Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2008[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:49, 30 June 2008 [1].

Polyclonal B cell response[edit]

Self-Nominator(s): —KetanPanchaltaLK


I'm nominating this article for featured article because...the article covers an important concept in immunology, and it has recently been promoted to the GA-status. Also, in my judgment, the article satisfies all the criteria for FA-class, and if certain deficiencies are pointed out, they can be improved upon, in turn improving the overall quality of the article. KC Panchal (talk · contribs)19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments for the time being. This is an accurate, comprehensive and fairly well-written article. A complex, highly technical subject has been described in relatively plain English and congratulations are in order. I noticed a few problems during my first reading.
  • Botulism is not an infection, it is caused by poisoning. The bacterium does not cause infection but its neurotoxin is lethal. The toxin is produced in food that has been under-cooked and subsequently stored under anaerobic conditions.
  • When describing the innate immune system, elements is a poor choice of word; mechanisms would be better.
  • Stomach juice - this is gastric fluid.
  • What language is Klon?
  • Each such group is not idiomatic language.
  • Parent would be better than mother when describing primary cells. Life is too short to argue about this :-)
  • The diagrams are too big; readers who require a closer inspection only need to click on them.
  • The first, (excellent and fun to see), image should be relegated to the end of the article.

I can see that many hours of work have gone into this, so please take these comments in good spirit. I will have more to say about this interesting contribution during its candidature. GrahamColmTalk 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • Botulism is not an infection, it is caused by poisoning. The bacterium does not cause infection but its neurotoxin is lethal. The toxin is produced in food that has been under-cooked and subsequently stored under anaerobic conditions.
    • Yes, you're right there. Actually, I'd included that as I wanted to cite an example of disease caused by toxin. Well, now I've changed the example to diphtheria, which satisfies both the criteria—it's an infection, its symptoms are somewhat related to a toxin (and, a third subconscious criterion that it's well known. I changed "contagious"--->"infectious" not out of stubbornness, but contagious diseases are more like subset of infectious disease. And, the concepts being dealt with in the article would still apply even irrespective of whether the disease spreads through direct contact or through a vehicle. The way I have opened the section "from one organism to another" I wanted to make it apparent that the two organisms could be of different species altogether. I'm now not sure if the idea has got conveyed sufficiently well. But, would also believe that even that subtlety does not come in way of understanding the concept KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the innate immune system, elements is a poor choice of word; mechanisms would be better.
  • Stomach juice - this is gastric fluid.
    • Even I wasn't sure which of the two usages is better. So, had used "stomach" thinking of it as less technical. I'll make the change if you/some one else make the same suggestion again. KC Panchal (talk · contribs)
  • What language is Klon?
  • ''Each such group is not idiomatic language.
  • Parent would be better than mother when describing primary cells.
    • Well, I have encountered this (mother cell) usage quite often. The progeny would be called daughter cells. KC Panchal (talk · contribs)
  • The diagrams are too big; readers who require a closer inspection only need to click on them.
  • The first, (excellent and fun to see), image should be relegated to the end of the article.
    • I agree, but am not able to think of a context (for that image) at the end of the article. But, I think you'd also agree that the image provides one of the best explanations of the whole concept. Well, I have shifted the image, and put another one in its place. KC Panchal (talk · contribs)
Thanks for the encouraging remarks. Yes, it's true that a lot of hard work has gone into it. I'm sorry if you thought my changing "contagious" to "infectious" back as somewhat rude, but I did provide an explanation for it in the edit summary. In fact, I'm getting scared. I'm suspecting you're being very euphemistic with your criticism. And of course, this is the first time I've been so intimately associated with an article. So, have no idea of the FA procedure. Your and other reviewers' guidance would be of utmost importance. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parent would be better than mother when describing primary cells.
    • See this as an example:

      "During DNA replication, all the information in the mother cell must be transmitted to the daughter cells."

      KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the juice I don't like—would you drink it? :-) GrahamColmTalk 22:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing for now. The article is accurate and comprehensive but it's not ready for featured status yet. The prose, on the whole is of a high standard, but there are lapses. Take this section for example:
Engulfing the pathogen (along with the antigens on it, i.e., phagocytosis) because of specific (by B cells) or nonspecific (by macrophages) recognition, and antigen processing. This activates the B cell only partially.

is very problematic. And this:

The epitopes that compose the proteins that serve as antigens..

will stop many readers dead in their tracks. The section on antigen presentation is similarly difficult to follow. There are other lesser problems such as the use of likewise and somewhat, but my fundamental issue is that the article is not written in summary style. I know it is difficult to strike the right balance between comprehensiveness and summary style but a better attempt should be made. Here's my attempt at an explanation of B cell selection:

Only a few lymphocytes bind to any particular antigen. These lymphocytes are said to be “selected”. They bind to the antigen because they have the corresponding antibodies on their surfaces. Once selected, the lymphocytes reproduce and form a clone of identical cells. The cloned cells then produce many more corresponding antibodies. Later they become plasma cells and produce copious amounts of antibodies, first IgM and then IgG.
Well, there's a subtlety here. The first (naive) cell that would have responded and all the daughter cells would also be known as a single clone. Likewise, if another naive cell with the very same specificity (same antibody receptor) would get selected and proliferate, all the progeny (memory as well as Plasma cells) of the both the naive cells would be considered to be one clone. In spite of how clone has been explained in the article, criterion for what constitutes a clone is epitope-specificity rather than which cells is derived from which one. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but a subtlety that nicely illustrates my point, quod erat demonstrandum. GrahamColmTalk 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, far from perfect, but I fear that unless an attempt is made to make the article more accessible to the Wikipedia general readers, the article will not achieve FA status. Please don't shoot the messenger. GrahamColmTalk 18:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following your pointing out, I have identified an underlying cause for the article not appearing in summary style; that being trying to be explain those concepts that don't form the core of this article in greater details than required. I'm trying to correct that. Could I have a few days (say 3-4 from today) to try to rectify that? In the meantime, I'll greatly appreciate if you could cite specific instances of language, content or layout that are not in keeping with the requirements of FA. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from other reviewers will no doubt follow, SandyGeorgia decides how long candidatures run, not me. But the article and this page is on my watchlist and I will help where I can. GrahamColmTalk 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, I've made some changes in almost all sections, mostly, trying to uncomplicate the sentences. Also, I have removed some relatively unrequired info from the earlier paragraphs. Please do see if these changes have on the whole improved the article in the desired way. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some short sections and paragraphs, like the one in "History". Could those be expanded? Gary King (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have significantly expanded the "history" section. Some of the sections that seem short are actually just subsections, which of course can be expanded, but that'd make them too detailed. If that is alright, I'll expand them. But, personally I felt that the level of details that the article, and the various sections in it have maintained are most optimum for "stress-free" reading. Another short section is the one titled "Infection", which cannot be expanded without getting irrelevant in the process. I'd a doubt with the "History" section, though: several scientists mentioned have received Nobel Prize—does that require mention? KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have satisfactorily resolved the issues you pointed out above. KC Panchal (talk · contribs)17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by delldot talk 07:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multiple multiples in the second sentence
  • Do you have to use immunological in the first sentence, or could you get away with immune? (This is shorter and more familiar, maybe less intimidating)
    • Very right. It was "immunologic"; some one must have changed it to "immunological", which I did notice, but didn't really mind, then.
  • B cell linked twice in the lead
  • The opposite of polyclonal are monoclonal antibodies, which are all react only against a single antigen, and are not usually produced in a natural immune response, but only in diseased states like multiple myeloma, or through specialized laboratory techniques. -- A long, confusing sentence. Is "The opposite of polyclonal are" ok wording?
  • The next sentence is This is because polyclonality of response reduces the specificity of antibodies produced. What is because of that? The use of this is often ambiguous.
  • You might want to crop Image:Burnet in 1945.jpg, I don't know if you need all that background and it would allow a better closeup of his face.
  • Such substances are known as soluble antibodies and perform important functions in countering them. It's not clear how this sentence fits with the ones before it, or what them refers to. On rereading, actually it is clear delldot talk 07:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very picky point: some punctuation comes before the ref tags, some after. Sometimes the note tags come before the ref tags, sometimes vice versa.
    • That's not picky at all. I'd tried to maintain a pattern:notes and references (in that order) follow any punctuation without intervening SPACE. Well, I did find about four to five instances of lapses. May be they crept in because of different preferences by different users. Corrected them. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps FAC regulars can clear this up, but I think boldface is being overused. For example, opsonin is bolded in the notes, it looks like it's just because it's being defined. I believe italics is used for that purpose.
  • It looks like a lot of copy editing could be done. Perhaps you know a copy editor who owes you a favor?
    • None so far. I'd appreciate your pointing out the errors. Copy edit for grammar or spellings? KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grammar mainly, and awkward wording. Maybe you can look through old FACs and find people that have done copy editing for others, and as them. I can continue pointing out individual problems, but they are extensive and I would prefer to come back after the whole article has had a copy edit. I believe it's customary for an outside editor to copy edit the page. delldot talk 13:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the above question about whether to include Nobel Prizes in the history section, I would say yes, include them.

I'm going to bed now, I'll be back with more comments later. delldot talk 07:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC) A few more:[reply]

  • Both cell-mediated and humoral responses are very specific, and tend to improve with repeat exposures to the same pathogen and constitute the adaptive immune response. I would leave the second half of this sentence for another paragraph, since the rest of the paragraph discusses just specificity.
    • I have split the two concepts into two sentences. Though, didn't split the matter into two paragraphs as that would have made the individual paragraphs too short, and the new info required to expand them would have been irrelevant. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't understand why these concepts are linked enough to belong in the same paragraph. It looks like you may be able to combine this paragraph and the one below it, to better contrast innate and adaptive, and to keep the discussion of specificity together.

delldot talk 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • The concepts are not necessarily related, but as I pointed out they're not significant in the article's context to have respective paragraphs for themselves. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The innate immune system provides relatively nonspecific protection (e.g., acidity of stomach secretions). I would expand this sentence a bit to explain a bit more.
    • Expanded the innate immune system part.
      • Good, but now stomach acidity is brought up twice in close proximity. delldot talk 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't that alright? Considering we're talking of innate immunes system, and that'd be the simplest example to consider. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captions are awfully long and wordy, I bet they could be cut down. delldot talk 07:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the images have been taken "as is" from their context without modification. It'd be helpful if you could point out which of the captions you found particularly verbose? KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen somewhere people saying that no caption should be longer than four lines.
        • I think I've reduced the caption size for most of the images, except for one explaining the steps in B cell stimulation, which obviously would be long, unless of course, I remove the steps from the caption. Do you suggest that I remove the steps.
Thanks Delldot a lot for your review. That was most useful. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from delldot talk

  • Monoclonal antibodies are more specific, and hence are preferred over the polyclonal antibodies in some applications. -- The idea of specific hasn't been introduced, maybe just explain instead of using the word. Also, the idea of applications hasn't been introduced. What applications? Again, maybe just explain. delldot talk 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've modified the concerned paragraph in light of your suggestions. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very nice work. I agree with JFW below that this may be too much detail for the lead (sorry, I know it's my fault you added the detail in the first place!). What do you think of the tweak I did (moving the detail on monoclonal down, leaving one sentence in the lead)? Feel free to rv me if you don't think it's an improvement. delldot talk 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: under Specific recognition of epitope by B cells, is e.g. used right here? for the situation being discussed here (e.g. the antigen recognition by the B cell) -- e.g. means for example and i.e. means that is.
  • Going through the article, I'm seeing a lot of opportunities to reduce redundancy (e.g. "longer in length", "also show a similar enhancement"). I'm working on some of them, but I still recommend finding an experienced copy editor to help out. Have you checked out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy? delldot talk 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In spite of the fact that there are so many diverse pathogens, many of which constantly keep on mutating, it is a great surprise that a majority of individuals remain infection-free. -- I'm not following, why's that a surprise? Also, about the redundancy, would it change the meaning to change In spite of the fact that to although? But I think the sentence would make more sense if it was Since there are so many diverse pathogens, many of which constantly keep on mutating, it is a great surprise -- the more pathogens, the more surprising not being infected is, right? Also, I think it's infection free here, not infection-free because it's after the word it's modifying (individuals). This is my reading of hyphen, correct me if I'm wrong. Lastly, constantly keep on is also redundant.
    • I've rephrased the entire paragraph. As far as I know, may be the Oxford dictionary people have done away with hyphen totally in one of their dictionaries. Don't know if every one is to follow suit. But, may be usage of hyphen is independent of whether the combined qualifier (adjective) is used before before the subject or after it. But, of course, I can't say that with much confidence. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) —KetanPanchaltaLK 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The logical problem is still there: Although there are many diverse pathogens, many of which keep on mutating, it is a surprise that a majority of individuals remain free of infections. Seems like it's a surprise since there are so many pathogens, right? (or Given that, maybe). The more pathogens, the likelier disease is? If I'm misunderstanding this, maybe it could be clarified in the article.
      • Actually, I think you're right about the hyphen thing, after another reading of WP:HYPHEN; infection-free is closer to the "well-behaved" example than the "well polished" thing because it's a single modifier. But I'm not sure if this just applies to well. If you find out from a more seasoned copy editor, let me know, won't you? delldot talk 17:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This maintenance of disease-free state requires the body to recognize as many pathogens (antigens they present or produce) as known to exist. -- known to? What does them being known have to do with it?
  • Such an altered epitope binds less weakly with the antibodies specific to the unaltered epitope that would have stimulated the immune system. -- unclear. Is it really less weakly?
  • The phenomenon of autoimmunity can be simply explained in terms of the immune system making a mistake by wrongly recognizing certain native molecules in the body as foreign, and in turn mounting an immune response against them. -- This is awkward and hard to follow. I think part of my trouble understanding this article has to do with the long sentences.

