komnenos as a ref; (2) Norwich's Short History is clearly not the equal of Angold, Harris and the two primary sources, and I'd like to see it replaced by something else; (3) describing the Muslim reconquests in Outremer as a jihad, however correct it may be literally, is probably going to confuse readers. Otherwise I liked it a lot. Angus McLellan 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that Norwich isn't equal to some of the other sources, but I feel I should recognise that his book was still of some use to me when writing the article: as a concise source that can be referenced for useful names, dates and basic details. For anyone who hasn't read the book, and is perhaps looking for a general introduction to the Byzantine Empire, I would recommend it. As for the jihad, I think we needn't worry too much about it being confusing - given the degree of general interest in the crusades, manifested in the countless books and even recent hollywood epic devoted to the subject, it seems likely that most users will know what it means. Bigdaddy1204 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, not quite Object The lead is too long and quite over the top with all the praise (almost sounds like an ad for the all new Comnenus). Also, Christianity and the religious context should made clear, what with all the talk of Crusades and jihads. --Tsavage 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(NOTE: Comments below are post-FA promotion:)

I concur. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is over the top. Comparison with the recent featured article on Epaminondas reveals that a positive approach is normal. You have to catch the reader's interest, and pointing out notable successes is one way of doing so. However I shall take a look at the article to see if more religious context can be included. Bigdaddy1204 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
re top, over the: I understand the intent, but I think it will like as not backfire from reader to reader. My comment was on exactly that point, I wasn't arguing for "balance", but considering reader interest. A topic too forcefully promoted as positive at too much length makes me suspicious. People are pretty skeptical these days, and making claims in too strong and certain a matter is almost guaranteed to set up prejudices before the reader has started reading. The final three paras of the lead are like waves of glowing testament, hammering the praise home, and no matter how accurate and balanced, will still shift the POV of the reader one way or the other. The effect is not subtle. It took away from the article for me: after reading the lead, I was more looking for fault (as much or more from the authors than the subject) than interested to read about this guy... Incorporating the same message in a more subtle (and succinct) way would I think more effectively intrigue. --Tsavage 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bath School disaster

This article was prepared in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan and has had a peer review. This is the first request for featured article status. Main page placement is being sought for the May 18, 2006 anniversary date. Comments welcome. Jtmichcock 14:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support comprehensive article, complete history of the event Gnangarra 14:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This sentence could use some fixing: "Disgruntled Bath Consolidated school board member Andrew Kehoe, upset by a property tax levy to fund the school building he blamed for putting his farm into foreclosure, first killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire." First of all, it's too long. Secondly, the structure of the sentence implies that the school building itself (rather than the tax levy) was the cause of the foreclosure. I think it should be broken into 3 sentences: Who he was, why he was mad, and what he did. Nice article, though. I will support if the wording is fixed up a bit. Kafziel 15:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I restructured the lede per your suggestion. I am also looking at other sections to see if some of the sentences can be broken up. Jtmichcock 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above changes. Kafziel 16:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article! Well referenced, good illustrations and interesting to read. I learned about something I had never even heard of before this article! Check-Six 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Well referenced indeed! Hillhead15 09:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - well done, and I never heard of this before. Rlevse 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I remember reading this when it was two paragraphs long! It's come a long way since then. Good Job! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As close to a slam-dunk as you'll find here. Excellent balance of details. Syntactically and grammatically, I sensed no hiccups in reading. Marskell 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; I'd never heard of this before, but the article gave a pretty comprehensive explanation of the events. Very well writen. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well-referenced and complete. -- user:zanimum
  • Support What a madman... Clean read, seems to be good on all points. References appear comprehensive; inline citations are not used to distraction. It's a fairly long article, and things can always be edited down, but in this case, I didn't find it overly detailed, so that didn't bother me. --Tsavage 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lothal

Peer review Self-nomination: After a closely planned construction, extensive copyediting, building a strong graphics base and a good peer review, I now submit this article to FAC and request your vote to make it a featured article. I would like to address 3 concerns that are likely to arise:

  1. One primary source: This issue has been repeatedly clarified by me - I found after a lot of hunting that only one source- this ASI guidebook - providing the many details listed in this article. I've taken care not to import POV or problematic materials, but owing to the lack of other primary-class sources, this article should not be felt wanting due to this reason.
  2. Extinction theory: While the extinction of Indus civilization is a hotly debated topic, the ASI guidebook provides archaeological evidence to project the destruction of Lothal via floods. Now I've taken precautions to present this assertion as NPOV as possible, but there is no other major theory that specifically describes what happened to Lothal, and I don't want to import the Indus debate into this article, becoz its not specific to Lothal. Besides, the citations lead to further archaeological evidence to back up the flood theory.
  3. Citations: It may appear that some facts are not backed up with citations. This is wrong, since a lot of facts were often from the same page, I've had to place in-line citations a little more selectively than in other articles. All facts are properly cited.

I hope you will vote for this article. Thank you. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 05:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Great work by the nominator. This article has had a long and extensive peer review and all issues raised there have been addressed. And I agree with the explanation given by Rama's Arrow for the potential concerns. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Meets all requirements. DaGizzaChat © 09:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work, Rama's Arrow! Unquestionably, as with Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, there are often more questions than answers. This article is comprehensive in its detailing of original research and archeological findings on the subject. AreJay 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, I do agree with above. The work is really a milestone in the India related topics. --Bhadani 16:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment footnote 2 (endnote_BBC) is missing, this is screwing up all the endnotes after note 1. Is it ok if I, or someone else, converts the format to m:Cite/Cite.php to avoid this type of error from happening if future footnotes are placed/removed in the text? --maclean25 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to above the BBC endnote is located in the picture of Indus script, at the opening of "Civilization." Rama's Arrow 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see. I moved it to the correct location. Now the Notes are fine until around 15 or 16 where they start missing their targets. --maclean25 22:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; some fine-tuning is necessary. I don't understand "The main sewer has an average is 1 foot 40 inches high, 46 cm - 20 cm deep and 86 cm to 68 cm to 33 cm in width." Intended meaning is rather obscure—if it's an average, there should only be one number for each dimension—and there's no reason to change system of measurement half way through. Also, I noted a few inconsistencies w.r.t. BCE vs. BC—pick one and go with it. The use of &nbsp; seems to be inconsistent; make sure that it is used between numbers and their units. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've rearranged that units section slightly; I feel that it's more readable. Another question—what is this "Egyptian Oedet" that is mentioned in "Science, mathematics and engineering". And in the same section, "served as a compass to measure angles on plane surfaces or in horizon in multiples of 40–360 degrees". Multiples of 40-360 degrees? I'm having trouble picturing exactly what is meant there. The rest of it looks good; once these things I've just mentioned are fixed or at least explained I'll be ready to support. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your concerns have been addressed Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - Egyptian "Oedet" was an Egyptian standard of measurement, a note in the book however not relevant to explain here. Rama's Arrow 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fact that Lothal is the earliest dock (in the intro) might need sources. CG 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to above the fact has been cited below - I've tried to keep lead free of citations, and all of the assertions made in the lead are cited below. Rama's Arrow 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can use {{inote}} to cite facts in the lead so that citations are only visible in edit mode. Saravask 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportConditional support. Full support if/when Spangineer strikes out his object vote. Generally excellent work by Rama's Arrow, per my comments in the peer review. Saravask 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If no other (acceptable) sources are available on this topic, could we have more information from the same book, to support some statements. Eg: there were red-ware people, and there were Harappans, but what indicates their 50 years of co-residence? In speaking of 4400 years ago, a period of 50 years is a tiny, indiscernible period, so if the Harappans arrived c.2400 BC and the flood destroyed the place c.2350 BC, that is a reasonable question. Also, if there was co-residence, what accounts for the flood washing away the old people but not the new settlers? I suppose the book presents evidence on this and such other questions, so maybe the article could give the info. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest rewording the deadpan statement "A flood destroyed the village (c 2350 BCE), allowing the Harappan settlers to re-develop the land." Even given the narrative format, I would suggest removal of statements like "Despite the ruler leaving the city...", "Independent businesses caved in" etc -- remember we are talking of 4400 years ago, and even the race of these people is debated. Also, may I urge parsimony in drawing conclusions: If no evidence of mother-Goddess worship obtains, that just means that the Lothal people (probably) did not worship that deity; it is hardly an indication of "religious tolerance". (The caption to the mother/sea goddess photo is confusing and needs to be reworded. Can we have some reasoning from the book about how the goddess-figure was identified as a sea-goddess and not a mother-goddess?) Again regarding conclusions, it appears that a single joint-grave has been discovered, in a total of only 17 graves, so does that warrant speculations on Sati and statements like "Lothal is unique amongst Indus-era sites for the practice of joint burials..." and "the practice had been given up by 2000 BC"? ImpuMozhi 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Reply The article's passage on "Sati" emphasizes that it is only the "suggestion" of some Indian archaeologists, as it is stated on the ASI guidebook. I've added more to clarify what the "Sea Goddess" of Lothal is - it is conjectured that Lothal's people worshipped a Sea-specific Mother Goddess not akin to Harappa or Mohenjodaro. No, please do not conclude that only one joint burial was found amongsy 17 graves - the writing does not make that assertion. ASI archaeologists have their own researched basis to make that assertion. There is a limit to the data given in the book, and I've cited accordingly. Rama's Arrow 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Again, ALL DATA/FIGURES are CITED. There is none exempt - as I explain in the opening, many facts are found on the same page, so I've placed in-line citations in allowance of that. Rama's Arrow 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is the S. R. Rao, Lothal (ASI, 1985) the definitive source on this? Kind of like the Nasr book on Mawdudi? Because, if not I'd be slightly worried about how often it's cited. I don't know about this subject so I won't vote on it but I just wanted to ask. gren グレン 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

'Clarification in response to above, I already clarify in opener here that S.R. Rao's book is the official ASI handbook/guidebook for public information on "Lothal." Now since it is the official ASI book - (1) the ASI-led research is summarized in it, (2) the ASI's conclusions and assertions are summarized in it. For Wikipedia, I've removed, and we continue to remove any POV/problematic assertions, but this is the base of this article as far as factual details go. Rama's Arrow 04:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess it would help to expand, in the nomination, ASI to Archaeological Survey of India in order to make people understand its credibility as an official source. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great work! I haven't had the time to read it completely, but can't see any major problems. Will try to resolve or comment here if I find any. Keep up the excellent work Nirav! deeptrivia (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Footnotes should be working properly now. I've rearranged the trouble-makers and tested every link both ways. The Catfish 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Rama's Arrow 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great work - my concerns in peer review on other theories of collapse of the civilization have been adequately addressed. It would be good to link "S. R. Rao" in the text of the article and create a stub for him - incl. his work on deciphering the script of the civilization and finding of Dwaraka. --Gurubrahma 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think references and further reading should be one section. If all those works in that section were used as references, the section should simply be ==References==. We can assume a work used as a reference is a good place to look if we want to read further. If a work isn't referenced, it needs a separate further reading section. Also, Ibid could be used for the repeated citations of the one source, but it isn't really necessary. The Catfish 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've separated the sections, albeit as a sub-section. Please note that these are actually "indirect references," cited by Rao in his book. Rama's Arrow 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no way to just cite them directly (i.e., perhaps Rao gives page numbers for what he uses)? Saravask 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have a "notes" or glossary. Rama's Arrow 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've incorporated that data into the article. Thanks! Rama's Arrow 13:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work.This should be there on the main page !--Dwaipayanc 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object ToC is apparently far too bloated for an FA. It is also poorly referenced and not well formatted. --Bob 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Red vs Blue