Gotta go again, I'll have more comments in a while. delldot talk 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the time being. The article pitches in the right tone and takes a good general look at an important phenomenon in mammalian immunology. Given my limited technical experience in the field it would be immensely helpful if some editors with expertise in immunology (Ciar or DO11.10) could offer their comments and perhaps assist in making further improvements. At the moment my specific criticisms: (1) Do we really need a general introduction into the field of immunology? Is there any hope of making it more concise with fewer level 2 headers. (2) The images are generally lifted from free sources but would benefit from being redrawn on scale with a different background. (3) I'm sure the distinction with monoclonal proteins can be safely left out of the introduction. (4) The etymology of "polyclonal" belongs in the lead, not halfway down. (5) If there are multiple footnotes referencing to the same source, why is that source in "further reading" and does it otherwise appear in the footnotes in various formats? (6) Why are some facts referenced to unreliable web sources, such as undergraduate teaching material? (7) What is the point in the one external link, which appears to be someone's personal web page? (*) In short, I think much work is needed before this gets to FA standards, and I strongly suggest involving two immunology editors mentioned earlier. JFW | T@lk 11:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments by JFW:
    • "Do we really need a general introduction into the field of immunology? Is there any hope of making it more concise with fewer level 2 headers."
      • I have clubbed this section with the preceding one dealing with "Infection". I'd kept it the way it was as that would introduce an uninitiated reader gradually to the topic. To impress the importance of antibodies in immune response upon the readers' mind would be very important. But, have significantly shortened the section now. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The images are generally lifted from free sources but would benefit from being redrawn on scale with a different background."
      • Well, not all the images are taken from the public domain. I've myself created the four images (the least attractive-looking ones) mostly using PowerPoint and Paint. If you're referring to those images, then, I'd like to say that I might download Inkscape in a couple of days and try to work on them. But, it'd be better if you point out which images in particular. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'm sure the distinction with monoclonal proteins can be safely left out of the introduction."
      • I'd priorly been told by a user (not from the medical field, which adds some weightage to the opinion) that since most of the people come to know of polyclonal antibodies only by way of hearing about monoclonal antibodies, to highlight contrast between the two would be important. Of course, which part of the article can do this is another issue. May be I can shift that part to the discussion on monoclonal antibodies. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The etymology of "polyclonal" belongs in the lead, not halfway down."
      • I've added a note on etymology in the lead. And removed the related material form the section "Basis of polyclonality". KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If there are multiple footnotes referencing to the same source, why is that source in "further reading" and does it otherwise appear in the footnotes in various formats?"
      • "Further reading or Bibliography (paper resources such as books, not web sites)"—that's what the MEDMOS says about such a section. So, I see no reason why a source that has been cited can't be used as a further reading recommendation. The only citation that will be seen in two different formats is the "Goldsby:Immunology" citation. It's not in two formats. Just that the first time it is used, it's in its expanded form so that the reader would know what's "Goldsby, et al: Immunology", and for the rest of the article it's in its abbreviated form as it was pointed out that in its expanded form it was making the References section appear too cluttered. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Why are some facts referenced to unreliable web sources, such as undergraduate teaching material?"
      • These are the undergraduate courses:
        • Davis, Cheryl. "Antigens". Biology course. Western Kentucky University. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
        • Ceri, Howard. "Antigens". Immunology course. University of Calgary. Retrieved 2008-05-12. But, the same piece of information is also supported by a published source (textbook): Khudyakov, Yury (2002). Artificial DNA: Methods and Applications. Florida: CRC Press. p. 227. ISBN 0849314267. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). So, I think that should be alright. Moreover, this is what one of the dispatches on reliability had to say: "If a site is written by a noted expert who has been independently published by reliable sources in the field, or is hosted by a college or university institute concerned with the field, it may be reliable, depending on the text cited or whether there should be other, more reliable (for example, peer-reviewed) sources available.". So, I suppose those college web sites have cited "Goldsby" as their original source. But, if still their inclusion is contentious, I can remove them as that won't much difference to the verifiability of the concept they were backing up (that the secreted and membrane-bound antibodies of a clone bind to the same epitope). KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What is the point in the one external link, which appears to be someone's personal web page?"
      • I suppose your objection was to this citation: Deem, Michael. "Michael W. Deem". Official Web Page. Rice University. Retrieved 2008-05-08., which is not really a personal web page, but that of the Rice University. But, if still the objection persists, I can remove it and add some other source. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, JFW, for your detailed review in spite of your time crunch. KC Panchal (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [2].

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]

Nominator Hippo (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article has a good basic structure but needs a lot of work to meet the FA criteria. Too much of the article is cited to university websites (not independent), I think the organization needs a bit of work, there are gaps that should be fleshed out, and the prose will need a good copyedit. Here are some more specific details.

  • Prose issues: I found many instances of short (even one-sentence) paragraphs, redudant phrasing, imprecise phrasing, and paragraphs that don't flow well together. Following or a very few examples.
    • "first public university in the United States to admit students" - were there other public universities before that that did not admit students?
Yes, the University of Georgia was chartered 4 years before UNC, but did not start admitting students until 8 years after UNC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.58.204.226 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added sentence and cited. —Hippo (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Academically, undergraduates receive a liberal arts education with an opportunity to specialize within the professional schools of the university later in their studies." - this makes it sound like AFTER you get a degree then you specialize
Fixed Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2007, a full professor received a Nobel Prize for the first time when Oliver Smithies was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work in genetics.[22]" - this makes it sound like either a) Smithies was the first full professor anywhere to receive a Nobel or b) others at UNC received a Nobel before Smithies (he was just the first full professor there)
Fixed, I think.—Hippo (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of redundant phrasing. For example "has received other awards such as the Pacemaker Award from the Associated Collegiate Press." should be "has received the Pacemaker Award from..." Other example "This all-volunteer band consisting of 275 members supports the 28 Olympic sports programs" could be "This 275-member volunteer band supports the 28..."
Fixed the two mentioned above. —Hippo (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were only examples. The article needs a good copyedit by someone who is new to it (if you've been working on it awhile it is often hard to see issues in the prose). Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, centuries should be numerals (18th century instead of eighteenth)
Done. —Hippo (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the History section is ordered a bit funny, as it goes from 1789 to 1795 and back to 1793
Fixed ordering. —Hippo (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The organization is much better, but the prose needs a lot of work. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the university "forced to close" during Reconstruction? Lack of money, lack of students, government said so?
Added. Certainly lack of money and students. I can find mention of politics, but not specifics.—Hippo (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that helped UNC to stay open during Civil War when most others closed?
Only conjectures. Record keeping appears to have been sparse during the war, with such a large proportion of staff and students away. The Civil War physically reached Chapel Hill late compared to much of the South, but even the book by Snider doesn't seem to make a connection. —Hippo (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found a mention of an agreement between the governor of NC and the president of the CSA regarding the draft of students, so added that.-Hippo (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little information about the school between 1795 and 1860 and between 1875 and 1932. Were there any important milestones during those times?
Nothing extraordinary. For instance Snider just talks about the Presidents as people for the chapters on those years. That there are those two periods is no coincidence, with the university effectively opening in 1795 and re-opening in 1875. -Hippo (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history section just seems so small for a university of this age. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the university just struggled along until the Civil War and then closed, and very little happened until it had re-established itself. I'm probably missing something ca. 1880-1930. Athletics started then, and there are credible sources that suggest the first forward pass in football was thrown by a Carolina player, but would that be better placed in the "Athletics" section? -Hippo (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • about the political protests in the 1960s - were students protesting? were other people gathering on campus to protest (prose does not make this clear). Were the protests peaceful or violent? Did anything happen as a result of the protests?
Added to the section. -Hippo (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have more details about the student population at periods of time or the endowment (increasing fourfold from what to what?)
Added a couple of figures. —Hippo (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable leaders of the university include the 26th Governor of North Carolina, David Lowry Swain; and Edwin Anderson Alderman, who was also president of Tulane University and the University of Virginia.[23] Current chancellor James Moeser will be succeeded by Holden Thorp in the summer of 2008.[24]" -Did they do anything notable while president (and if so, what), or are they only notable for what they did before/after their stint as president? What years were they president?
Added dates. -Hippo (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other part of the question is why are they notable - solely for their actions outside the university or also for something they did while president at the university? Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swain would be more notable than most presidents of the university, but I'm not sure I would put him on a list if he had not been governor too. Alderman wasn't notable as a president at UNC, largely because the university had no money for him to be able to change anything. -Hippo (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article mentions the "sprawling" campus, is there any information about the number of acres it encompasses?
In the infobox. Is that enough?
Added inline. —Hippo (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the quads is named Polk Place, after President James K. Polk, a native of North Carolina and an alumnus of the university" - what is the name of the other
There are many, do I need to list them all? I feel the name "Polk Place" is (only) worth mentioning just because Polk was U.S. President.
Just noticed the article says there are two... Just need to clarify the definition of quad. I guess the other must be "McCorkle Place".
Done. —Hippo (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on what about the landscaping was so impressive that the campus could be labelled a work of art?
I don't have a access to the book referenced, unfortunately, so I'm hesitant to add anything else. I guess it's the down to the age of campus, all the old trees, and flowers, but that's just my opinion and not something for the article. Hippo (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest interlibrary loan for that one - this could have some really interesting info. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Student Stores"?
Removed. It's just a shop. —Hippo (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any landmarks/etc that divide the three regions of campus from each other?
Just roads and the topology, but given the town is Chapel Hill, I'm not sure whether adding that campus is hilly would add much! -Hippo (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with new science facilities for the twenty-first century," - what exactly does this mean?
No idea. Changed.—Hippo (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth explaining just a bit what a Public Ivy is for people who have not heard the term
  • Should the Athletics section mention who the school's biggest rivals are?
Done. —Hippo
I think the new section is a good start, but it is missing valuable information. It just kind of starts at the 1980s. It would be important to mention when the rivalries began. You could also pull out interesting information from the sub articles. for example, the article on the rivalry with Duke mentions that "It is considered one of the most intense rivalries in all of sports: a poll conducted by ESPN in 2000 ranked the basketball rivalry as the third greatest North American sports rivalry of all-time, and Sports Illustrated on Campus named it the #1 "Hottest Rivalry" in college basketball and the #2 rivalry overall in its November 18, 2003 issue" - those kinds of details make the article more interesting. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no real information on residential life - how many students live on campus (what percentage is this of the whole)?
Added a housing section. I'll try to add some statistics if I can find any. —Hippo (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is definitely a noticeable trend in the article that the university has been one of the pioneers in using the internet. Is there any information on why this is?
Having ibiblio on site, I guess, but it's difficult to find much about ibiblio that is truly third party, since the ideal place to archive information about such a project happens to be ibiblio... —Hippo (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "Olympic sports programs"?
Wasn't actually accurate (included football), so removed. —Hippo (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean that the band "supports" the teams? That could be anything from 1 member of the band sitting in the stands at each game, to the full band marching at every game to the band having fundraisers for those teams
Expanded section. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who/what is the " Student Attorney General"? How is this position filled and how does it relate to the Honor Court? How is the Honor Court chosen?
Simplified the honor code section so it just gets a very brief mention now. —Hippo (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the Traditions sections is misplaced. I would put Honor code under academics and the rest under Athletics
Done. —Hippo
  • I am concerned that almost the entire history section is sourced to the university. A quick search of Google books shows that William Snider wrote a book in 1992 on the history of the university. I think this should be used, and there may be other books or newspaper articles that can help you to better source and better flesh out that section.
Snider is also UNC faculty. Is it any different? —Hippo
It's not uncommon for books about a university to be written by people currently or formerly affiliated with the university. Because the book was published by a university press (even though it is UNC's), that means it was peer reviewed, and that he would have drawn on primary and other secondary source material. This is much better than the university web pages, which are not necessarily fact-checked and often include only the information the university wants the public to know. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a copy of the Snider book so I'll do my best to add references from there, though a quick trip to another library on campus suggests the web pages are more a digitalization of the Southern Historical Collection than university history pages, which are elsewhere. I have a feeling that they may originally have been hosted on ibiblio, even. —Hippo (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, for a bit of a perspective, that the same digitization project has information on on everything from the original Siamese twins to North Carolina capital punishment. —Hippo (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also encourage you to seek out newspaper articles or books to better reference other pieces of the article. The ibiblio information should be able to be found in a reliable independent source.
Replaced a large number of references with those from the N&O. I'd say the mix of sourcing is now comparable to the other university FA's. -Hippo (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no publisher listed for current ref 45, Top Journalism Programs (2008). Retrieved on 2008-06-16.

Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, it was just added and wasn't a third-party source either. —Hippo

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an extra line after "UNC is the oldest public university in the nation and the only one to award degrees in the 18th century.[9][10]"
Fixed.—Hippo (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed.—Hippo (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal, but would be nice if all the images were uniform sizes by removing the forced image sizes from each one.
Done.—Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't read the whole article in detail, but here a few of my impressions and where improvements are needed.
  • 1.) Lack of alumni/faculty/famous people associated with university section. While this is not a requirement for FA, all the other university FA articles that I've seen contain a section like this.
It's true that other university FA's don't have one, but I think there vary in success as far a NPOV goes. Athletes who have been concensus national champions have been mentioned in the athletics section, and that seems a fair criteria to keep that list manageable, and the sole US President and Nobel Prize winner also are mentioned in other sections. It's a different approach, but I think the information is there. —Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I also think there should be some variance as there is certainly not only one correct way to organize an FA-worthy article. So, your explanation certainly holds water and as I said I didn't take a detailed look at the text....yet ;) -Bluedog423Talk 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.) No residential life information.
Added a housing section. I'll try to add some statistics if I can find any. —Hippo (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching around, but I can't find the data anywhere. Neither the Institutional Research and Assessment, nor the Housing and Residential Education have the figures on their website and a Google search on unc.edu isn't helping, so I think we'll have to do without. My intuition looking around campus would be that the percentage is going to be similar to most schools, so hopefully it's not a huge omission. —Hippo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the College Board, 46% of undergrads live on campus. [3] -Bluedog423Talk 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thanks for finding that! -Hippo (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.) "UNC is one of the original eight schools known as a Public Ivy." I know this information is just trying to say that UNC as one of the premier public institutions in the country (which is an undisputed fact that I, of course, agree with). I just don't know if this is the best way to go about doing this. Is there anything particularly notable about Richard Moll's 1985 book Public Ivys: A Guide to America's best public undergraduate colleges and universities? This is just one dude's opinion. If I didn't know anything about UNC and saw this, I'd be like "so what?" One guy in his book wrote that UNC was one of the best public schools? Unless you can establish notability in regards to the book (e.g. an article is allowed to be created about it), I think using this phrase as evidence that UNC is one of the best public schools is weak. Even USN&WR would seem more reputable to me...but I guess that's debatable. This is subjective, of course, but saying that as evidence to me undermines the actual excellence of UNC as an academic institution. I'd try to find an alternate method.
I agree, though it might be chaos if it is removed as people here are so attached to it. I'll see what I can do. —Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, there was a bit of an edit war when the Public Ivy was last debated. Michigan is using it in their lead along with a ranking, though I don't know if that's a good enough reason... I would prefer something different, but I might have to be pragmatic. WikiProject Universities have internal disagreements about rankings in the lead, NC State dislike having "flagship" in the lead, and South Carolina dislike mention of "Carolina" in the lead! —Hippo (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot, UNC system dislike UNC in the lead... —Hippo (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. This is definitely subjective and clearly not a reason to keep it from FA, so I'm withdrawn this concern, even though personally I don't it. -Bluedog423Talk 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4.) "undergraduates receive a liberal arts education with an opportunity to specialize within the professional schools of the university later in their undergraduate career." "students move on to the College of Arts and Sciences, or choose a professional degree program within medicine, business, education, pharmacy, information and library science, public health, or journalism and mass communication." This isn't very clear...Do students enroll in a professional school after their first two years? I assume not, but it says "students move on to the College of Arts and Sciences, or choose a professional degree program." That would seem to suggest they enroll in the professional school. It also makes it seem like they gets an advanced professional degree (masters) in just four years. Obviously, that is not the case. This needs to be made much much clearer as I don't really understand it. The details can be in the curriculum section, of course.
I've made a couple of changes, but I've never had any involvement with the undergrad program at UNC, so I'm not an expert. —Hippo (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit better, but still not good enough. I still don't get it. It still makes it seem like undergrads enroll in a grad school after their sophomore years. You can get a bachelor's in medicine, pharmacy, and public health? That's certainly possible, but would be fairly unique among US universities and this should be made clear if this indeed is the case. Try to find somebody who knows. -Bluedog423Talk 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original source appears to be [4]. It says:

"We don't ask students to choose a major until their sophomore year. All first-year students, regardless of their intended major, enter the College of Arts and Sciences... During their sophomore year, students will either declare a major within the College of Arts and Sciences or apply to one of the University's professional schools, each of which has specific requirements for admission."

—Hippo (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do... —Hippo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit confusing, because the professional schools tend to focus on graduate degree programs, but most of them also offer a BS degree. The school of public health offers a BS in public health. The school of medicine offers several BS degrees such as the BS in radiologic science. It's also confusing because the university website dosen't seem to have a single page that I can find where all undergrad degree programs are listed. They seem to be scattered on the various professional schools' individual websites. I managed to find BS degree programs in medicine, nursing, public health, journalism, business, info and library science, education, and dentistry. I'll try to find a good page to cite to, but like I said it seems like the information is scattered across the various professional school webpages. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5.) If you had only 12 sentences to say the MOST important things about UNC and what makes it unique, would you waste precious words on things like what game the mascot first appeared at? I sure wouldn't. The focus of the lead needs to be reassessed. Every sentence/phrase/word should be significant as this is the summary of everything there is to know about UNC and why we should care. I also don't know if the origin of the school's colors is necessary to mention in the lead.
Agreed. I've made a few changes, but need to go through it again. —Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6.) Don't fix image sizes. Let users choose their own via their preferences.
Done. —Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7.) Is there anything particularly notable about UNC's honor code? It seems pretty standard to me and doesn't make UNC unique. I don't think it should have its own section. Perhaps a sentence regarding the honor code is appropriate in another section. Likewise, is it really necessary to mention it in the lead?
Removed from lead. Will look to merge sections. —Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8.) Similarly, student gov't section seems pretty standard to me and not unique or special to UNC. Does it really require its own section and a mention in the lead? All schools have student government that I know of.
Also removed from lead and will merge somewhere. —Hippo (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. —Hippo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9.) Student Life section in general. Lots of short stubby sections. No residential life mentioned. Again, is charity so notable to have its own section? I think I'd combine charity, media, and music and theater into one section like "Organizations/Activities" or something like that.
Combined as suggested. —Hippo (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got for now and I didn't really even read the article except for the lead. Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments
  • Don't continually wikilink the same terms. For example, Duke is wikilinked 5 times in the article. Typical protocol is to only link it the first time it is mentioned, but it seems to be okay to link it a second time if it's not near the first one or in a particular section where the user would want to see more information (e.g. men's basketball linking to the UNC team page in the lead and athletics makes perfect sense).
  • Article is slightly over wikified. See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Provide links to things that the user would actually click to find out more information about. Do you think anybody would actually click on "ram" or "apartment building"? I guess they could...but this doesn't add anything. This isn't a huge deal, but those are just a couple example I found on a glance.
Overall the article looks good! -Bluedog423Talk 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about the wikilinks. It's difficult to keep track of them all when lots of people have edited. I'll see if I can go through it. The ironic thing about apartment building is I quickly modeled that section on FA UC Riverside, including wikilinks... Hippo (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that's better now. Less Duke links, which can only be a good thing. ;) —Hippo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah...Even FA articles usually have some faults! -Bluedog423Talk 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Can you provide a source for Carolina as a name of the school?
A large proportion of the references already in the article use Carolina and it's a shortening of "North Carolina". I don't think it needs a reference. UNC is only cited as it's open to confusion, and if I have to reference "Carolina" why shouldn't I reference "North Carolina".-Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a North and South Carolina. If the large majority of references use it, then it should be easy to find one. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added reference.-Hippo (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The campus is the oldest in, and flagship of, the University of North Carolina system. This seems awkward to me. It needs to be better explained and maybe reworded.
How is it awkward? It is the oldest by 90 or so years and is the flagship as defined by the definition of the wikilinked article. Also it's expanded in the body of the text (history section). -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is expanded in the text but it is confusing in the lead. So the campus is the oldest, but what about the unviersity? And the campus is the flagship, what about the unviersity? KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. I think campus and university are used as synomyms. I'll see if I can clarify the text. -Hippo (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are synonyms. KnightLago (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both teaching and research, UNC has been highly ranked by publications such as BusinessWeek and U.S. News & World Report. Does this really belong in the lead. The lead is meant to summarize the most important information in the article. How important is this really?
This is a constant source of debate, see the talk page of WP Universities, for instance, but generally people seem to be in favor of it, particularly for US schools. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is debate taking place, I have been watching. I think the general consensus so far is that there is no consensus thus leaving it up to each individual article. I wouldn't put it there because I don't think it is one of the most important things in the entire article. Speaking of the lead, I just realized there is no history in it. Just assertions that it is the oldest, first etc.KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't really flow. You go from the above sentence to: Along with Duke University in Durham and North Carolina State University in Raleigh, the university forms one of the corners of the Research Triangle. No real transition or anything.
Could you suggest an improvement? In summarizing a diverse article in a couple of paragraphs, it's difficult to transition smoothly. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard for me to fix this issue because I really don't know the information. I think the lead should be expanded. Add more history, establish a flow. Look at the other featured universities for examples. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The North Carolina Tar Heels share rivalries with other Tobacco Road schools and have provided many Olympians to United States teams. Again how important is this really?
Extremely. The state of North Carolina practical revolves any sporting rivalries, and it's quite an honor to have provided any Olympians, a point that sadly seems to be often missed in U.S. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: The student newspaper The Daily Tar Heel has won national awards for collegiate media, while the student radio station WXYC provided the world's first internet radio broadcast. A lot of newspapers have won national awards. And while the student radio was the first, it is not so important that it should be mentioned in the lead.
I could agree with you on the newspaper, but to say that making the first internet radio broadcast isn't important seems very strange. Maybe I'm misreading you. Could you clarify? -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well to start, the first issue is dubious without further sourcing. The sources are both internal. Second, assuming they were first, every university is first in certain things. This doesn't seem very important or notable. I guess it will depend on the sourcing you find, but right now it doesn't. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the correct referencing for the Guardian article, though it's only available in paper form. I guess I do need to find something better than the press release, but there isn't much online, as the WWW was only just starting then. I probably don't have a very unbiased view of internet radio as I'm often listening to things online, but given it's something now integrated with iTunes, Windows Media Player, and on sites like ESPN, I'm inclined to stick with it.-Hippo (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the excerpt from the Guardian even say they were the first? I don't recall seeing that. KnightLago (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the infobox, why not put the citations with the information they support? If I want to see the endowment number cite why should I have to search for it? How do I even know where to look for a piece of information? 1 goes to a book. How do I know what information is in that book?
It wasn't my design, but I actually like the way it's been done. Otherwise you're going to end up with footnotes on every field. I'll try to clarify the book source, though. Given it's a Latin book, I assume it's the Latin name and/or the motto translation.-Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved references next to fields (not really important what I like!) -Hippo (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1960s, the campus was the location of significant political protest, first about local racial segregation of hotels and restaurants,[21] and then opposition to the Speaker Ban Law prohibiting speeches by Communists on state campuses in North Carolina.[22][23] There should be no one sentence paragraphs.
I need to expand that, so I'll let you know when that's done. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, I think. -Hippo (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the late 1990s onward, UNC expanded rapidly not only in terms of a 15% increase in total student population to more than 28,000 as of 2007, but also in facilities, funded in part by the "Carolina First" fundraising campaign and an endowment that increased fourfold to over $2 billion in just ten years. There is a lot going on here. Maybe break and into 2 or more sentences.
Done. -Hippo (talk)
  • In 2007, a professor received a Nobel Prize while at UNC for the first time when Oliver Smithies was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work in genetics.[25] Why not reword to something like: Professor Oliver Smithies was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2007 for his work in Genetics. I don't think first is important here.
Done. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does he have an article? I would check and if so wiki link. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be linked now. -Hippo (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a school that is so old, the history section is very short. You have to be missing information. Look at Florida Atlantic University, a school that has only been open for 44 years, and the size of its history section. I would start with merging in the information from History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill into this main article and work from there.
  • UNC's sprawling and landscaped 729-acre (3.0 km²) campus is dominated by two central quads. Source? Who said it is sprawling, landscaped, and that it is dominated by two quads? I think quad needs to be wiki linked.
Moved a reference up. Quads is wikilinked. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Students gather in a sunken brick courtyard known as the Pit, often engaging in debate with the Pit Preacher. The Morehead-Patterson Bell Tower, located in the heart of campus, tolls the quarter-hour. In 1999, UNC was one of sixteen recipients of the American Society of Landscape Architects Medallion Awards and was identified as one of 50 college or university "works of art" by T.A. Gaines in his book The Campus as a Work of Art.[2][30] Again, there needs to be a transition and flow. You can't just jump from one piece of information to another.
  • A new satellite campus, Carolina North, has recently been proposed and is now in the planning stages. When?
Fixed. -Hippo (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most enduring symbol of the university is the Old Well, a small neoclassical rotunda based on the Temple of Love in the Garden of Versailles, in the same location as the original well that provided water for the school. Who said it is the most enduring?
Another things, why did they stop using the well? KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in McCorkle Place is the Davie Poplar tree under which the university's founder, William Davie, supposedly selected the location for the university in 1792. Why supposedly? Did he or not? The sources says he didn't. By putting supposedly the casual reader is going to think he did.
  • President Bill Clinton. President should be wiki linked.
Done.-Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another university landmark is Silent Sam, a statue commemorating the soldiers who lost their lives fighting for the Confederacy. Maybe remove "the" and then change "soldiers who lost their lives" to "died".
Done.-Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statue is controversial as some claim that the monument reminds them of racism and slavery. Others think that Silent Sam is simply a piece of the rich heritage of the South.[35] Who are some? Who are others? Maybe remove "reminds them" and use "invokes memories" or something like that.
Changed to "invokes memories". -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "state-oriented collection nationwide" mean?
I guess it means that it's the largest collection about an individual U.S. state in the country. How could that better be phrased? -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like what you just wrote would be better. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully fixed. -Hippo (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The R.B. House Undergraduate Library, also popularly frequented, is located in the same general area. Who says it is popular?
I doubt I'll find a third-party reference, so it's removed.-Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson Library, which was the university's main library prior to the construction of Davis, now houses largely special collections, rare books, and temporary exhibits. What does largely special collections mean? Why not just special collections?
Fixed. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationally, UNC is in the top ten public universities for research. Another once sentence paragraph.
Fixed. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The undergraduate program has ranked in the top 30 in the United States by U.S. News & World Report, and is consistently among the top five public universities, just behind UC Berkeley, University of Virginia, UCLA, and the University of Michigan. Who says it is consistently? The source does not show previous years.
I agree with you. What's the best why to handle this. Source more years or lose the "consistently"? I'm not sure I'll find a source that covers many years. -Hippo (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could look at the previosu years and say from X through Y years, and then source. KnightLago (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The undergraduate program has ranked in the top 30 in the United States by U.S. News & World Report, and is consistently among the top five public universities, just behind UC Berkeley, University of Virginia, UCLA, and the University of Michigan.[54] Kiplinger's Personal Finance has also ranked UNC as the number one "best value" public school for in-state students.[55] Similarly, the university is first among public universities and ninth overall in "Great Schools, Great Prices", based on academic quality, net cost of attendance and average student debt.[56] Along with one of the nation's most acclaimed undergraduate honors programs in a public institution, UNC also has the highest percentage of undergraduates studying abroad for any public institution.[36] All need to be qualified with dates or time periods. How are we supposed to know when these rankings were from as they change every year.
  • The university has won 33 NCAA team championships in six different sports, ninth all-time, and 51 individual national championships. These include eighteen NCAA championships in women's soccer, five in women's field hockey, four in men's lacrosse, four in men's basketball, one in women's basketball, and one in men's soccer. Source says 32 and tied for 8th, and mentions nothing about individual championships. Nor the breakdown of each. All need proper sourcing.
Fixed the 32/8th. The individual sports are there if you select "North Carolina" from the dropdown, there's just no way to link to the page with it automatically selected. -Hippo (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consensus collegiate national athlete" needs to be wiki linked or explained.
  • Mascot and nickname section could mostly be incorporated into the history.
  • September 2007 saw the 112th meeting in football between the two teams. Could be better worded.
  • The bitterness of this rivalry has been superseded by somewhat less historical in-state competition with Duke University, North Carolina State University, and Wake Forest University. Who says?
  • North Carolina's rivalry with Duke is particularly intense in basketball. Who says?
  • For several decades, both teams have been frequent contenders for the national championship, and, located just eight miles (13 km) apart, the students and fans of the two schools are focused in their enmity. The sources doesn't mention their distance nor enmity. Enmity is a mutual hatred. The source simply says passionate.
Changed "enmity" to "passion". How do I source a distance. Maybe I can find a direct mention, but if not, a map? -Hippo (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you one source for both assertions. It doesn't use the word "enmity," but rather says "mutual dislike." It also states that the "campuses sit only eight miles apart." Here it is: HBO probes Carolina-Duke rivalry. Get ready for the HBO documentary! Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I always wonder how they measure it. I guess it's eight by helicopter, more by car [5]. I like the idea of a showing of the documentary in Raleigh... -Hippo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditionally, the students exchange pranks with North Carolina State, including painting their "Free Expression Tunnel" blue every year before big athletic competitions. In retaliation, North Carolina State University students travel to Chapel Hill to play their fight song and occasionally dye fountains red. Traditionally means more than once and continual. The article says the painting of the tunnel only happened once. The article does not mention anything about a fight song.
Removed mention of fight song. I don't recall it being played on campus recently anyway. -Hippo (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has included painting their "Free Expression Tunnel" blue at least once. The at least once part doesn't sound great.
  • School colors could also be added to the history section and better explained as to what the groups were about.
  • The organization conducts fundraising and volunteer activities throughout the year and has donated $1.3 million to date since its inception in 1999. To date as of when. Today?
Added date. -Hippo (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many other philanthropic organizations are at UNC, and the university has a tradition of public service. Source for tradition?
Removed. It's too vague. -Hippo (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The student run newspaper The Daily Tar Heel is ranked highly by The Princeton Review,[81] and has received the Pacemaker Award from the Associated Collegiate Press.[82] The DTH, as known on campus, presented news services online as early as 1995.[83] How does the Princeton Review rank it highly? When did it receive the award? The source says 1994. You should never use the subject of the sentence as the citation source to back the sentence up. You need to find an independent source.
  • On November 7, 1994, WXYC became the first radio station in the world to broadcast its signal over the internet. Again, you need outside sources.
  • A student-run television station, STV also exists.[86] It exists?
Changed. -Hippo (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a pep band?
Wikilinked now, is that enough? -Hippo (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The athletic teams at the university are supported by the Marching Tar Heels, the university's marching band. The entire 275-member volunteer band is present at every home football game, and smaller pep bands play at all home basketball games. Each member of the band is also required to play in at least one of five pep bands that play at athletic events of the 26 other sports.[87] UNC has a regional theater company in residence, the Playmakers Repertory Company,[88] and hosts regular dance, drama, and music performances on campus.[89] Again from one statement of facts into something entirely different without any transition.
  • Honor societies such as the Order of the Golden Fleece, the Order of the Grail-Valkyries, and the Order of the Old Well also exist.[91] Exist is not a sufficient explanation.
  • Prior to that time, the Dialectic and Philanthropic Societies as well as other organizations supported student concerns.[96] The wiki link should be used when they are first mentioned. At the first mention you have no idea what they are.
  • On campus, the 32 residence halls are grouped into thirteen "communities", varying from the Olde Campus Upper Quad Community which includes Old East, the oldest building of the university, to modern communities such as Manning West, completed in 2002. Needs to be rewritten, something like: On-campus housing includes 32 residence halls grouped... What are communities?
  • Ok, in the next sentence you explain it. But it seems more like an afterthought. You should reword these two sentence to be more clear.
  • Does this university have any alumni? If so they need their own section with citations to each person mentioned and then a separate article where all the notable alumni are.
  • This image was deleted off of commons after I talked to a few admins over there. It was listed under a license restricting it to only non-commercial use and commons does not allow those images. I was told that if you want to use it you need to upload it to Wikipedia and claim fair use.
That's a pity, I didn't notice that. It would be nice to use, but does it really qualify for fair-use? -Hippo (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the commons admins it does. Irreplaceable, etc. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References need some work, after a very very brief glance over 8 has 2 periods after Jr, 48, 55, 57, 66, 77 and others have no access/retrieval dates. You need to go through and check every one.
Someone ran AWB over the article and it seems to affected the template fields. The dates are there I'll have to work out why they aren't showing. -Hippo (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems someone has actually commented out the accessdate field for journal articles. I'll have to use a different template I guess.... -Hippo (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made some progress, but still have a long way to go. The history needs to be expanded for such an old university. I don't recall one single piece of negative information in this entire article. In fact it currently leans toward a pro-POV. Has there been no controversy, criticism, riots, fires, etc. throughout the university's entire history? You also need more information about the students. Racial makeup, women vs. men, acceptance rates and selectivity, entering GPA, etc. You also need to find sources that do not relate to UNC. If you have a UNC source, look for another source that says the same thing and use that source. I suggest you request a copyedit from the WP:LoCE, rewrite and add the sections mentioned above, get another peer review, and then come back here. The article has improved a lot, but it still has a way to go. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I'll keep working on it! -Hippo (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look at the other universities that are already featured articles and see how they are formatted. This will give you an idea of what works and how the other featured articles were written. KnightLago (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose still stands. The article needs to rely more on independent sources and not websites owned by the university. Karanacs (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have a couple more days? I'm still working on sources. It's a little unfair on the Southern Historical Collection not to allow the sources since they reside on a university-owned website, though, as much of the history of North Carolina has been digitized onto UNC servers. Either way, I'll try to replace them. Hippo (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyeditor? Can anyone here help copyedit this article (as it's been suggested a couple of times). It seems WP:LoCE is no more... Hippo (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose still stands as well. The article still has a ways to go as my comments show. I was unaware the LoCE went historical. That is too bad. KnightLago (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [6].