Self Nomination - Several of us have been working on this article for a few months now with the intent of improving it into a featured article. It is well written, has had a peer review (which, unfortunetly, did not get many responses. Unless that means we did a good job, in which case it's good that we didn't get many responses), and appears to meet all the featured article requirements. Dr. B 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - I read this article because I had no idea what red vs blue was, and understood it perfectly! An excellent example of an article.Dee man45 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I've worked on this page periodically, but not as much as a few other articles that I am planning to submit for featured status. I can honestly say that this not only one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia, it is also one of the best maintained. The folks who work on it are excellent at being comprehensive and yet clear on the who, what, where, why, and how of Red vs Blue. The Filmaker 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Well, of course I'm going to support it. I submitted it, didn't I? Dr. B 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. When I first saw this nomination, I was unsure (like many pop culture FACs, I thought it would be a train wreck). But when I read the article, there was no doubt. This is the most excellent example I have yet seen of a current pop culture article being detailed here. At home, I'm giving a standing ovation. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not understand from the lead whether I was reading about a television series or a video game. Jkelly 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've reworded the intro slightly to address this concern.--Drat (Talk) 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've reworded it again hopefully to clarify that it is a series produced using video games. — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - It's a good article, I'd like to know a bit more about the origins of the series though. Where did the creators get their inspiration from? What other series/concepts influenced them? The reception section gives us ideas on similar works and possible influences, but is there any information from the creation team itself? I mean, why did the team choose Halo to base their series on, given that the series has no relation to the Halo storyline. I'm sure not all these questions have meaningful insightful and sourced answers, but if they do it'd be great to include in the background section. Oh, and the distribution method, do Microsoft/Bungie get a cut of the revenue? - Hahnchen 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added in some more background information; there was a single discussion about Halo's Warthog that sparked the series. I also added more detail about influences and about the deal between Microsoft and Rooster Teeth (I put it in the Reception section, mostly because the deal was already mentioned there). Is that better? — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Support - The points I have made have been satisfactorily addressed. - Hahnchen 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - However I do not like the opening sentences: "a science fiction comedy series created using machinima — media created using computer and video games — techniques." - The long brackets are a bit full-frontal. Is there a better way to change it. I'm glad to say that this will not change my vote so "oppose" - but it would be better to change it. Hillhead15 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Addressed, hopefully. — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great article, fantastic use of inline citations, well referenced and great images to accompany the text! --lightdarkness (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. It's very informative and interesting. Making it a featured article will allow more people to be aware of this humourous work. Blue Leopard 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment I don't know enough about the subject to support on some of the FA criteria I knew nothing about the subject, but the article seems comprehensive and well-sourced, and the version I read today was really good! I'm left without questions... IMO, fine on all points. (I upgraded my approach to supporting, and adjusted this comment accordingly...) --Tsavage 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I was skeptical of the subject matter but looks great. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article about an outstanding siries. I watch it every week. Its funnier than anything on TV. This article sumerizes it perfectly, and gives links to more detial. It is clean, well written, and impressive. Well done. Tobyk777 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

This article has had a lot of work done it by numerous editors, and has reached a state where it's both informative, complete, and stable - quite an achievement for a religious subject. PiCo 09:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support -- The article is well-written, concise, highly informative, ccontains all pertinent details without going outside the scope of the topic, stable, neutral in its presentation and factually accurate, using a number of valid sources to establish said accuracy. Jim62sch 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Echo the above, but mostly it shows what can be achieved in even contentious articles with perseverance. Codec 13:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; an article this long needs a 2-3 paragraph lead that summarizes the entire article (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Also note that &mdash; should be used to separate clauses and &nbsp; should be used between numbers and their units to prevent lines from breaking. I've fixed a number of them. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent lead for an excellent article. My last concern (for the moment!) is the section quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Have they explicitly released the text under the GFDL, or have they just said, "yeah, you can use our entry in the text of your article"? The distinction is crucial. If it's the latter of the two, it needs to be rewritten to contain the same or similar content but with different words. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I sent them an email asking permission to use their article on Noah's Ark and they replied as follows: "Fine to use in a non-profit way (Wikipedia) as long as JE is cited." Where does that leave us? PiCo 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • GFDL allows for commercial reproduction, so that text isn't compliant with GFDL. If you really like the info, I'd suggest emailing again and asking them to explicitly license it under the GFDL (and send them a link to the full text of the license; though I certainly would never want to read the whole thing). Otherwise, it should be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Spangineer (háblame) 07:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • After reading about GFDL I feel very doubtful that the JE would agree - they'd agree to non-commercial use, but not commerical reproduction. I re-wrote the two subsections so that they use the material from JE but arranged in my own setting. If you feel this is still too close than I guess we'll have to (regretfully) delete. PiCo 08:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per WP:LEAD. Change that and I will support. Batmanand | Talk 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Support now lead has been dealt with. Batmanand | Talk 02:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, pending lead summary. It's basically just a well-written, enlightening article. I love the line "the number of animals had expanded beyond biblical proportions;" literally and figuratively true!--ragesoss 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic support: Very well done and a very clear featured article. I'm pleased that the mainstream Christian rejection of literalism is included (although one could wish that it were stressed that these churches definitely believe the story is true but that the literal is only one level of meaning). In fact, I believe Augustine says that, while he believes that the Ark is literally true, it doesn't have to be -- indicating some disquiet even then -- and it was always the story that had theologians on edge. Very well done, very balanced and fair. Geogre 14:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- a good concise guide to the various facets of this subject. ...dave souza, talk 19:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Belting! --PopUpPirate 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Duran 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support pending resolution of the Jewish Encyclopedia copyright concern. (It shouldn't be hard to rewrite those paragraphs, if need be.) Nicely done all around. Anville 10:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've re-written the subsections on Rabbinic and Islamic traditions so that they aren't simple cut-and-paste; sources are clearly identified, and acknowldgement given as requested by the Encyclopedia. Hope this is sufficient. PiCo 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If it has been rewritten, all that is necessary is a citation at the end of the section crediting the source—there's no need to have the disclaimer in the beginning of the section thanking them for allowing it to be used. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. PiCo 08:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The prose is not "compelling, even brilliant". Here are examples.
First sentence: "... to save Noah, his family, and a core stock of the world's animals safe from the Great Flood." Save and safe?
"Chapters 6 to 9" or "6–9" (with an n dash) rather than a cramped little "6-9".
"the process of composition over many centuries helps to explain apparent confusions and repetitions in the text"—use a clearer expression than "composition"
"any perceived inadequacies"—get rid of "any".
"the various Abrahamic traditions"—get rid of "various"
"A painting on board by the American Edward Hicks (1780 - 1849), showing the animals boarding Noah's Ark two by two." (First caption) "on board"? Close gaps around hyphen, and why not change it to the proper n dash? "animals boarding" is not strictly grammatical ("animals as they boarded" would do).

Weed out most of the "alsos" and all of the "in order tos" (just "to", please). It's really not very distinguished prose, and needs a few hours' work by a copy-editor.

And one more point: please consistently apply upper-case H to He, when referring to God; then at least it looks as though the male ascription is used as part of the ideology, and that WP isnt' buying into the 'god is male' thing.

Not good enough. Tony 07:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I took up some of your suggestions, but I suspect that you might be impossible to please. PiCo 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No, just hard to please, with good reason. The text is better now, thank you, but please keep working on it. It's important to get one or two people who aren't close to the writing of the article to copy-edit it. Take, for example, this huge snake that needs to be split:

Nevertheless, the differing agendas of the two sources can still be traced, most notably in the seven of each clean animal required by the Jahwist text so that some can be sacrificed to God without killing off a species, contrasted with the pair of each animal given in the Priestly text, as no sacrifices can be made under priestly rules until the first priest (Aaron) is created in the time of the Exodus.

In the end, I won't object, on trust that futher improvements will be made. Tony 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

*Minor object. Under the In Islamic tradition section, it says ...built a town at the foot of Mount Judi named, Thamanim ("eighty").... Please provide a reference for this statement, since I am quite sure that the arabic word for eighty is Thamanin, and not Thamanim. LordViD 13:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    • You're right about thamanin/thamanim - I'll change it. The source is as given in the reference - the on-line Jewish Encyclopedia, which is wrong about the spelling at least. PiCo 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks. Support. LordViD 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. 'Modern allusions' (what a strange section title...), if it wants to be a 'noah's arc in popular culture' type of section needs expantion. Where is Indiana Jones? And the space ark paragraph is wrong - space ark is used not only in apocalyptic and postapocalyptic science fiction (that red link should be fixed, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't create this section and it doesn't seem to attract the attention of many editors, which no doubt accounts for the thinness of content and the skew towards pop culture. Everyone thinks they're an expert on space opera but no-one's heard of Benjamin Britten. I cleaned up the "space ark" entry by pruning it back - no more red link :). Since I didn't write it I can't speak for the original author, but I imagine that by apocalyptic/postapocalyptic he/she meant things along the lines of global nuclear wars - the term seems to me appropriate in that framework. In short, the section seems valuable enough to keep, although I'd like to see it expand beyond pop culture; and I lack the expertise to expand it myself and no experts have come along - yet. PiCo 08:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I looked at the section again and sort of agree that it's pretty thin, so I took it out. Perhaps a "Cultural References" or some such section can be written up at some point in the future, but what was there was too thin to put in an encyclopedia. PiCo 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good article. --Terence Ong 05:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Only a minor point, but easy to fix - there are several red links cluttering up the article, which need to be removed. Otherwise, fairly good lead, good use of illustrations, good coverage of the topic. Bigdaddy1204 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Cleaned up red links. A bit concerned that oyu think the lead is only "fairly" good. What would make a "good" lead? PiCo 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

When I was putting an article through Wikipedia: Peer review, I was faced with this same question, and someone kindly referred me to the recent featured articles on Epaminondas, the ancient Theban general, and Sir Isaac Newton, which I found were really helpful as examples of articles with a good lead section. I know they are not perfect exapamples because they are about people rather than religion, but hopefully they will still be useful. Bigdaddy1204 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments, some of the section heading are overly wordy, the MoS suggestes that section headings be as concise as possible (sections 2,3,6 by the TOC in particular). The lead should be in three sections. Are there any good external sites that could be linked? Is that little disclaimer box really necessary? The see also in the Narrative probably doesn't need to be there.--nixie 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Shortened some of the section headings
    • The lead should be in 3 sections? Why? At the moment the lead reflects the sections, which seems logical
    • External sites have been assimilated into the footnotes
    • Yes, the disclaimer box is really necessary - without it we get objections every time we mention the word "myth". (We get them anyway, but at least with the disclaimer box we explain ourselves)
    • The "see also" in the Narrative section is a guide to anyone wondering why this article doesn't mention the covenant, which is directly connected with the Ark story. PiCo 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article is impressive, readable, meets criteria, its all that and bag of chips boat of animals. Well done! I personally prefer brief intros, these mini-article summaries are sometimes overdone. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I just want to thank everyone who helped get this through to Featured Article status. I feel overwhelmed! PiCo 09:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Frog

Joint self-nomination. This article has been subject to a lot of attention by several editors (signed below) recently. It's had an Article Improvement Drive and a peer review (link); the issues raised in peer review have been addressed.