Batgirl[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... the article passed GA without need for modification. Considering the limited critical analysis of the character, I believe the article is as comprehensive as possible. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
  • Hi, Bookkeeper. You have a dead link. Check the sources at the link at the top of this page.
COMMENT/QUESTION FOR ALL REVIEWERS: That particular link had detailed information I couldn't find anywhere else (especially for the Batwoman article, which will now probably suffer heavily) is there any policy on keeping the information even if the web article has been deleted? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
resolved. the link is archived. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give what seems to be a fairly detailed publication history, but what about a character description? Aren't there character traits or a back story that is consistent throughout the series? I know that Batman is a vigilante and a dark hero that is ambiguous about doing good sometimes. What about Batgirl? Similarly, what does each of her incarnations do? What relationships do they have with villains and with Batman himself?
Comment: Well, the original Bat-Girl was the side-kick to Batwoman, she only appeared in literally 3 or 4 comic books before DC got rid of her. Barbra Gordon is the primary Batgirl as she was given the role for 22 years, and later became Casandra Cain's mentor. Although both were associated with Batman, neither filled the "side-kick" role- they both operated independently in Gotham. Barbara had her own back stories, while Cassandra had her own series. Those statements could be worked into a prose. Is that the description you were looking for? Obviously I would expand on that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's necessary to bold the names of all the characters in the lead.
DONE fixed by another editor. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a pretty bold claim that Batgirl is considered to be symbolic of the women's empowerment movement of the 1960s. First, I think the sentence needs to include Person X claims that..., and it would be more significant if that was backed up by someone in the field of feminism. I think Batgirl's examples of being "uninspiring" also warrant expansion.
  • Make sure you have publisher information for all the citations.
  • Interesting article, but I feel that it's missing part of the picture about Batgirl. Good luck --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation to return. I checked on the progress for my requests, and I just don't think what is needed has been done. Plus, you need a copy edit of the Character attributes section (Robin should be capitalized, and the sentence structure is a bit odd). Has Batgirl not been analyzed by comic book scholars? Do you have access to the writings of comic book scholars that could be indicated in the article as "Comic book scholar X characterized Batgirl as a 'vigilante' and the mechanism for overcoming the stigma of homosexuality attached in the book Seduction of the Innocent". Because the way the section is now, it's you who is doing the analyzing. When doing character descriptions or thematic studies in works of literature (and graphic literature), a scholar/author/historian/etc name should be attached to the claim made in the article. By the way, was she effective in overcoming that stigma? (I wonder...) As well, I have to reiterate that I think you need names to back up the claims about feminism and the character being uninspiring. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I've never seen a scholarly analysis of Batgirl, comic or otherwise. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 10 "Variations on a Theme" is lacking a publisher. Also author. And it seems to be a blog, why is it a reliable source? (Right now it is sourcing "The plot which lead to Gordon's paralysis subsequently became a point of controversy among critics and commentators.")
    The publisher Newsarama is a reliable source. The article itself is indeed a blog, however the Comic Project deemed it appropriate because it involves two commentaries written by comic book professionals- Valerie D'Orazio, a former editor at Acclaim Comics and Laura Hudson, Senior editor of Comic Foundry Magazine. Further details of the discussion are in the main article Barbara Gordon under Batman: The Killing Joke. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally blogs aren't that reliable. Leaving this one unstruck so other reviewers can decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostof your references are in last name then first name order for the authors, but current ref 3 Fred Grandinetti isn't. Probably should make that consistent.
Still needs to be last name first to be consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 17 the title "Nature or Nuture" is in all caps, which is an MOS issue. Same for current ref 21 "Reflections"
  • Current ref 20 Batgirl #73 is lacking all bibliographic data
  • Current ref 28 "The Batman/Superman Hour" is lacking publisher and any other relevant bibliographical data. Also, what makes IMDb reliable for this data?
  • Current ref 34 "Comisc in Context #67" is lacking publisher information.
  • Current ref 35 is just a title and last access date. Lackign publisher, etc.
  • Same for current ref 36 Schiff, Laura "Interview with Yvonne".
  • You list a series of books in the References section, but only seem to use one above? Also they should be in alphabetical order.
  • Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 2 Daniels, Les. Batman: The Complete History. Chronicle Books, 2004. ISBN 0811842320
Current ref 2 is Batman #139 though, not this book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hand to adjust a few sentences. This is now REF 1 The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF 6 Arant, Wendi. Benefiel, Candace. The Image and Role of the Librarian. Haworth Press, 2002. ISBN 0789020998
  • REF 13 Brooker, Will. Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 0826413439
  • REF 36 Flood, Michael. International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge, 2007. ISBN 9780415333436. The other two I can either delete or move to "further reading" which ever is more appropriate. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - you should alphabetize the references. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Moni3 - while the detail on the publication history and critical reception is great, the article feels like it's missing a section on the character and attributes of the fictional character of Batgirl - what was the character like; was this consistent, or did it vary between the different Batgirls? Adacore (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DONE fixed by another editor. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments

    All issues resolved — Bellhalla (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of boldface in the lead needs to comply with WP:LEAD (i.e. no boldface links, bold only in lead sentence)
    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use the "upright" tag for portrait orientation images for better sizing (see MOS:IMAGES)
      • I fixed that. The images, even after adjustment, are "sandwiching" text (see MOS:IMAGES) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't place images immediately below headings, as is the case with the "Barbara Gordon" and "Cassandra Cain" sections (see MOS:IMAGES)
    • Check for typos: "Comissioner Gordon" in section "Barbara Gordon", for example
    DONE The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make sure the links go to where expected. The above referenced "Comissioner Gordon" link goes to a dab page.
    DONE The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency of tense. Section "Cassandra Cain" switches between the present and past tenses
    • For a character having a "dramatic impact on popular culture" the "Cultural impact" sections is awfully thin.
    comment:I toned down the wording. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Footnotes" sections normally precede "Reference" sections
    comment: I've been wondering, is this mandatory? For whatever reason I prefer to have the references first, but I can change it if thats the consensus. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)
    — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments An excellent summary of the character, though at times it reads a little like a well-expanded disambiguation page. I'm not ready to support this yet, but with some improvements, I might.

    • My major concern is comprehensiveness, 1b. You go into excellent detail of the several Batgirls of the primary DC universe continuity, but either ignore or skim over others. I wonder whether you can flesh out additional details of "Batgirl" from outside a comics standpoint. For non-comics readers, Batgirl's appearances in films and television are just a notable as in the comics. (Unless you want to rename this to Batgirl (DC comics).)
      • Batgirl in film? She appeared in Batman & Robin (film) (which you mention), but there's no information about her, who played her, etc.
      • Nor do you say who voiced her or anything about her characterization in the several animated outings. You might be able to convey some of this in a table, if it doesn't make sense to do it in prose.
      • What about other significant Batgirls? Any significant elseworlds
    • comment: One of problems with all of these points is that the only Batgirl to be featured in Animation, film and out-of-continuity DC publications is Barbara Gordon. Hence why the article links to alternate versions of Barbara Gordon and Media adaptations of Barbara Gordon. I thought the "adaptations in other media" section should be kept minimal here, since further elaboration is given in all three of Barbara's articles. I'm not against adding this information back into this article of course, I'm just giving background information on why its not present here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Connections between batgirl and batwoman. Why are some "women" and other "girl"? (You have a "See also" to Batwoman, but that just cries out for elaboration.)
    • comment:The first Bat-female was Batwoman. Bat-Girl was invented her niece/side-kick and as a love interest for robin, but only appeared in 3-4 comic books and was dumped. Batwoman was also given the boot. When DC introduced Barbara Gordon/Batgirl- she became the sole Bat-female. No elaboration was ever given as to why DC chose to use the "Batgirl" name over "Batwoman". Batgirl was the name given to all Bat-females until 2006 when DC decided to reinvent Batwoman as an LGBT character. The two characters have always been distinct from one another. The "new" Batwoman is a literal reinvention of the original character, while the current Batgirl remains Cassandra Cain- though the two have no connection to each other other than being associated with Batman). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "described as one of the most high profile characters to be published during the Silver Age of Comic Books" - citation needed
    • "only Barbara Gordon's incarnation of the character has had an impact on popular culture" - citation needed
    • You mention "Seduction of the Innocent", and cite it indirectly through "Batman: The Complete History". Can you cite this directly from this source? (Obviously, you still need to use the source you did to describe the controversy that book caused.)
    • "These characters, with the exception of Robin, were abandoned in 1964 when new Batman editor Julius Schwartz concluded these characters were inappropriate" - one fewer "these characters"?
    • "Mary Elizabeth "Bette" Kane, was introduced as the superheroine Flamebird, who continues to appear in DC Comics publications" - citation needed?
    • "Cassandra Cain's character history is deeply complex and highly unique compared to other Batman supporting characters." - reword?
    • "the character has been given a supporting role in the comic book series Batman and the Outsiders." - citation needed?
    • You "see also" Gotham Girls without context. Can you put this link in the prose someplace?
    • Can you move the links to Alternate versions of Barbara Gordon and Media adaptations of Barbara Gordon either up to her section or leave them out? I think you should have a link to Media adaptations of Batgirl, if such an article exists. (Or that can be a redirect.)

    Though this seems like a lot of comments, I think this is a nearly complete FA article. You do a particularly good job of keeping it out of universe and making it readable to a non-fan and that's difficult with comics articles. Good work. JRP (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note; the excess markup here makes this FAC hard to read. Can we please avoid excess bolding, per WP:TALK guidelines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is an editorial retirement? GrahamColmTalk 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This occurs when the head editors at DC Comic (i.e. the Editor in Chief, Executive Vice President, or someone like Julius Schwartz, editor of all Batman related comic books) decides on the official direction of how they want a character to go and instruct the writing staff on how they want to see the character written out of publication. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I'm not the biggest fan of the article's current layout. Are all the images currently being used in the article really necessary? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Oppose Cr 3 and 1a.

    • Non-free content: Tell me how your use of five NF images meets the requirement of minimal usage in the NFCC? I'm most unconvinced by the justifications (BTW, "freely-licensed" is not hyphenated; read MOS). Take the Cain one: if there were some specific point about Scott's design that needed to be illustrated, maybe; but there's nothing in the main text about it, and nothing in the caption. This should be removed. I'd say one or two NF images might be acceptable; you can't just use them willy-nilly to illustrate different incarnations, unless there's a cogent and central reason to do so. NFCC 8 says that the reader's understanding must be significantly less without the content. I don't see that.

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • MOS breach: read up on hyphens and en dashes (first para. and more).

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Schwartz had asserted that these characters needed to be removed"—"should be"

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Batman related"—where's the hyphen? MOS.