(Other editors involved but not available at time of nomination: Pstevendactylus, Lejean2000)

Comment The work put into this article was quite staggering during the last month or so. I would love to see this page become featured, as it is very good, and would prove that (with dedication) an article can go from something pretty bad (when I first saw it, frogs were wrongly classfied as Ranids), to "the best of Wikipedia". --liquidGhoul 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Masses of information have been added, the photographs contribute to the whole effect, and the structure is smooth and logical. Joyous | Talk 12:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As I already said in the peer review, you guys did a great job on this article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great collaboration, great article. The attention to detail is impressive.--ragesoss 17:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow! Impressive! --Neigel von Teighen 17:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks great. One small comment, I don't like to see a heading without any text underneath it, as in the "Natural History" section. Can the section have a three sentence overview? –Joke 17:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Article looks good so far. But it need to elaborate more about it's three chambered heart. It's very important in evolution for amphibians to evolve from two chambered fish (artrium and ventricle) and three chambered frog (two atria with one ventricle) and say something about mixing of deoxygenated and oxygenated blood in the same ventricle and how it affect frog physiology. Current article has only one sentence about this, and it's not really put into context. Temporary account 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added two sentences about it, but can someone copyedit? - Samsara contrib talk 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • check out this link http://www.lookd.com/frogs/anatomy.html for some insights! Temporary account 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If you check out Frog zoology there is a section on the heart, and how it works. One of the objectives of the frog article (as I understand it) was to merge these articles. I think this must have slipped through somehow. Do you think we should add the circulation section to the frog article? --liquidGhoul 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Even though wiki's not a paper encyclopeida, I think it's better to merge them. Usually when you search about frog physiology in textbooks or in encyclopedia, it usually re-directs (as see also in the index) to other bigger topics. Wikipedia does have a problem to chopping up one main topic to many smaller, incomplete articles (as stubs), esp in science articles. Temporary account 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I did most of the merging, and took the decision not to include some bits (especially very boring details of the digestive system) that most people will not be interested in. Some of the material in that particular article may well be better suited to Wikibooks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. And I like frogs. RyanGerbil10 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Objection removed, pending resolution of Nixie's queries....Tony 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with the previous reviewer, but Criterion 2a is not yet satisfied. Here are examples.
"Frogs and toads are often distinguished based on appearance, but this has no scientific basis." (Second sentence in the lead.) I guess you mean that frogs and toads are typically distinguished from each other, not from other species; best to reword so that it's clear. The referent of "this" is imprecise. "on the basis of their" would be better than the awkward expression currently used. But most importantly, you imply that people CAN distinguish them on this basis, but then say that it's unscientific; puzzling.
"compared with" not "to" for contrasts.
"have legs modified for jumping rather than walking"—the "have" is awkward here; reword ("their legs ...")
"The physiology of frogs is generally characteristic of other amphibians (and differs from other terrestrial vertebrates) because oxygen may pass through their highly permeable skin. This unique skin allows frogs to "breathe" largely through their skin, but also requires that the skin stay moist at all times". False comparison—you need "that of" before "other", don't you? The first clause is awkward—frogs' physiology is characteristic of other amphibians, so ... um ... I guess it's characteric of frogs too. Can "but also" be replaced by "and thus"? However, there's still an assumption that we know why/how moist skin allows 'breathing'. Needs explanation.

On the surface, it's a good article, but when you scratch that surface it falls apart in many places. The whole text needs careful editing, not just these examples I've plucked out of it. Get a non-contributor to look at it? Tony 07:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the detailed comments. I believe the "compared with" issue is due to regional differences in English usage. Shakespeare writes "to", for instance. The rest has been fixed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather be compared with Hitler than to Hitler. All of the major US and UK style manuals recommend (some insist on) this distinction. Tony 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Get a non-contributor to look at it.": You offering? --liquidGhoul 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't look at who the contributors were; I may be able to help, but it's a rather large job .... (Tony)
  • Support but agree that much of what Tony suggests should be worked out. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - an impressive job; one small note :a drawing of the three-chambered heart would be welcome. JoJan 15:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am now wondering whether this would be better suited to the article about amphibians, as they all share this feature. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. Well done. Giano | talk 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. All comments made so far have been addressed, with the single exception of a three-chambered heart image. If anyone can find or make one with a suitable license, please let us know! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There's nothing about any French person in this article (Just kidding!) Daniel Case 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Should we take your vote seriously? Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • User has confirmed his vote is not a real vote. Please see my talk. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment We need to add more about use of xenopus oocytes in studying the cell cycle in the frog for research section. This together with yeast study have resulted in several Nobel Prizes. Check this out: http://www.nature.com/celldivision/milestones/full/milestone07.html Temporary account 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment...I looked this article over for a couple of days now and the only things I would like to see are a few more references...(I have to go into the fourth section to find the first footnote) and I would also like to see a better clarification that distinguishes a frog from a toad...maybe it is there, but I didn't see it. Otherwise, this is an excellent article.--MONGO 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't have time to work on it now, but true toads are a subset of frogs. Bufonidae should have more detail on it. Some things may not be necessary to include in the frog article. It already exceeds the recommended size "for some browsers". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of Gallery. Otherwise it looks OK. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you be more specific? Are you unhappy with the style of the existing gallery, or the fact that there is a gallery at all? Joyous | Talk 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sure. Wikipedia is not a collection of "photographs with no text to go with the articles". We allow photo galleries to happen sometimes. There are perhaps some cases where content can only be transmutted with them. This is not the case in an article about Frogs and we should hold featured articles to a higher standard. There are plenty of pictures of Frogs which have been integrated into the text. Perhaps several if not all of the images in the gallery could be similarly incorporated. However, I object to having a gallery just because there were far more images than text to house them. If we have a featured article with a gallery it will open the flood gates. Use as many images as the text merits, but don't just throw them all in at the end. That's what WikiCommons is for, which is already linked from the arrticle. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The idea of the gallery is to show the diversity of frogs, there are over 5000 species, and we cannot show this diversity without pictures of varying frogs. We are trying very hard to keep this idea. We have thrown out very good photos because there was already a similar frog, from the same family. We do have two from the genus: Litoria, however one is a ground dwelling tree frog, and one is an arborial tree frog. Again, we are showing the diversity, even within a genus. If we were to just show the taxobox image, and some photos down the side, that would be misleading as to what frogs are. Maybe there should be an explaining sentence at the start of the gallery section? --liquidGhoul 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you convert this gallery to a table formatted list and include more information, such as the location where each species lives. If there's more to be said (diet, habitat, lifespan, etc.) then add that. I suggest List of Oz books and similar featured lists as a model. Regards, 68.101.254.59 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be a good idea, except there is one problem in that you cannot include every frog, or even every frog family. With the Oz books, that includes EVERY book, and it makes sense. Evolution has produced frogs which do not follow straight lines of logic, so it is hard. I don't really see how it would work. --liquidGhoul 06:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an easy objection to address: just state that this is a selective list rather than a comprehensive one. I named that example for its superb presentation. Besides bringing the article into compliance with site policy, a good list can present more useful information and is easier to reference. Unfortunately fewer than 100 of Wikipedia's lists are featured so the poor average quality leads many editors to dismiss the format. Other good examples that integrate pictures and text include List of Final Fantasy titles and List of U.S. states by date of statehood. Durova 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can come up with a good way of presenting the diversity of frogs, then I would implement it, however a list like that is not feasible. You cannot base the list taxonomically, as there is so much diversity within families, and there are far too many genera, and there is still great diversity within genera. There are 50 states, and 11 FF games. There are > 5000 species of frog. Your examples do not apply. --liquidGhoul 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Continued on Wikipedia_talk:Featured article candidates/Frog. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This has become a great,highly informative article. Frankly I don't care if it becomes a featured article or not, because either way you guys did a great job, and I disagree with most of Wikipedia policies (or should I say politics?) Lejean2000 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly on comprehensiveness- as follows:
  1. The lead does not give a sufficient overview of the content of the article
  2. The ordering of sections in not optimal. It would be useful for the reader to introduced to the suborders/families of frog/toad before the differences are dicsussed in terms of physiology and so on
  3. Mositure retention would more logically be called- skin, this section could also then cover other things to do with the skin like skin secretions (which aren't mentioned at all) and Camouflage (which doesn't really fit where it is currently discussed).
  4. The distribution and status section is underdeveloped. Frogs are found worldwide ...., this is obvious. This is a good place to discuss the types of habitats where frogs are most likely to occur and to mention weird exceptions, like the Australian species that live underground in the desert and so on. It warrants more than a sentence. There is a huge body of literature on declining frog populations, which is not reflected here; at the very least the number of recently extinct species and endangered species should be included so the extent of the decline is apparent.
  5. The section on agriculture and research is too brief. Some important discoveries have been made using a frog model, for example the first successful clones were frogs. The reader should understand why frogs are useful for research and how they are used in reseach.
  6. The popular culure section has been shifted to a separate article- I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a little bit of information from there into this article in summary style
  7. Would it be possible for someone involved to make with the images in the article into a picture showing the life cycle (unreleated example). It is a lot more simple for the reader to visualise the detail with a pic like this.
  8. I don't think the gallery adds much - a table illustrating the different suborders included with the section on taxonomy would be useful though.
  9. I also echo Tony'c concerns about the language and grammar

--nixie 04:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I am going to create a list here. I have not completed all of these tasks, but as I do I will reply to your comments. If someone else addresses one of nixies points, use the points below to comment please.--liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1. -
2. I have moved taxonomy to the top of the article. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Renamed it to skin, and merged the camouflage section. Also, I have moved poison so it is directly below it. If you read that section, you will find the skin secretions stuff you wanted. If you want expanding on anything, please tell me specifically. I don't particularly agree with you on this though. The moisture retention section contained specific adaptations the frog used for moisture retention (e.g .desert adaptations) Now it does not fit there. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But it could fit in the section on distribution.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Check out the Decline in frog populations article. It is extensive, and very good. It does not fit into this article, makes it far too long. As for the other section, it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The burrowing frogs ARE mentioned. I don't think it is suitable for distribution as much as it is for moisture retention (which is no longer there - see above). --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my points, which are that (1) That the distribution sentence is completely inadequate - it should be at least a paragraph, and that that paragraph could include some species with unusual adaptations (I don't care which) to flesh it out; (2) an estimate of the decline in frog numbers should be included so that the reader gets a good idea about the extent of the decline.--nixie 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
How is it now? --liquidGhoul 08:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

5 This will take the longest time. I need to get some resources, and it will probably take a little while.
6 Has been done by liquidGhoul. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
7 Unless we can find a GFDL similar to the one you linked to, this may take some time as well. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
8 There are three sub-orders. That does not sufficiently illustrate the diversity of frogs. --liquidGhoul 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, illustrating the diversity of frogs is an impossible task in the bounds of this artilce. A table of images illustrating the suborders would be useful for the reader, so that they are able to see and associate certain characters with each suborder.--nixie 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The suborders are not easily distinguished based on overall appearance. This is an enormous problem for frog taxonomists, not to mention laypersons. The suborders are technically classified based upon such features as number of vertebrae, rows of labial teeth in tadpoles, positions used in the mating embrace (believe it or not), morphological details of the pelvic girdle, number of teeth on various bones in the skull, and (increasingly) genetics. None of these characters will be exemplified from pictures. I think you will agree that they are also not the most interesting features of frog biology to a general audience. Pstevendactylus 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

9 Has been addressed by Tony (see his withdrawal of objection). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Nixie can you please strike out when you are happy with a point. Thanks --liquidGhoul 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. —Encephalon 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Did anybody looked into the article I posted a few days before? We need to add stuff about using frog eggs for research (MPF and cell cycle stuff) to show that in addition to yeast, fly, and mouse as model organisms, FROGS are important too! Also, I think research section should come BEFORE pop culture section. It's ridiculous when pop culture is first when you think about it. Temporary account 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, that will be included with the science section when we get to expanding it. Thanks
  • Comment Woops, looks like Pstevendactylus has already done it. I have rearranged so reasearch is above culture. I thought I had done this originally, as I completely agree with you on the importance. --liquidGhoul 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

--liquidGhoul 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Floyd

This a slight self-nom on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones; I myself have contributed relatively little to the article. It's been through a peer review and was recently assessed and was recommended to FAC. Some final changes were made, and it now looks ready. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I am beyond impressed at how much this article has grown in just the last month. --Golbez 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I have added a lot to this article, and think that this is good enough for FA. Hurricanehink 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Like hurricanehink I've done a lot of work on this article so I'm biased. The only thing that might be left to add is a section on the long-term aftermath - many of the areas affected are poor rural communities that have been made much poorer by the storm. However this is something that is really optional for the article; it might not even be time to write it for a few more years. — jdorje (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks pretty good at a quick glance, I played around with the formatting. Deckiller 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's decent read, has the major events and is adequately linked...just wish the images were a bit bigger in a few situations, but that's not enough to take away from the rest of the excellent work.--MONGO 11:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. Jkelly 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent job. Coffeeboy 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Great work. Rlevse 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome work! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Reluctant object. Is there a reason why in excess of ten images are featured to demonstrate each figure of the hurricane? I'd love to support if one or two were removed, because in my opinion, there are just far too many, whether they are registered under fair use rationale, in the public domain, etc. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I just took a glance, and I don't think I see any redundant images, except perhaps the large flood map of coastal NC. --Golbez 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you be a little more specific? What do you mean by "each figure of the hurricane"? The only problem with pictures I'd see is in the North Carolina section, because there are simply a lot of them even after we moved a couple into other sections. None of them are redundant but they might be too clumped. — jdorje (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I brought up the picture discussion at the talk page. Hurricanehink 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I removed the photograph of flooding in the North Carolina section because there is another picture of flooding in the Virginia section. Hopefully that clears up the problem. (Posted as an edit conflict with Hurricanehink...) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The article is better now, although I'm still hesitant on supporting the nomination because of one image: Image:Floyd- Traffic.jpg. What role does it play? Is it really signifcant to the article? The image could easily be deposited into several articles with a caption reading: "People are on their way from this location" or "This was the traffic in 1997". Its presence doesn't really interest me, for lack of a better word. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
          • That is an image of the evacuation during the hurricane. Hurricanehink 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree, that image is useless. The only interesting thing it shows is the contraflow lane reversal. However we don't know where it is and there's no way even to confirm that it was taken during Floyd. The image has no source given (just a link to the original image, not the document that it comes from). — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't of a single thing wrong with this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, very detailed without having too much information, and I cannot see anything wrong either. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object on minor grounds:
    • Lead section could do with being a bit longer. Three paragraphs would be ideal.
    • First sentence A tropical wave exited the coast of Africa on 2 September reads as if it bears no relation to the hurricane. Suggest rewording to The genesis of Hurricane Floyd can be traced back to a tropical wave which originated near the coast of Africa on 2 September 1999.
    • while void of deep convection - do you mean devoid?
    • What is an eyewall replacement cycle?
    • A strong mid- to upper-level trough eroded the western portion of the ridge - I don't understand this.
    • at its peak tropical storm-force winds spanned a diameter of 580 miles - might be useful to compare this to other well known hurricanes.
    • ...became extratropical...' - what does this mean?
    • Although Floyd's track prediction was above average while out at sea, the forecasts as it approached the coastline were merely average - what does this mean? Who determines whether a forecast is good or bad, and what is 'average'?
    • If water entered the system - which system?
    • Also, a thorough read through with fresh eyes would be good, there are quite a few small grammatical errors and sentences where a slight rephrase could greatly improve clarity. I just did some editing of these but I'm sure more can be done.Worldtraveller 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • For terms like subtropical ridge, extratropical storm, and eyewall replacement cycle, is it sufficient to include a link to their articles or is a full explanation needed within every article that these terms are used in? — jdorje (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • A link to an article, with a brief explanation of a few words as well, would be absolutely perfect. Worldtraveller 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • To "become extratropical" means that the storm loses tropical characteristics (which the article says), "tropical characteristics" meaning that it is powered by the energy released by evaporation and condensation (which the article doesn't say). Is the current wording really not enough? — jdorje (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thing is, 'extratropical' is not a word I've come across, and I expect most people wouldn't know what it means. It sounds a bit like specialist jargon, and that makes readers switch off. I would probably suggest omitting the word, explaining that the storm lost its tropical characteristics (explaining what they are) and link to extratropical storm. I think that would be a lot clearer. Worldtraveller 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • When a tropical storm loses its tropical characteristics and becomes extratropical becomes an important event in the history of the storm. I'll add a link to Extratropical cyclone, if that's ok? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree that the term is important (it is very common usage), but we do have to be careful to give short explanations when we use a technical term like this. Not sure about "eyewall replacement cycle" (how would you describe that except as a "cycle where the eyewall is replaced"?), so simply adding a link is probably okay there. — jdorje (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I clarified the "average forecasts" sentence. The "average" referred to is the 10-year average; the NHC always assesses their forecasts in every hurricane report by making this comparison (of course since forecasting will improve over the course of 10 years, most hurricanes' forecasts exceed the 10-year average, so an "average" forecast is not very good). Anyway, the wording here could probably be improved but I'm not sure how. — jdorje (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written. Gflores Talk 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon

"Smell'd that Smoak, figur'd you'd be needing something to nibble on," the doughty Mrs. W. greets them. (Mason & Dixon, chapter 28)

Partial self-nomination. I wrote big chunks of this, though many of them have been chopped up, rearranged and generally improved since then. (If I listed all the users who made good and important contributions, I'd be sure to slight somebody and forget their name, so I'll just make a blanket acknowledgement here.) I posted this to peer review and got one comment, which I addressed. It is as comprehensive and NPOV as we could make it, and it has enough parenthetical documentation to satisfy even the footnote fetish of a Wikipediphile like myself. Anville 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Very good article that I hope to support. I'd like to see the literary-style citations converted to the Cite.php style (see Dixie (song) or Krazy Kat for ideas on how to do this, with the footnotes in one section and the list of references in another). I would also like to see a citation for this sentence: "However, the full Pulitzer panel vetoed their decision, describing the novel as 'unreadable', 'turgid', 'overwritten', and in parts 'obscene'." Andrew Levine 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The sentence is now cited. (I didn't do it, but I should note that it got done.) Anville 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object only for failure to mention the Irwin Corey incident, one of the very few early occasions when Pynchon received mass media attention. Monicasdude 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Support Monicasdude 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Done, I think. Anville 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- I didn't realize those were footnotes at first-I never have seem them done like that before, but it works perfectly fine. AndyZ 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) *Object per Andrew Levine's comment - no inline citations, 2(c) of FA criteria. AndyZ 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: Harvard referencing is listed as an appropriate style of in-line citation at Wikipedia:Cite sources. It is much "cleaner" than the footnote style, though I agree that there could be some internal and/or external hyperlinking (to online sources) within the body of the text (if that is allowable under Wikipedia conventions). Abaca 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll poke in to agree that the Harvard style references are totally okay. It's a perfectly fine way to meet the requirement for inline citation. Monicadude's objection should be addressed though. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I still prefer the Cite.php and would rather see it used here. Maybe I will add it later. Andrew Levine 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I would like to see footnotes and inline citations; also, some sections are a bit lengthy. Perhaps breaking them down into sub-section or "main articles"? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I transitioned the article over to the Cite.php methodology, using Krazy Kat as my model. I also expanded the bit about "hypertext fiction", since the article on that topic doesn't really explain why Pynchon matters in that context. (To do it right, we'd need a new article somewhere about "hypertextual literary criticism" or some such, and wading through the lit-crit chaff to find the wheat for that is a little intimidating even for me.) The "Recurring themes" section is now subdivided. I couldn't think of a good way to split any of the others, though since the whole page is only now 34 Kb (including references and notes), I don't think we're at the point where we need sub-articles. Call me when it hits 45 Kb, and we'll talk!  :) Anville 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, disregard all that. I really don't want to get into an edit war over what content to include and which reference style to use. When I am less irritated, I will try to work on this in a sensible fashion; for now, I'll just fume quietly. Anville 15:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I'm done fuming; as I expected, after a good night's sleep it all matters less. Feel free to read my rough draft to see how my own stylistic quirks play out. Anville 07:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article about a major literary figure. I'm not fussed about the citation style issue, just so long as its clear where the information comes from. Lisiate 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The mediawiki citation style, while nice, is not the only acceptable style. This objection is flatly invalid and future objections for this reason will also be flatly ignored. Raul654 07:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh. Anville 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Withdrawn, I caught article in middle of bad timing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, though it's close.
    • There should be a summary under "Biography" and "Media scrutiny"
    • While I have no problem with the idea of using that style of citation, there should be consistency in format and tone (remove stuff like "see, for example"), and I think the external links ought to be moved to the references section
    • If the see alsos are linked to elsewhere, they should be removed. If not, they should be.
  • Tuf-Kat 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a summary paragraph to "Media scrutiny". If anyone else cares to write one for "Biography", they're welcome, although I think that such a paragraph would basically amount to repeating the lead immediately after the lead (not so helpful). I went through the parenthetical citations and adapted them to <span> tags, so that clicking the citation automagically transfers the reader to the appropriate place in the "References" section. (This has the advantage that external links only need to be checked and fixed in one place; it also makes the citations look more uniform.) I removed a few extraneous "see" and "see also" particles and generally tried to make the referencing consistent. However, I think the "for example" with regard to the Nobel Prize comment should stay, since in that case, the comment being referenced is one repeated by many, many sources. The article provides three sources, marginally more distinguished than the rest, out of the great mass all saying the same thing.
According to the Citations style guide, it is appropriate to keep external links and whatnot which pertain to the topic and may be of interest but which have not been used as specific sources in a section entitled "Further reading" or "External links".
Finally, I worked the bullet points in the "See also" section into the text, and removed the section. Anville 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Technical question re. referencing. Is there a way to create a "[back]" command at the end of each footnote which returns you to the point in the text you were at, instead of having to scroll down again from the top? Abaca 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not aware of a way to do this; at least, I haven't seen it done on any other article. I suppose one could the same system in reverse: put <span> tags in the article text and use wikilinks like [[#note_1|back to note 1]] in the References section. The trouble is that we use some sources (like Royster 2005) more than once. Cite.php has facilities for handling this, but I don't know how to work it out in Harvard style. Hitting the "back" button in one's browser is probably simpler, and as far as I know it works for everybody. Anville 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