    DONE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The prose generally needs a spruce-up. TONY (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'Disappointed that you didn't notice my clincher, just above here, balancing on the word "generally". It's not badly written, but needs polishing. Someone else would be much better, since you're too close to it. Not a long job, but an important one. I looked through two more paras:

    • Now, did you read MOS on dashes? You've got en dashes now instead of hyphens–as interruptors–which is half the battle; now they need to be spaced – like this – to adhere to professional practice. Or use unspaced em dashes—like this—to do the job. All consistent, please.
    Done. Unless I missed some, there is currently only one sentence that uses em dash. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not a jot of copy-editing after the third para after the lead.
    • Why is "doctorate" linked? Isn't it normal English? Same for "homosexuality" ... um, we know what it is. And there are repeat links; are you worried the reader didn't hit the first link? Ration them to the high-value ones, and the reader is more likely to follow up the bright-blue splashes.
    Done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Barbara Gordon is described as the original Batgirl, considering the character ...". Oh, no, it's not Batgirl who's considering the character; we read on and have to disambiguate in reverse: "Barbara Gordon is described as the original Batgirl, considering the character histories of Bat-Girl and Batwoman had been erased....".
    removed sentence. The same thing is mentioned in the previous section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lead" is an element, grey in colour, not the past tense of a common verb. Not like "read, read".
    fixed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After reclaiming her identity as the Huntress, Bertinelli would later join Oracle's Birds of Prey, thus giving the group two former Batgirls." Don't like that conditional future ("would"), which is pretty informal, and after "after", a bit awkward. "Giving"—is that the right word? TONY (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reworded. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notice your clincher. It's just a fact I'm not good at copy-editing my own work. I've tried to get a few people to help out with copy-editing, but at the same time I don't want to nag as many people as possible. It's really unfortunate the League of Copy-editors is inactive. I'll address your further comments, but I'm sure the article is not going to pass FAC this time around. There is still the whole bit over which In other media should be the main text, because if i expand that section as suggested, I could just copy and paste it into Barbara Gordon and Barbara Gordon in other media, which i think is redundant. In addition, I have yet to run across the in depth analysis of the character everyone is so eager to see (and that after searching google scholar, proquest, google books and a number of other research engines). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When were the references in the References section used?--Rmky87 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    REF 1, 6, 13, 16, 28, 29, 36, 41, 42, 43. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you ask Deckiller for a few names, then? And research edit summaries at edit history pages of similar (well-written) articles to identify the word-nerds. You need to network on WP to establish complementary teams of users for future articles: why not start now? Very hard to prepare by yourself.
    • "Lead" is still there: "LED". Twice at least. Hurrumph.
    done. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just checking: Bat-girl was hyphenated at one point, yes?
    Betty Kane- yes. Barbara Gordon and all subsequent "Batgirls"- no. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking forward to polishing throughout. TONY (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose I don't feel that this meets all criteria.
      • The lead serves more as a fictional history overview rather than an overview of the entire article.
      • Publication history- the good: the article avoids 'fictional character biographies'. The bad: still has lots of material written in-universe (see WP:WAF.) Ex: "As Oracle, Barbara Gordon is written as an ally to various DC Universe superheroes, but is most notable as the founder and head of operations of the Birds of Prey organization." Also, issues with writing tense, ex. "Editor Kim Yale and author John Ostrander revive the character in Suicide Squad #23 (1989)"- it's not fiction so it should be fast tense.
    --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [7].

    Saint Nectarios[edit]

    Nominator(s): Cssiitcic (talk)


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's a very imformative article and is very nice. I think it will look good on the main page. It has alot of info and a picture. Cssiitcic (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, Cssiitcic has never edited this article. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Not a single reference.

    Gary King (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Unreferenced. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [8].

    Polish culture during World War II[edit]

    After my recent content expansion, I believe that the article is quite comprehensive. It was copy edited for the Good Article status earlier, if there are any English language issues remaining I'd appreciate your help - since I am not a native speaker I cannot easily address them. PS. I am aware of the large amount of red links; all represent notable subjects that need to be stubbed (most have articles at pl wikipedia). The amount of redness is a good illustration of our bias (non-English language subjects have a much poorer content coverage). Please note that per our policy red links are helpful and should not be removed (instead they should be "blued"). Self-nomination. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (must be bird morning...)

    • 1) http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/199/glass.html this is a book review, is it really a reliable source for "Polish culture was brutally suppressed during World War II by the country's occupiers, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, both of which were hostile to Polish culture and to the Polish people and sought their destruction." which I don't find a contentious piece of information but I'm sure there are persons who do. Probably better to go with a book/journal article here.
    Hm, on your reply, this is a book review though, as I said. Surely one of the many many books on WWII give this data which would be less contentious than using a book review. It's not that I don't think it's reliable, I think it could be better so that when this article hits the main page, we don't have people complaining about the quality of the sources.
    It'd be nice to see it backed up with reliable book sources if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean towards reliable on this one too, but I'm going to leave it unstruck so other reviewers can judge for themselves.
    He's a marketing professor? Did he get his PhD in history or something else?
    Did you reply to this one? You're welcome, by the way, to intersperse your replies with mine, indenting them below my comments, if that makes keeping track of things easier.
    • 6) You use the Salmonowicz source a lot, wouldnt it make more sense to list it in the references?
    • 7) Current ref 48 is lacking a page number
    Urf. Probably okay, but it's like using a book review, while it's reliable enough, it could be better.
    Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I have no way of judging the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies:
    • 1) re: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/199/glass.html is an academic book review of an academic book, hence pretty reliable.
    • 2) re: http://www.projectinposterum.org/I'd point out to the author of the text: "Professor Piotr Wrobel holds the Konstanty Reynart Chair in Polish at the University of Toronto...". He seems pretty reliable, and if he published his text on the website of this NGO ("nonprofit, public benefit corporation established in 2004 in California with the following purpose: "The corporation is organized for the specific purpose of preserving and popularizing selected subjects of World War II history and its aftermath with a focus on Central and Eastern Europe"), I think it is pretty reliable, too.
    • 3) re: http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/22%20Article.htm Publisher is a London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association, author Grzegorz Ostasz in an academic (google search indicates he is a "assistant dean of the Marketing and Management Faculty of the Rzeszow Polytechnic" who "studied history at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow where he gained his PhD").
    • 4) re: kasprzyk: that's harder, this is just a website, but estimates seem similar to the ones in Salmonowicz book. I've indicated that similar numbers can be found on p.213 of his book
    • 6) re: I believe User:Mangostar is just converting long refs into short and adding it them to the references section (thanks)
    • 7) re: Shirli Gilbert, Music in the Holocaust: Confronting Life in the Nazi Ghettos and Camps - indeed; I have not read the book, just used the info from its abstract / blurb
    • 8) re: http://www.warsawuprising.com is the official website of the Warsaw Uprising Museum; I've added that info to the ref.
    --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The review has the advantage of being accessible online. We can add book refs to that if needed, but I believe an academic review is a reliable source in itself.
    • 3) Re: Ostasz - as I noted above, he studied history and got his PhD in it. Despite holding a position in the marketing dept (although this may be an error - Rzeszow page (also his homepage there) lists him as part of the Dept of Humanities, not Marketing), he is the author of several books about Polish history, and has given conference lectures on the subject (ex.here).
    • 5) I've missed that one. It seems to be a website claiming to publish rare Polish documents from the past. I've removed it, Salmonowicz is much more reliable and he gives 10 times as high a number (and goes into much more detail, citing sources).
    --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An academic book review is a great source for the article whose subject is a book but not on the events, covered in the book. If whatever facts the article claims are mentioned in the book, they should be referenced directly to the book, with page numbers, not to a review that says that they are in a book. --Irpen 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to provide specific page numbers from Piotrowski for that. For now, I have added another reference, to article by Professor Piotr Wrobel who wrote: "Poland's citizens were killed not only by the Germans. The Soviet occupation resembled German rule in many respects; indeed most scholars believe that "In the Soviet occupation zone conditions were only marginally less harsh than under the Germans." For their part, many Poles believe that the Soviet occupation was worse." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving out the remaining unstruck comments for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching this FAC for now (hope to find time to do a fuller review later) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Article is not comprehensive. Cultural activities in Jewish ghettos isn't reflected at all. Holocaust is almost not mentioned. M0RD00R (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are incorrect. The holocaust was mentioned in the aftermath section; as was Jewish literature (i.e. early ban of it by the Germans). I have added the note that cultural activities were also carried out in ghettos, with refs to education, writers, theater and music in ghettos. My sources don't discuss the culture in Jewish ghettos in any detail, if you have any sources on that please expand the article, or even better, create a subarticle (details of Polish Jewish subculture in WWII are certainly notable, but please note this article is a general overview with focus on Polish culture, not Polish-Jewish culture).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid "Mentioned in several places" is not good enough for article to be comprehensive. And until it is not comprehensive it shouldn't promoted.M0RD00R (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH. Gary King (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the two vertical navboxes are very awkward, especially for users with narrower screens. Could someone make horizontal versions of these so that they can be included as footers instead? Mangostar (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for c/e refs in the Polish culture in WWII article; I am looking forward to seeing this part done :) Horizontal navboxes are a good idea, but templates are not my field of expertise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Three issues here, two cosmetic and one content. For the cosmetic ones:
    • One, there are excessive redlinks in the "Underground Culture" section that should be removed.
    • Two, the "Culture in Exile" section should either be expanded or folded into another section; it's too small in its current state.
    • Now, the content one. I am concerned that the article deals more with the Nazi treatment of Polish cultural figures than actual Polish World War II culture. I raised this during when I reviewed the article for GA a few months ago, but it hasn't been fixed. The best and simplest way to address this is by splitting the "Underground Culture" section into subsections: one dealing with academia's plight, one about writers and authors, and one about Polish theater. It wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would point the article into a more usable direction from which we can work to improve it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted in my nomination, red links are to notable articles and thus the correct way to deal with them is to write the missing articles.
    • This section is short, but whether its too short to be a section is a matter of discussion. Certainly it can use more expansion in the future.
    • I disagree. Many names are mentioned, but majority of them where added AFTER the GA review. The names also serve to inform about individuals, but the texts focuses on the concepts (theatre, press, etc.). Each para is deveoted to one or more phenomena, so it would be hard to section it properly, and some of the resulting sections would be on the short side.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Do we need the long red-linked list of underground actors, really. For one it hinders readability, and also would not a qualifying statement "many" not suffice. Ceoil sláinte 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All red links are notable, as I noted above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based on comprehensiveness and prose. This is a fascinating topic with a lot of potential, and while the article has done a good job of identifying many of the important aspects of the topic it does not go far enough in developing those aspects for an uniformed reader. I know nothing about Polish culture and have an American's basic idea of what happened in WWII. From this article I mostly understand what happened - that the Nazis tried to extinguish the culture and other people worked to keep it. What I don't have a good understanding of is what the culture actually was. I've listed below questions or comments about specific pieces of the article.
      • It might be a good idea to start the article with a brief explanation of what Polish culture was like before the German invasion. As it is, the article begins with an invasion and then starts talking about changes.
      • I think there may also need to be a bit more background in the rest of the article too, as many of us are not very familiar with Polish cultures or some of the Nazi Germany issues. For example, I wasn't entirely sure when Germany invaded Poland (I just knew it was in the late 1930s), so it might be wise to explain the date, and I did not know what ""Nur für Deutsche" status" meant. In the next paragraph, I have never heard of AB-Aktion, Sonderaktion Krakau and the massacre of Lwow professors. I can go read all the wikilinks, but it might be better to place a bit more context in the article itself. That way people won't get discouraged and stop reading.
        • September 1939 added. Nur für Deutsche translated. Since the articles to Sonderaktion and so on are linked, I am not convinced we need to explain them there - this is, after all, what interlinks and subarticles are for. In our context it is enough to know that they are specific examples of anti-Polish actions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also include a bit more explanation of why Germany was in such a rush to rid themselves of those who were intelligent.
      • Did many Poles speak German during this time period? As the Polish language was outlawed, I wondered if there was anything to take its place? Were people allowed to read books in German?
        • Well, Polish language was outlawed as the official language, but people still spoke it widely. Germans didn't had the power to make everyone change their language immediately. And yes, some Poles spoke German, although I could not cite a statistic for it ATM. Germany was a major Polish neighbor before the war, and during the war it was even more important... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd recommend a good copyedit by a native speaker. You might ask user:Risker to help - she does good work and often helps out with articles at FAC.
      • Were the 1500+ writers declared dangerous the authors of the prohibited books, or might they have written books not on the list? I'm a bit confused as to how the two pieces of that sentence fit together.
      • The section on "Under Soviet occupation" seems to say that there were institutions, such as the Lwow University that were still in existence, but the section on the Nazis implied that all of that was wiped out
        • Well, Nazis wiped out those under their control. They did not control those on the territories occupied by the Soviets.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Geography is my weak point, and, again I know minimal info about Polish history. I assumed the Soviets took over Poland after the Nazis were kicked out. More background would be helpful. Are there any images that show Poland subdivided into the areas where the Soviets held control and those where the Nazis had control? Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section "Underground culture" is very long and might be able to be broken up with subheadings
      • "paid writers for books with the agreement that they would be delivered after the war" - would the books be delivered after the war or the payment?
      • I agree with the poster above who said that the effects on Jewish culture are glossed over in this article. The article touches on the destruction of the ethnic minorities in Poland but needs to go into a bit more detail. Discuss a bit about the minority groups that were virtually eliminated and what effect this had on the country.
        • They are discussed as much as my sources discussed them. More would require other sources and subarticles to cover those topics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that many of the topics I've brought up could be detailed enough to have an entire subarticle. The problem is that those subarticles would then need to be summarized here. Even if there is not a subarticle, the information should still be summarized here. I really feel comprehensiveness is an issue here, which may very well mean consulting additional sources. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the lists of actors, musicians, and writers from the underground culture are too long. It's fine to pick out three or four of each, but if you want to mention 19! or more, create a list instead and reference that.
        • Why not? This article is probably the only one listing them in this context in English language online.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because it is not good prose to have a sentence that says "These important musicians continued to play: " and then list 19 or more names. The article gives no information about what was important about those people. I think you could easily create a new article that is a list and capture that information, but it feels out of place in this article. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why was it necessary to have underground postage stamps? Was the mail cancelled? What did they do with these postage stamps since they were likely not able to be used?
        • I guess Polish underground post article should be written, but it is outside the scope of this article. Briefly, Warsaw Uprising insurgents recreated various institutions of the Polish state; the stamps boosted morale and the post was actually delivered (inside insurgent held Warsaw).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This type of brief detail should be included in the article; those of us with minimal knowledge of Polish history are left confused. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article says there was no underground radio station, yet there is a sound clip from a Polish insurgent radio station
        • The article says there was no underground radio station until the uprising started, and insurgents could protect it. Otherwise it would have been quickly discovered by German radio locators and destroyed by normal German patrols in occupied Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too much of the section on the underground culture reads like a bulleted list converted to prose. The article is missing the detail that would make the culture come to life.
      • The section Culture in exile is very short. What types of work were the Polish writers producing? Did their works make it back into Poland or were they popular in other parts of the world or help inform other parts of the world about the Polish troubles?
      • Did the war effect the food supply and the types of dishes that people ate? Food is a large part of a culture as well, and if people were unable to make their native dishes that is worth a mention.
        • Interesting point. Yes, it did, same with clothes... everyday life was significantly affected. Again, this was not covered in my sources, but I will see if I can find anything on that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "nearly three-quarters of the Polish people have emphasized the importance of World War II to the Polish national identity" - how? This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

    Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments: Oppose
    • At the risk of undoing edits someone probably told you to make in the lead, I did some editing there to make it flow better. Can you state in the lead what parts of culture were particularly valuable and vulnerable? Music? Literature? Recreation?
    • What is museal?
    • State who Hans Frank was.
    • The article reads almost like a list of Nazi acts without the bullet points. I think each portion of Polish culture should include a bit more analyzation, and the beginning of each should include a topic sentence. By beginning with direct detail it reads more list-like. It might help to consider it a story, with each tier getting a bit worse.
    • The paragraph about Polish book stores is quite confusing. I think you need to take care here to use more detail in careful sentences. Remember, most people reading this are unfamiliar with Polish culture: what is important to Poles and what is not.
    • More to come - still reading --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images throughout the article sandwich the text. They need to be smaller and spaced widely enough so that the article doesn't appear between the images.
    • What is "crash Sovietization"?
    • The lists of names in the Underground culture section are overwhelming. Since most of them are red-linked, why are they there?
    • Starting at Underground culture, the article loses cohesion. I think the article needs a few copy edits to focus on making that section neater, and the section after that either merged into another or expanded.
    • The entire article needs a copy edit for smoothing phrases, integrating parenthetical statements, and pointing out which Polish elements of culture need brief explanations.
    • I think this is a very interesting article, but not yet ready for FA status. I hope to see it again in the future. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [9].

    When Harry Met Sally...[edit]

    Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think a lot work has been put into this article so that it meets the standards of FA status. This is one of the most influential and important romantic comedies in American cinema. J.D. (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the dead link and replaced the two DVD links with a more reliable, established DVD site for the first one and a link from Entertainment Weekly with the second.--J.D. (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you replace the first with http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=2339? I'm not sure this is more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with more reliable source.--J.D. (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "phrase "[[wikt:high-maintenance|]]"…”" appears? Gary King (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, but what is wrong with this link? it goes to a definition of high maintenance. Do you think that maybe it is unnecessary and I should just remove it?--J.D. (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the link was broken and needed to be fixed. That's why it appeared as plain text. Gary King (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gotcha. Thanks.--J.D. (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object I just counted five paragraphs in a row with not one single ref. Lead has more on legacy than the legacy section, lead should be a summary. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Five paragraphs? Can you tell me where because I don't see it. The last paragraph in the lead section actually summarizes the film's Reception and Legacy and is not longer than the Legacy section which I have expanded a little.--J.D. (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I guess it's only 4 now, but of the 5 paras in "Plot", only one has a ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plot summaries in articles dedicated to works of fiction do not generally require citations; it's understood that the work itself is its source. I do not see this particular plot containing anything "up to interpretation" as it's pretty straight forward, so I do not believe refs are required. María (habla conmigo) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with María here. BuddingJournalist 06:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Split off the soundtrack into a separate article; no need to have a tracklisting/cover art included here. Stuff l;ike "In the movie's famous scene at the deli, Sally demonstrates how a woman can easily fool a man by a fake orgasm." should not be in the plot section; just a simple description of the plot please. The article looks rather bare; I have comprehensiveness concerns—is that all that has been written about the movie?

    indopug (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created a soundtrack article and removed the deli line from the summary. As for comprehensive issues... Yeah, it's tricky. There's not a lot of Production info available in print beyond what I already have in there. The DVD extras have additional bits but after awhile it degrades into trivial anecdotal info and I didn't want to bog down the article with that kind of stuff. What I would like to do is maybe find out more films that were influenced by it, beef up the Legacy subsection a bit.--J.D. (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    '"high-maintenance"[1] girlfriend and the "transitional person" ctrl + F tells me these terms aren't repeated in the prose. I'll read the entire article and comment in detail tomorrow. indopug (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for spotting this. I've put something about it in the Legacy subsection as that seemed the most appropriate place.--J.D. (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments regarding images:
      • Image:WhenHarryMetSallyPoster.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and the rationale does not have all "necessary elements" (WP:RAT - e.g. replaceability). Rationale of "The image is significant because it was used to promoted [sic] a notable film" does not adequately/clearly articulate necessity or a significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#10C).
    Fixed. Its 299 × 425 pixels now. indopug (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I'll make a tweak. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:WhenHarryMetSallyPoster.jpg is not low resolution (exceeds 0.1 megapixels). Image function appears redundant to poster image. NFCC#3A requires minimal use. Purpose of "significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself" seems redundant to poster image. Both serve as means of identifying the film. Both depict the main actors from what is functionally the same angle. Why are both needed? What significant understanding (NFCC#8) does this image contribute above and beyond what is provided by the poster? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about these instead ([10], [11], [12]) for the Deli scene section? indopug (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not the strongest case in terms of NFCC#8 I've seen, but, yeah, I'll buy that. My vote would be for [2], but they all get the job done. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just read the plot section only, and I was rather disappointed; I would think that this movie would lend itself easily to a sparkling summary, but the prose here was far from engaging. I'll try give a full review over the weekend (of course, if possible, try to spruce up the writing before then :)). For example, it would be easier on readers (and make for a more informative description of the movie) to introduce the mockumentary-style interviews at the beginning (as the film starts with one). Then at the end, it's easier to describe the final scene; no need to backtrack and describe what was happening earlier. This also preserves chronological flow. BuddingJournalist 06:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, on a more trivial note, some of the works in the citations are un-italicized when they should be (The New York Times, Washington Times, etc.) I assume this is probably because these are mistakenly put under "publisher" instead of "work" in citation templates. BuddingJournalist 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've italicized the periodicals.--J.D. (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An excellent article, but I feel we could get a better picture for the deli scene section. If you want, I'll upload it a screenshot of Ryan faking it. Also, do you have any information on the film's shooting schedule? Alientraveller (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can snag a better pic than by all means, go for it. As for info on the film's shooting schedule, I haven't come across any but let me check the DVDs and see if any production notes mention it.--J.D. (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So which would be better: a screencap of Ryan in fake agony, or Rob Reiner's mum uttering the line "I'll have what she's having."? Alientraveller (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Howzabout we go with the Ryan screencap?--J.D. (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the legacy section be expanded? Those two terms the movie made popular should be defined and expanded upon in that section too. I think critical reception should be split into two paragraphs for easier readability. "Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy": that should be an endash (–); same for other awards. The Brown Sugar ref does not support the claim that WHMS... influenced countless comedies. indopug (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed the endash thing and added to Legacy section, citing more examples.--J.D. (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
    • I read the article and I'm having some difficulty with it. I admit, some of it may be me. First, the writing needs to be a bit more professional, particularly in the plot section. With an FA film article, I expect the subject to be somewhat groundbreaking, interpretive, or influential. However, the writing is very simplistic making the film seem simplistic. I went through and made some edits, but I think it would be helped if you explain what the characters learned from each encounter. For example, what was the point of the second encounter in the airplane, and the bookstore encounter? You address the issues of relationships in very general terms, but I think you need to be more specific. The film was quite popular and though I wouldn't put it on a top ten, I was entertained when it came out, I suppose. It did have a lot of heart in it, but I find that missing in the article. It would help if you describe their personalities when they meet, and how they change throughout the years. What attracts them to each other? Sally's quirky eating habits and Harry's...what was it? I can't remember, actually. The pivotal moment when they realize they're in love with each other has to be explained better. Otherwise it's stale.
    • I feel like you really need to make a strong case for the impact of the film on the American perception of romantic relationships. Here in the FAC announcement you state that it's "one of the most influential and important romantic comedies in American cinema", but the article neglects to make that point really powerfully. I think it should. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The deli scene is an important scene in the movie, and the text does a wonderful job of describing it, how the fake orgasm scene came about, and to a lesser extent the impact on modern society. The image though is worthless. It is a fair use image. There needs to be a very, very good reason for it to be there. In this particular still from the movie, Harry and Sally are looking at each other, and nothing more. Sally's not faking the orgasm, nor is she being watched by all the patrons in the deli. The image adds nothing to the article. Plus, the fair use rationale on the image is weak at best, citing "identification" as the reason fair use of the image is allowed. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images says this use should be for critical commentary and discussion. The scene's discussed, but in the context of the fake orgasm. Otherwise, the scene is fairly meaningless. Note that an earlier scene from the movie where they are in a restaurant at the beginning of their road trip, is not even mentioned in the article. It is the fake orgasm that makes this scene important to the movie, and the screenshot does nothing to support that. Delete the image, replace it with one that clearly shows her in the throes of the fake orgasm, and preferably with other customers clearly staring at her, or just remove the image entirely. Also, expand this section and cover more about how this scene impacted society. It's received tons of airplay on radio stations, become a colloquialism, and more. Expound on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Regarding commentary on the fake orgasm, I know from prior reading elsewhere that Meg Ryan faked an orgasm in front of her mother feeling that if she could do it in front of her mother, she could do it in front of a camera. Might be nice to find a cite for that and include it in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:29, 27 June 2008 [13].