I've worked on this quite a bit for the past two weeks. I guess you could call this a self-nomination. It's complete and well-referenced. I believe I've resolved all issues presented in its Peer Review. Gflores Talk 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Solid article, decent footnotes, awesome images. Concise, with appropriate satellite articles for each topic. I think it's pretty good. Deckiller 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Deckiller Captain Jackson 01:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question would converting the footnotes to Cite.pphp formet cause issues with the editors? I was about to ask at the talk page, but I figured here is no worse a place to do it. Circeus 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't mind. I'm not really familiar with that particular reference format, but I guess it's ok. Is that format better in some way? You're free to change it if you want. :) Gflores Talk 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • As far as the wiki source code is concerned, it leaves the reference in it's location within the text and takes only one tag (<references />) at the bottom of the article. All links between notes and footnotes are generated automatically. It is that technique that is used in otehr FAC Salsa music Circeus 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it's done now, how does it look? I hope I didn't mix any notes in my copy-pasting. Circeus 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Looks great, thanks! Gflores Talk 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll support with slight concern that Antarctica is more complete on that topic than "main article" Geography of Antarctica. Circeus 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --BACbKA 10:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose - dislike the reference style William M. Connolley 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the ref/ref system used is a perfectly legit inline citation system used, so that is not a valid objection. I personally prefer the ref/note system, but ref/ref has been used by other FAs.Rlevse 15:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Invalid reason to object. Gflores Talk 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand that complaints about other ref styles have been considered valid elsewhere William M. Connolley 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is this really actionable? (i.e. is it possible to find a system that satisfies every editor?) Why do you dislike it? –Joke 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This is really a marker for elsewhere (global warming) - I prefer inline links, and am often told that these are "forbidden" for FAC. I'll be delighted if people insist that ref style is inadmissable as a criterion. William M. Connolley 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
      • I really don't want to step into a firestorm here, but I can aboslutely tell you that inline ref style is currently innadmissable as a FAC objection. The reason is simple: there is no consensus over which style is best, so any style that is used and retains the citation information and does it well is fine. That has been consistently held for a long time. Although now that cite.php has gotten so much work into it, I can see that it will eventually be the preferred form. - Taxman Talk 05:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Taxman is right, any inline citation system is currently acceptable (this means the footnote somehow appears in the bottom somehow) and that the only INacceptable system is external links being in the text as it causes the reader to jump out of the article. An Inacceptable external link for FAC purposes appears like this: Go to Google[13]
          • No, the footnote doesn't have to appear at the bottom, there doesn't have to be a footnote at all. Footnotes are not compulsory. Please note this, as reviewers frequently, mistakenly, state or imply that footnotes are a must for FAs. Not true. While inline links are deprecated, for good reasons, inline parenthetic references to print sources are perfectly acceptable. Like this (Raul, 654), where Raul is the author of a source listed in the References section. See FA John Vanbrugh for an example of this style (actually somebody has added one footnote, a rather nice one, since I did the references :-)). Personally, I prefer wherever possible to avoid footnotes, with their distracting jump out of the text and their to some readers off-puttingly "learned" apperance. Bishonen | talk 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Question before support or oppose: What on earth is Peter di Fazio doing in there? He's not a geographic or historical expert, and his standing derives from an elected office. Secondly, why do you say that it was spotted on 1820 "New Style?" Old Style/New Style relates to a calendar reform in 1711. I.e. every date is "New Style" by 1715. The only time one needs to convert is before that, and the only times we usually perform the conversion is when the date is near the change. (E.g. Robert Gould died in 1708/1709 NS because he died in January 1708, Old Style, but January is in the next year, New Style.) Is there a Russian calendar issue at play? If so, it's probably not great to use the term "New Style" that points to the British reform. Geogre 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've replaced that source with two others. On the second point, you're right. I've removed the term now. Gflores Talk 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: My objections have been answered. (I figured that there was a Russian calendar reform around the time, so it was more infelicitous phrasing than a non-germane point.) Geogre 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor objections - I agree with Geogre - how is diFazio considered an authorative source compared to the NSF, etc? Also, in the "Flora and fauna" section, I don't particularly like the text sandwiched between two images. Would it be possible to move it down? Overall, though, great article. Thanks! <Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Intersting points. The Flora/Fauna issue may vary based on screen size and resolution. Deckiller 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've reorganized the pictures across the article forright/left alternancy. A specific picfor the Flora section would be nice, though. The current one doesn't make much sense. Circeus 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I like the new layout, some of the pictures go off into other sections. (see my comment on the talk page). I would like to hear some input from other people on this new look. A lichen picture is on the way for the flora section. On second thought, it's ok. I don't feel to strongly about it now that I've removed the seal image and inserted the lichen image. Gflores Talk 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding the diFrazio source, I've now removed it. For the images, I'm not sure where it should/could be moved. I guess I could just take one of them out. It looks good to me. :) Do you have a suggestion for where to move it? Gflores Talk 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The new picture format looks good! However, I still have a disagreement with the wording of the sentence where the diFazio quote was; it reads: According to various sources (...) and other sources... Surely a synonym for sources can be found? (The close parenthesis was also missing, something I've rectified.) This should be a relatively minor fix, but I can't think of a good wording now. Also, please don't strike my comments out; if the objections been fixed, I'll do that, or if I forget, feel free to remind me. (Otherwise, Raul will notice that it's already been fixed, even without strikeout.) However, don't assume anything. :-) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I changed the first 'sources' to organizations. Thanks for the quick fix and sorry for striking out your comments, I wasn't sure if I did that or someone else. Gflores Talk 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: is there a reference provided in the article noting that the Greek translation means "opposite of the Arctic"? After searching it through a few times, I can't find one. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I didn't know references were needed for translations... see Xiangqi, Oxyrhynchus. But alright, I've added a source. :) Gflores Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You are not allowed to strike other people's comments, regardless if they re-address them or not. However, I support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, I have one fundamental and a few technical concerns:
    • The "History" section only covers the period from the late 17th century to 1911 and only mentions discoveries and firsts. A quote from one of the references: "Of the world’s 61,000 nonfiction papers and books published about the Antarctic since the earliest papers dating from the 1600s, 91 percent have been published since 1951." Perhaps re-name to "Discovery" or extend to include post-1912 happenings.
    • The first sentence is a one-sentence paragraph. An article may be able to get away with that in the body but not as the introductory paragraph, and especailly when there are three other paragraphs in the introductory section. The first sentence is excellent but does not stand on its own as a paragraph.
    • The reference concerning James Cook does not support the statement. Also, please clarify what "crossed the Antarctic Circle" means, that is its relevance/importance (the "Geography" section is still a couple sentences away).
    • All values should have a "& n b s p ;"  (why doesn't nowiki work with that?) between the number and the unit. --maclean25 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've made some changes. For the intro, I like how it begins with a one-liner, I've seen other FAs do this and I think it looks fine. However, I have added another line (about its geography). I changed history to exploration and added a bit more. Changed reference for James Cook. I'm not familiar with "&nbsp ;", where do I use it and why? Maybe someone can help me out here? Gflores Talk 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Can someone please provide a reference for the volcanoe section? I am having a difficult time fact-checking this. --maclean25 03:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Rewrote it with references. Also added image of Mt. Erebus. I've added the non-breaking spaces now. Gflores Talk 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support –Joke 21:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice article. Rlevse 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As it is one of the greatest articles and is about one of the greatest places on Earth. Tarret 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article, good layout. Pretty confident this will be a featured article. Uncke Herb 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object I so wanted to support this article since its layout and the content that is there is so great. However, we can't have an article on a continent be featured without a section on the geology of the place. VERY important things absent; that it was part of the supercontinent Pangaea, then a couple other continents, and finally its separation from Australia and India prior to it becoming stuck centered on the South Pole and then froze over. What's is even more astounding is the lack of a mention that our current cold climate (ice ages interrupted by inter-glacial periods) is in large part due to the formation of a circumpolar current around Antarctica and albedo from reflected snow that formed on it. That in turn reduced forests in Africa and encouraged grasses to take over. In other words, the geology of Antarctica is linked to getting our evolutionary ancestors out of the trees and standing to see over the grass. WE CANNOT feature this article until it gets a geology section. If I have time I will help, but until then this article can't get featured. Also, no mention that at one time parts of Antarctica had huge forests, swamps, dinosaurs, and very abundant life. Think about questions a child may ask or want to know; Why is Antarctica cold? Was it always like it is today? --mav 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of my objections have been fixed. --mav
  • Object for now per mav. Even simple things like coal deposits are only mentioned in passing under Economy, even though it is a huge part of the theory of continental drift and modern geology. --Rory096 06:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose - the article is great, but not comprehensive enough. I'd like to see 'Antarctica in fiction' section (references in culture, popular and otherwise), an explanation of where does the name come from (ethymology), something more on history of continent before the 'discovery' and exploration age (geology per mav), a paragraph on faune and flora before the continent was covered in ice and finally, at least a comment on the theories that there was some human (?) civilization (Daniken, Atlantis, etc. - perhaps in the popular culture section).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. --Terence Ong 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • How can you support given the above objections? Do you not think that having information on the geology of a continent is important to have in an article on that continent? --mav
  • Comment It's a lovely article and I'd like to support, but there is one small problem I noticed. Tourism is mentioned only in passing, but from news accounts I've read for the past several years, Antarctic tourism has increased rapidly over the past decade with many cruise ships coming from Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. Some people are now concerned about environmental effects and talking about a yearly tourist limit. Has anybody else heard about these issues? I think they should be mentioned in the article. --Sophitus 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost there. No full object because this is quite excellent. The Geology section exists now per Mav but needs a little more meat. Effects of Global warming should be mentioned directly rather than just alluded to. I'm neither here nor there on the "in fiction" stuff, but if it addresses others objections and swings this close to an FA, go for it. Otherwise, good job. Marskell 13:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article covers the Antarctic Continent proper, while in the English language 'Antarctica' refers both to the mainland and the wider geographical region comprising also the islands and waters situated south of the Antarctic Convergence. (See the article Livingston Island for further details.) Arguably, the article ought to cover the rest of Antarctica as well. Apcbg 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Salsa music

Self-nom. I've been working on this article for awhile. It's difficult because the word salsa means different things to different people -- there's a section in the article explaining the history of the word (as a music genre). Until a few days ago, there was an anon inserting unencyclopedic comments about how this article was contradictory and such, but he's been quiet for awhile -- if you see something odd when evaluating the article, please check the history to see if he's come back. FTR, I think he's upset because the article explains that this term is used for Cuban-American dance music prior to the 60s/70s, which he feels diminishes the Puerto Rican contribution to modern salsa... (or something, I'm just guessing). Anyway, I didn't want this article to be rejected for being unstable, so I waited a week since his last edit, and I think it's fine now. Tuf-Kat 01:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks solid to me. Good lead, good organization, good references. Fieari 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A good and solid article. --Siva1979Talk to me09:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive article. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting read, I support. However, would it be possible to find a few more images, particularly for the history section. Secondly, I noticed there's no link to Salsa (dance). Surely there should be some connection between the two, don't you agree? Gflores Talk 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Link added to the lead (was there at one point, must've got accidentally cut). I'm looking through Flickr for more free images (that's how I found the Vives and salsa band pics), and I think it's pretty likely I'll eventually find some more... that might take a while though. Tuf-Kat 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Put a link in the infobox too. Tuf-Kat 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I may dislike salsa music, but this article is certainly one of the better ones on Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A very well written and referenced article. -- Samir ∙ T C 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's almost a pity that well written articles like this one don't get as much comment as the ones that need work... I almost feel like there should be a discussion on exactly what this article did RIGHT in order to balance all those other nominations where we talk about what those articles do wrong... heh. Ah well. I'm probably just being silly. Squeeky wheel gets the grease and all that. I just wish there was a better way of showing people what a featured article should look like than just pointing at the examples and regulations... Fieari 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well done, but why are there no "See also" or "external links"? 140.32.75.34 19:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Everything worth linking to is in the article, I think, hence no see alsos. In my research, no external links jumped out at me as being useful (aside from the 2 refs), so there are none. Feel free to add or suggest some. Tuf-Kat 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I was just curious. Rlevse 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done. Rlevse 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. (I first tried to cast the vote during the "wikistorm" preceding the last database lock...) The "primary" in 2 sentences in a row in the beginning is a bit of an eyesore, but I don't have a neat rewording of the two sentences. Maybe move things about? --BACbKA 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point, I have changed one instance to "essentially", which is probably more informative in this context. Tuf-Kat 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a good article and should eventually be featured, but there are a couple of factual errors which make me want to check a few more references first. The 70s and 80s paragraphs could be tightened slightly. Thematically, I think something could usefully be added about the resurgence of the tipico style in the 90s. I will try to correct the straight factual errors in the next 24 hours. James barton 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a difference between salsero and sonero (and sonera)? One of my source uses both, and one uses only the former. Thanks for your help. Tuf-Kat 04:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • A sonero or sonera is a musician who produces Son music. A salsero is Salsa musician (or dancer). So the terms are similar but not synonomous. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm more used to seeing salsero refer to dancers than musicians, and sonero mean salsa singers, particularly those who can improvise. I will try to find a reference for this. James barton 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Google [14] agrees with both definitions. One of the articles it brought up led me to this [15] which only mentions the son connection in passing before talking about soneros as singers. James barton 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good overall. Only thing I don't like is the location of those inline citations; seems inconsistent with the majority of FAs. A relatively minor issue though; good work on this. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I came across this article by chance, and in a very quick scan found factual errors right away. I would recommend a more rigorous search of the peer-reviewed literature for one thing.
    • If your only concerns are the ones presented on the talk page, I think I've fixed the issue. That paragraph is cited to the only source I have access to which covers the subject (90s Colombian salsa). If you have any further concerns, please mention them here or on the talk page. Tuf-Kat 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but (I'm sorry) that's not the only concern, and that section is not really fixed. Carlos Vives has nothing to do with salsa, period. He's not a salsa musician, and his music is not salsa-fused anything. Please do be careful when using Rough Guides as a source - they are (as the name aptly suggests) only rough guides and this one in particular does in fact get things wrong. Beyond the printed Rough Guides, their musical compilations get things wildly wrong - for example, their Puerto Rican "salsa" collection features mostly plenas and bombas. Anyway. Also in the same section, it's Sonora Carruseles (not Sonoro ...). Beyond that, I should point out that Puerto Ricans are not immigrants to the US - Puerto Ricans are US citizens, and it was Puerto Rican musicians in NYC who created and pioneered salsa, working with some traditional Cuban musical forms, and working with Cuban and other Latin American musicians. Beyond pioneering salsa, it was in Puerto Rican communities in the US and in Puerto Rico that salsa first became a hugely popular musical style. That's not really mentioned in this article, but it's really important to understanding the roots of the music, the musicians, and the cultural significance of salsa within Latino communities. You mention that an anonymous Puerto Rican had some earlier objections to your article - I haven't read them, but I would imagine that was a big part. I would agree with that person. Similarly, Spangineer (above) points out the correct definitions of salsero (=salsa musician / dancer) and sonero (=son musician). These terms are not synonymous. Google is not a definitive source here - anyone can make a mistake and post it on the web. That's all for now - I hope this is helpful. I wish you well.
  • First of all, Puerto Ricans are just as capable of immigrating to New York or Miami as Cubans or Texans. Secondly, while you may not like Rough Guides, they are a published, verifiable source. Thirdly, this article says Vives fused salsa with vallenato and rock, which is a claim sourced to the person who made it (by an author who writes on Latin and Caribbean music for several magazines, and has had a book published on salsa). Lastly, I don't think the Puerto Rican influence is at all understated -- the article does say the culture was "primarily Puerto Rican", and in any case, all claims related to either Cubanness or Puerto Ricanness are sourced, and many widely-varying opinions are presented. If you can cite a reasonable source that gives a more prominent Puerto Rican emphasis, then that can be added too. Tuf-Kat 08:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've got another book now that I can look in, but since it's about Cuba primarily, I doubt it will be a source for what you're looking for on the Puerto Rico issue. But then, I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've put quite a bit in based on the new book, some of which has to do with Puerto Rico. Does this help with your concerns? Tuf-Kat 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive and I see no problem with your sources. Kafziel 18:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Interesting and seems thorough. I'm not a salsa expert, so I can't comment on the details. The reference titles sound comprehensive enough and reliable. I did have one significant style problem, to do with the explanation of lack of a clear, universal definition, which is covered in "The word salsa", and spills over into the next section, "Characteristics" (particularly the second para there, "The singer Rubén Blades once claimed..."). For me, there is too much equivocation and uncertainty for too long off the top, which sets up a little doubt about the rest of the article. I'd confine stuff like "are doubtful that the term salsa has any useful meaning at all" to the "word" section--the differing views are made plain there--and adopt a more direct, declarative tone in "Characteristics": "according to X...", "according to Y...", type of thing. --Tsavage 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've moved about one and a half paragraphs from "characteristics" to the "word" section and did quite a bit of reorganizing (wow, would've taken hours if not for the new citation system, and I probably still would've mucked up a few footnotes). "Characteristics" has a much tighter focus now, which I think has been a significant improvement. Tuf-Kat 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it now sounds a lot more authoritative to me! :) --Tsavage 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Malaysia Plan

I just created this a few minutes ago; I've sacrificed my sleep to produce a really good article, despite my (self-admitted) lack of knowledge about this subject. I hope the writing is up to par, and that my reliance on a limited number of sources won't hurt. (I'll try to dig up more tomorrow, if I can.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - message me when you've added some external links and added som <small> tags around the references and I'll gladly support. Keep up the excelent work! --Celestianpower háblame 19:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, you persuaded me. Support --Celestianpower háblame 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Can probbaly use more cats (Why "government?" wouLdn't "economy" and "history" be much more appropriate?) and a "see also" sections. Also, could you reduce the repeated list of author to just "Henderson et al"?
    • "Malaysian Chinese" I think is misleading, besides, it redirects to "Chinese Malaysian", which is clearer.
    • In several instances, it mentionned that the plan "continues the first", you might want to explicitate a tiny bit more than just linkingto the other article, especially seeing as said article is a stub. I think Second Malaysia Plan might contain more information about the First Malayan Five Year Plan than First Malayan Five Year Plan itself!
    • While not a requirement, I'd like to see more of these agencies made blue links before the article is featured.
    • Article has virtually no backlink.
    • the 1974 Green Book program encouraged farmers to grow minor crops such as fruits and vegetables I'm sure it's possible to be more explicit/precise about the crops
    • The land development and resettlement policies [...] failed to make an impact on rural poverty. Always the question: why, oh why? Enquiring minds want to know! If it is supposed to be explained in the paragraph, then it fails at it. I found it quite confusing.
    • Needs to make sure refs don't slip on next lines by removing preceding spaces or making them non-braking.
  • That'll be it for now. Most of the article looks good, though, and it is well structured. Circeus 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try to tackle some of these problems later on; I see somebody has already shrunk the references section appropriately. I'm not sure why external links are necessary; in the first place, there is already a rather large systemic bias in Malaysia that ignores the plan (Google only turns up about 300 hits for it), and considering how few Malaysian government departments have gotten anything substantial onto their websites, I'd be surprised if there are any links relevant to the article. I'll see what I can find, though (but it's just as likely I might end up citing those as sources, too). Means' book is my source for the death figures; I'll probably add it to the May 13 Incident article later today as well. I've been trying to scrape together material on the government agencies, but again, there's a dearth of published works available on these, especially in Malaysia (note how my main source for this article was an American book). I'm not sure where the article could be linked from, since in the first place, our Malaysian government/policy articles are rather lacking. (Malaysian New Economic Policy could link to it, I guess.) I'm not sure what's meant by implying this article has more on the First Malayan Five Year Plan than the article itself does; the plan is mentioned only once. Have you confused it with the First Malaysia Plan, a rather substantial article? Johnleemk | Talk 06:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does seem that I confused these two Circeus 11:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think I've handled everything except the external links (which isn't an FA criteria, last time I checked) and the red links. Most online documents I've found mention the Second Malaysia Plan only in passing or as part of a greater topic (i.e. Agriculture in Malaysia), so linking them would be irrelevant and pretty pointless, IMO. I'm trying to work on the red links, and hopefully most of them should be blue in a few days. (I'm trying to get quality, not quantity for them, which makes it a bit hard to just create a stub for all of them -- see what I did with Majlis Amanah Rakyat.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There are actually quite a fewpoints you didn't cover,ornot quite adequately:
    • Needs citation in places, notably for the numbers of death in the May 13 Incident, as said article does not cite either. Stats on unemployment wold be nicve to be sourced too.
      • "although others have given much larger estimates" → This really needs a citation, I believe. Are there reports from NGO or the UN that can be cited?
    • The mining section is glossed over without explaining, for example, why the malay participation in the industry remained so reduced.
      • While the section has been expanded, the reasons (if any) why the plan failed in this area is still not explained.
    • by the end of the plan, the rise of oil palm estates, and the decline of the rubber industry had been assured. How is this relevant or a good thing? I certainly can't tell by just reading the article.
      • I'm still not sure, reading the article, whether the devellopments on this front were what was intended or considered successful.
    • I found the paragraph on rail transport to have very little in the way of actual information.
      • Still think the section is a bit lacking compared to the others, though I can't tell if it is to be expected as I know next to nothing about malaysian economy/history.
  • And an extra wild shot: Could there be more illustration (say one by big section)? Generic,but related pics should be available, I think. It is also a small pet peeves of mine, but I think it's overall pertinent that pictures should not be placed at the end of a section if they are meant to illustrate the next one. Circeus 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: If you cite the same source multiple times, use ibid and op cit rather than repeating the author information several times. Also, I really think that the references should be the same size as the rest of the body text. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While one might dislike a given ref style, it is not a valid FAC objection (what criterion can it fall under?) Also, plenty of FA and FAC (actually, almost all of them, I think) do not use the ibid or op cit abbreviations. Circeus 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason I suggested that ibid and op cit be used is so that Henderson et al would not appear 29 times over a in mostly consecutive chunks. Having it the way it is is not brilliant or compelling. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I support the usage of ibid. It would be better if Wikipedia starts adhere to acception referencing style. Ibid is cleaner too. __earth (Talk) 09:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with this is that it depends on the document being stable (i.e. new sources being added or old ones being removed infrequently, if at all). On a wiki, the document in question is rarely ever stable. For instance, even though Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia became featured less than three months ago, it's already changed quite a bit -- especially in terms of citations. Using ibid would only complicate the process of editing. And op cit still requires the author's name, so I don't see how it changes anything; if anything, my method is more brief, since it just omits the op cit and cites the page number right after the name. Johnleemk | Talk 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, my source for the casualty estimates is Means. Although he (and most proponents of the "more than 200 deaths" theory I've found) admit there's no concrete evidence to back up their claims, many eyewitnesses refuse to believe only 200 died, based on their experiences. The commenters at this local news website didn't bat an eyelid estimating the number dead at "10,000". In this post to a mailing list, journalist MGG Pillai (who personally knew many politicians of the time, including then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman) offhandedly estimated the total dead at "less than 1,000", while another commenter put it at "thousands of people". I've never heard of any NGO or UN reports on the riots; Means attributes the claims to "journalists". I'd cite the stuff I linked to, but the problem is I doubt they're credible enough for WP:V, and don't really deal with the subject in depth. For illustrations, I've tried to find relevant pictures, but it's very hard. I'll see if I can take any of my own, but there's only one source in the whole of Malaysia for free images (LensaMalaysia.com), and parts of it are still down after it was hacked earlier this month. I'll try to work on the rest, but it's going to be difficult -- Malaysia is not known for publishing credible academic reports (nearly all my sources for this article have been foreign in origin, and practically all the academic reports on May 13 that I turned up were written by foreign academics). Johnleemk | Talk 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Re May 13, for something more immediately verifiable, the World Bank says "Unofficial estimates suggested that many more Chinese had died." Johnleemk | Talk 11:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, done -- I've expanded the mining, agriculture and transport sections as best as I can. No further luck with credible research on May 13 casualties, however. Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems to adress everything. Would still like to see more pics, but can see promotion as is nonetheless. Circeus 16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - there are still quite a few places missing refs. For example: It boldly set out to "restructure society" and.... Why is "restructure society" in quotes? Is it taken from somewhere (which would require a ref) or is it original writing? (It reads like it's taken from somewhere, but that's only my guess.) Also: M$7.25 billion in total was allocated for the Second Malaysia Plan. Source? in the words of one commentator, "a virtual monopoly of private industrial and commercial employment" Which commentator? When, where, why, who? This contrasted with the 15% growth achieved in 1974, which well exceeded the target of 12.5% growth per year during the Second Malaysia Plan. Again, needs ref. In other words, I'd like to see more refs, especially to those quoted materials. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've cited my source for "restructure society", and all the others have already been cited. I generally place my footnotes at the end of a paragraph, unless there's a specific fact that is corroborated by a different specific source. There's no point in citing the same book over and over in consecutive sentences when you can just merge all of them into one "Foo, pp. 76–80." at the end of the paragraph. I can't find any information about the commentator in question (J.P. Arlès), so if you really don't like the article with it, I'll just chop it out entirely. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply! Do you remember where you got that commentator's quote? If so, couldn't you add it in? It's not that critical, but would be nice to provide attribution. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The same source where I got 2/3rds of the article content from — Henderson, et al. ;-) Johnleemk | Talk 06:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the reply! I'll withdraw my objection and re-read the article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. __earth (Talk) 09:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Partial self nom. Legend. --PopUpPirate 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Everything seems in order. Meets FA criteria as it is, but seems like it could improve to an even better level of quality. Would be an average Featured Article, seems like it could be among the best of FAs. RyanGerbil10 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm particularly happy with the references; I still would like to see a slightly longer lead, as per my comments on peer review. RobthTalk 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - If the lead is lengthened. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Lead section increased by a paragraph, I've moved the section about the £2 coin and bicentenary celebrations to the top where I think they look better --PopUpPirate 18:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: should probably remove the external links from the body of the article. Use a footnote and keep the ext. links in the references. Ease off the one-sentence paragraphs like "Brunel University in London is, perhaps obviously, named after Isambard." Also, remove the links in the "See Also" section that are already linked in the body. --maclean25 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A great article. -- Siva1979Talk to me 16:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too short sections. --Off! 06:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "Too short sections"? Which ones? There is only one one-paragraph section ('Brunel's "atmospheric caper"'), which I think is actually fine. "Legacy" is a bit choppy, but the other sections are also fine. I suspect, however, that there is more that could be said. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Plus to expand sections would be duplicating articles like The Great Eastern / Clifton Suspension Bridge, etc, which are all worthy of their own articles. --PopUpPirate 11:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, the relevant facts from those articles should be included here too (following Wikipedia:Summary style). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I've re-read through the article and added where I can, with referenced works, mainly in the Bridges section. --PopUpPirate 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful article! The only (and fairly minor) problem I would have is with the "See Also" section. Perhaps you might rename it "Other structures by Brunel"? Otherwise, congrats on a fine article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean, but "See Also" is a commonly used section on wp, so I'll prob keep it for consistencies sake. Ta for support! --PopUpPirate 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good indeed. I specifically like the "time line", I must learn how to do that. Giano | talk 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I love the article and think it has FA potential. I'd like to see mention, though of Brunel's design of the train sheds at Bristol's Temple Gate and Paddington Station. Both the architecture and engineering of these structures were very significant at the time. --Sophitus 09:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think "main articles" or "for more details" templates should be added to the relevant sections. Also, it seems to me that the article is more detailed than atmospheric railway. Circeus 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added (what I consider to be) relevant main article links, looks better for it I must admit. --PopUpPirate 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Good references, comprehensive and contains a lot of good pictures. Afonso Silva 14:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; lengthy, stable and very interesting. The timeline is a nice touch. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New Radicals

Self-nomination. It is a rather short article (which is probably unavoidable since the band was only really around for less then a year), but comprehensive and (hopefully) well written, and since it has been listed as a good article and did well in peer review and in the Featured Music Project evaluation (the only problem, lacking fair use rationales for images, has been taken care of) I thought I'd give it a try and nominate it. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'd come right out and say yes, but the relative shortness of the article is the only thing that's stopping me. --CJ Marsicano 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Could use some reorganization... the history section is long, and could be broken up by sections. Could use a section dedicated to discussing critical review of the group. Have there been negative reviews? For comprehensiveness sake, there could be a section discussing the style of music they play, what makes them different from other bands, and anything notable about them in that area. Is there any more that could be said about the fact that the group was so short lived? Fieari 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, some of the content of various critical reviews (including negative comments, and some describtions of their musical style) are included in the History's first paragraph. I also just added some more quotes from reviews.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I get what you're saying... I just feel uncomfortable supporting an article this short. I can't honestly say at this point what is lacking or what could be added, but I feel like there should be something. Since a vague feeling/desire for more information isn't exactly actionable, I'll switch to Neutral, as above. Fieari 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, meets all FAC criteria. But I too would like to see the history split into subsections.--Fallout boy 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I split the History section into several subsections now. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the history needed to be split into subsections, but I'm fine with that. I'd support but now there's no content directly under "History". Put a paragraph or two summary there and I'll support. Tuf-Kat 18:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
After having another look at other featured band articles, I decided to reverse the split again, as the whole History section is about the length of individual subsections for other bands that were around longer (see Duran Duran, Marilyn Manson, Nirvana; The Beatles also has a very long History section without subsections) and a summary on top of the section probably wouldn't differ much from the lead. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of what I thought too. Support. Tuf-Kat 18:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive, well written, well structured. The length is appropriate - the band had a short life and they didn't change the world, so what more needs to be said about them? The article covers everything important in appropriate depth. It should be judged for its completeness, not for the number of words used to create it because, let's face it, there are way too many articles on Wikipedia that are bloated from too much unnecessary padding. This article has no padding - great! That should be the aim. I'd love to see another sound sample or two added though, simply because "You Get What You Give" is so well known that it would be interesting to hear something that's not quite so recognisable. Rossrs 11:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A few minor points:
    1. I don't like The concept behind the band was a revolving door... - seems a potentially confusing statement, and the link seems pretty useless.
    2. Do all the session musicians mentioned really need a red link?
    3. In the history section, the paraphrasing seems a bit clumsy, could this be reworded so there doesn't need to be any [he] or [him] business?
    4. ...Alexander would often use promotional interviews to talk about these topics, complaining about—among other things—corrupt, greedy politicians and corporate officers, credit card interest, the poor American social security system and lack of education. - can you provide a reference for this bit
    5. In the legacy section, Even after their breakup, the New Radicals' songs were still used... seems unnecessarily emphatic. How about, Since their breakup, the New Radicals' songs have been used...
otherwise, pretty impressive stuff. Flowerparty■ 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I rewrote the sentence and removed the link. Hope it's clearer now.
  2. I removed most of the redlinks now.
  3. I think it reads more fluent this way, than having to use direct speech or chop up the quotes.
  4. done.
  5. done.
Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, it gets my support. Flowerparty■ 12:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bit on the short side, also consider a band box right at the bottom of the page, similar to the FA Iron Maiden --PopUpPirate 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Those boxes are really only useful where there are several articles related to the band. Since this band is essentially one bloke and he only released one record there's probably not much point. Flowerparty■ 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support assuming one minor fix; there's currently a mix of date formats using both MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM//YYYY formats. You should standardize all of them to the US format, as they're an American band (eg. February 22, 2006). - dharmabum 08:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. (I didn't notice this before as I use Wiki's date preferences, and they all looked the same to me) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great article. --Karrmann
  • Support although the article did need some proof-reading. Cedars 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake

This is a renomination. The article has had a peer review. The previous nomination did not receive many comments & the minor issues raised have been dealt with . It has been listed as a good page. The lake is a site of Special scientific interest and also a centre for leisure activities and hopefully the article reflects the history, ecology and uses. I hope the article reflects the lake and feel it meets the criteria for Featured Article Status. Rod 19:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - This is a great article from a ecology/geology perspective, but the history section could use some work. Good job on the references and external links, though, and in general I support the nomination. Ryan McDaniel 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. - If some of the single sentence sections in the ecology section are merged to create a longer, more unified section, I will support. Other than that, a very good article, with excellent pictures. RyanGerbil10 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - why are there two spaces between "Ecology" and "Leisure use"? Also, the lead paragraph looks a bit too long- I would suggest breaking it into 2 separate paragraphs. AndyZ 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I put the two spaces there (as the edit notes) to force the "Leisure use" header to appear left-justified (otherwise it gets forced right by the picture). It's a kludge, I admit. Ryan McDaniel 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I've broken up the over-long lead, and I would support FA status as the article stands. jimfbleak 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – I've read through the article, it seems to be well-written and informative. Good use of pictures, references, helpful external links. No obvious shortcomings. (That "Leisure use" heading is a bit annoying but it's not really a problem with the article content) – Gurch 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominators response - I've made a few minor changes and additions to try to address some of the issues raised. Minor additions to history section (but not sure what else is wanted here), minor additions to ecology section to overcome the issue with the image & section break. Rod 09:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - This article has clearly benefitted from a lot of hard work. It reads well, is comprehensive, and is well supported by external references. It surely deserves to become a featured article, the Wikipedia community should be proud of it. Chris Jefferies 13:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - nicely written, seems to cover everything I could expect. Grinner 13:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - good, well-written article, which, most importantly, taught me new and interesting things. — Grstain 18:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Any reason why english units get precedence over metric units? Isn't this article about a place in a country that primarily uses the metric system? Maybe I'm just confused... --Spangineer (háblame) 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Even worse. "Customary" units are not provided throughout. And in listing the size of the lake one sentence says "the largest artificial lake in south-west England (835,000 m²)." while further into the article, we get "When this artificial lake was built in the 1950s, its 1,200 acres (4.9 km²) were flooded". But 835,000 m² is only 206 acres or (0.8 km²). Rmhermen 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it shrunk over the years... who knows =). I object until this gets worked out. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominators response - I think these errors of size/volume have crept in because I've taken stuff from various sources & one may relate to the area of water & another to the land that was purchased for the creation of the lake - I will go back to the source documents & try to resolve this. As far as units go I think acres are still the most common unit here, but I agree consistency is important & will try to resolve this. Rod 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominators further response I have found several sources for the figure of 1,200 acres (4.9 km²) including the owners Bristol Water and can't find any source for the figure of (835,000 m²) therefore I have changed the lead paragraph. What "Customary" units should I be using? Rod 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 or 5 uses of km without miles. The other is the use of imperial gallons and cubic meters, neither of which are used in the U.S. (but who really wants to see acre-foot). Rmhermen 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Acre-foot certainly makes no sense, this unit isn't used in the UK as far as I know. Water volumes here are conventionally quoted as so many million gallons (Imperial ones of course, not US gallons). Cubic metres (not meters :-) might be a good choice. What a fine muddle we get into over units! Chris Jefferies 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
But you see that you are giving British English readers two ways to understand the volume but giving American English readers zero. That doesn't seem right. Rmhermen 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominators response I have found 4 occurances of km without miles & added miles to all in a consistent format ie X miles (X km) Rod 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Support An article like this can always be expanded and improved, but I think it's of high enough quality for FA status. SP-KP 14:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Kong (arcade game)

I've been working on this for the past couple of weeks, although I'd wanted to expand it for a while before that. The peer review was helpful but has since fizzled. I think the article's up to snuff, so tell me what you think. — BrianSmithson 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, comprehensive and meets all FA criteria.--Fallout boy 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I think the peer review fizzled because the article's pretty good. Pagrashtak 22:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yet another solid video game FA. Well done! RyanGerbil10 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job! Well referenced and well written. AreJay 02:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive article and good use of legitimate references. BlueShirts 03:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Very comprehensive, most sources are not game guides, but rather written works on history and critical evaluation of video games that are not cursory mentioning of Donkey Kong either. Temporary account 05:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Arcade game is worth of it:) Can anyone put a transcription to Japanese name? Thanks. Brandmeister 11:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not crazy about this sentence: "The game was the latest of Nintendo's efforts to break into the North American market." Isn't every new game "the latest" at the time of its release? That statement doesn't really mean anything. I'd recommend taking it out, but that's small potatoes compared with what a great article it is. Kafziel 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "The game was the latest of Nintendo's efforts to break into the North American market." The key is that their previous attempts had failed and before DK they were a non-entity in American arcade gaming, not that this was their latest game. I think it's something worth noting, but I'm having trouble coming up with a way to clarify this. "The game was Nintendo's latest effort in what had until then been a string of unsuccessful attempts to break into the North American market" just sounds too wordy for my tastes. :) — BrianSmithson 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the best way to make the sentence meaningful would be to state what it was about the game that was intended to appeal specifically to Americans. There have been many games that the Japanese didn't even try to sell over here, so was there something special about Donkey Kong that they hoped would grab the US market more than any of the other games they were putting out at the time? Phrasing could be something like, "Nintendo hoped the game would help them break into the North American market because [insert reason]." A simpler solution would just be to lose the sentence altogether, since it goes without saying that every video game released in any market is an attempt to increase the company's share of that market. Or you can just forget about it; like I said, it's not a crucial shortcoming. Doesn't seem to have bothered anyone else. Kafziel 15:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
How about just say that Donkey Kong was the game that secured Nintendo's place in North American markets? BlueShirts 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Nice and simple. Kafziel 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. per above. Staxringold 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced, refs, good illustrations and interesting to read.--Dakota ~ ° 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Although my interest in videogames only goes as far as Kirby now, this is the best one I've come across so far! (NB: I'm working on another candidate right now.) May this be on the Main Page in a few weeks' time! --Slgrandson 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)

World War I has significantly shaped the modern world, and the Western Front proved the decisive theater of this war. This article now covers the entire history of the front at a high level, with all the notable offensives as well as commentary on the strategies, tactics and technologies involved. It concludes with a discussion of the consequences. — RJH 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Very nice article. Two questions, though:
  1. Do we really need two huge see-also templates at the bottom?
  • I would have no problem with a single template. But it's a cross-page issue, so if the bottom template gets removed then somebody will probably slap it back in again. — RJH
  1. Could you perhaps add an {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and/or the appropriate campaignboxes? —Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay it's added, but I haven't been able to find western-front-specific numbers for some of the boxes. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I avoided that because the other operations-level pages lacked a similar template. *shrug* — RJH
  • Second template was commented out. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with Comment - The leads is perhaps too long. I know usually we encourage longer leads, but this one seems a bit excessive. Of course, that's just my opinion. Other than that, though, it looks great, so I'll give it my support. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay I tried to thin the introduction down without losing the specifics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work! I think the lead is just right. However, can you add some wikilinks to the image captions (where applicable). Gflores Talk 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: It might be better to replace the huge see also template with a portal of ww1 on a later date
  • Support. --Myles Long/cDc 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

*Some objections Take care of the following:

  • Sudden introduction of "The French offensive plan, Plan XVII ..." in a section that tells us it's about the German invasion of France and Belgium. Huh? Give it some context, preferably from the linked article.
    • Unfortunately a number of new entries have been added since the FA nomination. This was one such. I think it's being addressed. RJH
      • Doesn't look like it yet. We don't know, from this article, what we know in the Plan XVII article, why the French wanted to capture Alsace back, and how that set them up for the initial success of the Schlieffen Plan. I think right there at the start we could use some explanation of what both sides' ultimate strategic objectives, their plans for winning the war, were. Right now this Plan XVII stuff feels like it's looking for somewhere to go.
        • I fixed it, I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
*Consistent date format and metric/English. It has "March 10" (my birthday, but so what?) at the beginning of the second graf of "1915 — Stalemate" and then "By 15 May ..." later. It should have the continental style throughout as per the subject matter. Ditto with metric: how many tonnes is "168 tons" equal to? (or 450 tonnes?) Also, "35-4500 yards" without a metric equivalent? The examples are too numerous to list.
    • Consistent "date" format? That seems like more a matter of literary license.
      • Well, either the months come first consistently or the days. But right now it's a mishmash of both styles.
    • Interestingly the English-language histories from the war were primarily pre-metric. That's probably why you're seeing those units. RJH
      • Not a problem, but both English and metric needs to be used.
        • Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "The German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, believed that although a breakthrough might no longer be possible, the French could be defeated if they suffered enough casualties". Well duh, kill them all or nearly all and they won't have an army anymore ... is that meant to be "would surrender"?
    • Falkenhayn's stated goal was to "bleed France white". Yeah it's a no-brainer, but it still needed to be said. I could not definitively state whether a defeated France would have surrendered or resorted to guerilla warfare. RJH
      • I put in "capitulate," which is probably acceptably ambiguous here. But what does submarine warfare directly have to do with winning land battles, BTW? Falkenhayn was Chief of Staff, yes, but if his naval strategy was to complement his land game that should be explained.
        • Okay clarified slightly. I don't think it needs much coverage here. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • More wikification. The article as a whole links mainly battles, dates and people. There's a lot more in there (aerial photography, for instance) that should and could be in blue. Three whole grafs in the middle of "1916" have nought but a single footnote.
    • Possibly. I've seen people complain about over-wikification of articles, so I focused on the linking the topics that seemed like logical drill-downs.
      • It's always a judgement call. I just think there could be more ... it feels a little dry as is.
        • Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • By grafs I assume you mean paragraphs?
      • Yes. Not zeppelins :-).
    • Is there a footnote quota that needs to be met? RJH
      • Every reference that needs it, as always.
        • Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Use Hindenburg and Ludendorff's full names on first reference (not at the bottom of "1918"). And spell Hindenburg properly and consistently.
    • Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "The new leaders soon recognized that the battles of Verdun and the Somme had depleted the offensive capabilities of the German army along the western front. They decided that the German army would go over to the strategic defensive for most of 1917 along the western front, while the Central powers would attack elsewhere." Clean this sentence up a bit, as well as most references to "along the western front" unless, as you are here, drawing a distinction between it and theatres elsewhere.
    • Your statement seems ambiguous, so I am unclear about what actually needs cleaning up. This paragraph regards the situation on the Western Front in the context of the Central powers' war strategy. So the distinction is needed IMO. RJH
      • Yeah, but can you do the two sentences without repeating "along the western front"? It's a pretty heavy phrase to have to repeat in back-to-back sentences unless you can't avoid it.
        • Okay. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "The battle had also seen the first massed use of German stosstruppen on the western front ..." I shouldn't have to click on the link to find out what Strostruppen are.
    • Note added about infiltration tactics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "By summer 300,000 American soldiers were arriving each month and would reach 2.1 million by November." Bad grammar, clean up.
    • Fixed I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As a whole the article is a bit wordy in some places.
    • Some places? The same could be said of the Gettysburg Address. ;-) What do you consider too wordy? Again it seems like a matter of personal taste and style. RJH
      • I mean it could get phrased more efficiently. I'll try to work on that.
  • Link to the film versions of All Quiet on the Western Front as well.
    • The linked page covers both. Is that not sufficient? RJH
      • My fault ... didn't scroll down enough and assumed. Still, there should be separate articles.
  • And why is the second of the huge templates under "External Links?" This is confusing. Would it be possible to put all the links in one big box, or put the second one up near the top? Daniel Case 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd be more than happy to see the second big template removed, or "smerged" with the first template. But that's a cross-article issue. A removed template might just get slapped back in at a later date. Thanks for the feedback. :) — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I understand. Daniel Case 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I commented the second template out with a hidden note. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Support. I think it's ready now. Sorry to take such a long time to get back on it. Daniel Case 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Daniel Case raises some good point. The lead is also a bit long, as is the sections (perhaps having a main article for each of them?) In addition, the "External link" section seems badly placed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'm leaning a little toward oppose myself now. This semi-chaotic edit/review process is a tad discouraging. :-/
As for the length of the introduction, well I believe the peer review said the old intro was too short. It figures. I'm reasonably satisfied that the introduction is proportionate to the comparable size of this pretty-lengthy article. Thanks. — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of the issues have been addressed now, I hope. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to see some kind of war/battlebox, tweaked of course to be a 'theatrebox' :) And surely more pictures can be added?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Done, but the numbers will remain incomplete unless somebody can find a data source. Most sources cover the entire war, rather than the western front in particular — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fix the length of sections. 1916 and 1917 in particular are a bit too long. --The1exile 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I broke up the sections to make it a little more palatable. But people keep on adding to the article. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2006&oldid=285282230"