    Starrcade (1983)[edit]

    Self-nominator: 13 of Diamonds (talk)


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. The article has undergone a peer review, and has been examined against the reviews of other similar articles. 13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It appears that the nominator has subsequently left Wikipedia: [14] Gwernol 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    Sorry, but I don't think this is reaches the quality required for featured article status. Here are some prose issues I found in the first few paragraphs. This is not an exhaustive list of issues, just some examples:

    • Opening paragraph: "It took place on 24 November 1983 from the Greensboro Coliseum..." should read "It took place on 24 November 1983 at the Greensboro Coliseum..."
    • Second paragraph: "Their feud began after Race won the title from Flair in June, and saw Race offer a bounty to have Flair put out of professional wrestling" would be better as two sentences, I think: "Their feud began after Race won the title from Flair in June. Race then offered a bounty to have Flair put out of professional wrestling" - avoids the awkward "and saw" conjunction.
    • Second paragraph: "Flair was attacked, and depicted to have suffered a career-ending injury". Needs to be reworded, perhaps: "Race attacked Flair, appearing to inflict on him a career-ending injury". You also need to expand on the circumstances of this attack - was it during a match? Was it even at the Starrcade event? I don't understand the chronology here.
    • Second paragraph: "The match secured Flair as the long-term champion" needs rewording, something like: "As a result of his victory in the match, Flair was acknowledged as the long-term champion"
    • Background section, first paragraph: "...where Rhodes was more comfortable losing the title as he, as well as Flair, was not a major name there" should be reworded to "where Rhodes was more comfortable losing the title as he and Flair were not major names there"
    • Background section, first paragraph: "Flair felt that the match was poorly orchestrated due to the location, and as Rhodes was unhappy about losing the title." This seems to contradict the previous sentence - either Rhodes is "comfortable" loosing he title or he is "unhappy" about it. You should reconcile these two sentences. Also "and as" is the wrong conjunction to use, I think you mean "and because"?
    • Background section, first paragraph: "Flair's reign as the champion ended on 10 June 1983" This is a very sudden switch. You spent three sentences on details about Flair becoming champion, then the next sentence tells us when his reign ended. If its worth writing that much detail on how he became champion, shouldn't there be something about his reign? Did anything significant happen during his reign? Why did his reign end? If you tell us why it began, you ought to tell us why it ended too.
    • Background section, first paragraph: "Race wanted to regain the title to help with the operations of the Heart of America professional wrestling promotion, in which he invested" I'm not sure why you are telling me this. For a reader unfamiliar with the subject, this seems arbitrary. Can you expand on why this is important? What impact does this have on the Race-Flair feud?
    • Background section, second paragraph: "...to have Flair put out of professional wrestling so as to avoid losing the title" change to: "...to have Flair put out of professional wrestling to avoid losing the title"
    • Background section, second paragraph: "Flair was portrayed to have suffered a severe neck injury..." change to something like "Flair's character was portrayed as suffering from a serious neck injury..."?
    • Background section, second paragraph: "Flair soon announced his retirement..." can you be more specific than "soon"?
    • Background section, second paragraph: "The promotion planned for their feud to culminate at Starrcade..." is it correct to say "The promotion" here - promotion is a verb not a noun? Should this say "The promoters planned..."? I'm not sure what the correct wrestling terminology is here.
    • Event section, first paragraph: "...performed an eye rake to Jones." should be "performed an eye rake on Jones."
    • Event section, first paragraph: "The match started back and forth..." needs to be reworded, since I don't know what this means.
    • Event section, first paragraph: "...gained the advantage over McGhee by targeting his left arm" - its not clear to this reader at least, why targeting his left arm led to an advantage.
    • Event section, first paragraph: "Lewin performed a knee drop from the top turnbuckle..." what is a turnbuckle? Probably needs a wikilink.
    • Event section, first paragraph: "...lacerated his forehead with a foreign object from Hart." You need to tell us what sort of foreign object was used.
    • Event section, first paragraph: "Angelo Mosca attempted to help McGhee, but was also attacked." Why did Mosca help? Understanding the motivation is important

    The prose needs a fairly major rewrite throughout. The Results section, for example, is a list that repeats information already in the article and needs a fair amount of work, or maybe should be moved into a table? You don't say what the units of time are - minutes and seconds, presumably? The Production and Reception section seems to contain a lot of background information that should be in the Background section, or at the top of the Event section.

    More generally, I found the Event section lost my interest. I'm not a wrestling fan, so I came from this from the perspective of a general reader. The Background section was interesting - describing the importance of the event itself and the characters involved. The tone of the Event section is very different, it uses a lot of jargon and is really little more than a blow-by-blow account of the matches. I can't follow the action since I'm not familiar with all the moves described. You introduce lots of new characters without giving me their storylines and I don't care about them or understand the complex feud dynamics involved. This seems to be a section written by and for wrestling fans and I suspect you will loose a lot of the general readers at this point. I'm not sure exactly how to resolve this.

    I notice the article is currently rated as B-class. You might want to start by nominating this article as a good article and work on some of these issues there. Good luck, Gwernol 08:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed the minor grammar stuff. I don't know much about the event in question, so I'll have to leave the more difficult tasks to someone with that knowledge. Nikki311 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Replaced, someone has taken the liberty to replace those. Nikki311 20:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - 1a. I second Gwernol's concerns about the prose and add these:

    • In the first paragraph, three straight sentences begin with it. More variation is needed.
    • How did one match secure a long title reign for Ric Flair? You'd be better off stating that the match led to a long title run. I also disagree with the premise. According to the article, his run lasted for about three months. I'm sure there have been many longer title runs in pro wrestling.
    • Wording changed.
    • Event: "and lacerated his forehead with a foreign object from Hart." Picky, but in addition to stating the foreign object I would prefer "provided by Hart."
    • "and Colon applied the figure four leglock on Abdullah. This should be "a figure four leglock".
    • In the next sentence, make clear that the referee was still knocked out when Savinovich performed his attack.
    • "Slater and Orton then dominated Youngblood and McDaniel" Dominated comes off as POV. Try "Slater and Orton then took control of the match".
    • "Youngblood performed dropkicks to Slater and Orton, but was then double-teamed. They..." This could be improved by ending the first sentence with "but the pair then double-teamed him."
    • "but Kabuki fought back and applied the clawhold" Here's the again. It really comes off as informal.
    • "After the match, the Briscos attacked Youngblood, Steamboat and Mosca until they eventually fought back." Don't like eventually here.
    • "Race dropped Flair on his head into the canvas with a piledriver" The order seems off to me.
    • "Flair fought back after sending Race into the corner." This needs to say "corner of the ring."

    Sorry, but this doesn't look ready yet. I recommend that you get the article copy-edited. To do this, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members or Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and ask nicely until you get a taker. Best of luck. Giants2008 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Like above, I took care of the minor grammatical problems, but I don't have the knowledge to deal with the more indepth questions. I also copyedited for comma issues. Nikki311 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [15].

    The Trial of a Time Lord[edit]

    previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)


    This is my second nomination of this article for FA status. The previous nomination failed only for lack of activity; no supports, no opposes, but comments in the FAC suggest it is of a decent enough quality to merit the FA status. Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments I will preface my comments by saying, for what it's worth, I know nothing about Dr. Who
    Bellhalla (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (resolved comments so far)[reply]
      • In the lead section:
        • The show was weekly but there were "four distinct sections"? Some explanation is needed about what the comprised the four sections (I see them listed below, but it needs clarification in the lead.)
        • Is the information about Melanie Bush and the next season relevant, especially in the lead?
        • What does "who withdrew his completion of the Holmes' final serial" mean? Who is (or are) Holmes? (I know from reading on, but the lead should summarize, not mystify.)
        • I think the lead would benefit from a broad plot synopsis of the entire serial. Something along the lines of "Dr. Who is accused of … and is tried by … for …"
          • Done. When the word "segment" is used, it should mean "block of four/two episodes" - tell me if there are any slipups. The rest are done. Sceptre (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That all looks good. The plot synopsis in the lead is great. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the "Production" section:
        • (1st para.) Why is trial in quotes?
        • (2nd para.) In the first sentence of the lead segment referred to what aired weekly, right? Here, it's used to refer to the "distinct sections", right? Being from the US (with differing television unit naming), I don't know what word to suggest, but consistency of usage, at least within this article, is necessary.
        • (same) "fourteenth and last episode" Is this just one episode? It sounds like two to me.
        • (3rd para.) Pip and Jane Baker linked twice in this segment.
        • (4th para.) there are extra spaces around the em dash in one of the date ranges in the final sentence.
      • In the "Reception" section:
        • ("Ratings and figures") The Audience Appreciation was higher, yet lower than previous seasons(?) I'm confused. I see now. It was two metrics being discussed.
          • I think the wording was already fine: the approval rating was higher than season 22, but the viewer share was lower. Sceptre (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ("Doctor Who: The Television Companion", 2nd para) Perhaps a link to The Caves of Androzani would be appropriate?
      • Did the serial win any awards?
  • In the "Serials" section:
    • The alternate titles for Nos. 146 and 147 should be explained, perhaps in the "Production" section. It's especially confusing since the alternate for 146 and the main for 147 are the same.
    • It looks like from The Ultimate Foe that either Time Inc. or Time Incorporated is acceptable, but I think it would be better for consistency to use one or the other (rather than both) in this article
    • What is the source of the information about the four segments/sections described? They are completely un-cited.
      • The issue of whether plot summaries must be cited or not, and how is a difficult one; some people don't cite them as the episode serves as a reference, some people use {{cite episode}}, and some people use external summaries. I'll see if I can do both of the latter options.
  • Are there no relevant images at all for the article? A DVD box cover? Any of the writers or actors?
      • Free images exist for Baker and Langford. The DVD, on the other hand, isn't released until this Autumn. Sceptre (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Bellhalla (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments

    Gary King (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the bold or the link from the text "Doctor Who" in the lead per WP:LEAD.
    • Format the dates in the references, like "2008-04-03" to "2008-04-03" per WP:CITE/ES.

    Gary King (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a number of problems with the article that I'd like to share:

    1) While the historical notes in the lead are interesting, they seem secondary. This is an article about the episodes themselves, and I think it should concentrate on that. I believe this would be improved by moving the 4th para up to the 2nd.

    2) Really bad prose:

    "Throughout the trial, the Doctor becomes suspicious about evidence being censored and his TARDIS being bugged. The evidence shows the Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot: the former because the robot's power supply is unstable; the latter to gain access to the secrets. The secrets are destroyed, and all parties are able to leave Ravalox positively, with the exception of the Doctor; he is still inquisitive on why Earth was moved several million light years. "

    I really don't know what this is trying to say. I simply can't see the connection between the first and second sentences, although there seems to be one implied.

    Are there two pieces of evidence being presented, one showing the Doctor deactivating the robot and another showing Glitz doing it? Or is this trying to say that the Doctor and Glitz worked together, for different reasons?

    And what does "able to leave Ravalox positively" mean? How does one "leave positively"? Do you mean "in good spirits" or something similar. And as it is worded now, it seems to be suggesting that the Doctor did not leave the planet.

    3) Unclear statement:

    "The Doctor arrives while a scientist, Crozier is experimenting brain surgery before performing on Kiv"

    What does "is experimenting brain surgery" mean? And who is he experimenting on? And why should we care? Is this an important plot point?

    4) Unfinished statement:

    "The Doctor, Mel, and Lasky succeed in preventing the Vervoids."

    preventing the Vervoids from WHAT? Do you mean "frustrating the Vervoids plans"?

    5) More odd prose:

    "The Doctor's suspicions are furthered by the evidence shown being different from that he reviewed."

    Reading this sentence makes my brain hurt. Please reword.

    6) What?

    "In response to the Doctor's allegations the Matrix has been altered, the Keeper (James Bree) is called, seconds before the Master (Anthony Ainley) appears to prove the Doctor's point. "

    Do you mean "appears" as in "appears to do a good job", or "appears" as in "appears in a flash of light"? Why did the Master appear in either case? Who is the Keeper and why was he called? And there's a missing "that"; allegations that the Matrix...

    7) More...

    "The Doctor's attempts to prevent the Valeyard from killing the High Council are marred by the Master's machinations"

    So does this mean the High Council are all killed? Are some of them killed? None? If it's none, what exactly was marred?

    8) More...

    "The Doctor prevents the Valeyard by causing the destruction of the Matrix archive."

    The Doctor prevents the Valeyard from doing what? Do you mean "thwarts" instead of "prevents"? And how does destroying the Matrix prevent the Valeyard from doing whatever it is he was doing?

    And I'm still utterly baffled by the Master's role. Did he come into the episodes offering to help the Doctor? Is the Valeyard his puppet, as the text implies? If so, why did the Master "appear" at all? Logic would dictate that he simply wait to see the verdict, and then act if need be.

    I'm sorry, but this article really needs work IMHO.

    Maury (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Master doesn't help the Doctor per se, he just doesn't want a rival in the Valeyard. Most of the rest, I've tried to make it clear. Sceptre (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been some improvement, but I'd like to see a few more changes. Some of these I could implement myself, but it has been a very long time since I last saw these episodes and I want to be sure I'm interpreting it all correctly.
    Move "Throughout the trial..." to become the last sentence of the first paragraph. Since it covers the entire story arc it seems to be well-placed up front.
    "The Doctor and Glitz deactivating the robot...", do you mean "deactivate"? If so, perhaps "The Doctor and Glitz work together to deactivate the robot;"
    "leave Ravalox with a positive attitude", this just doesn't work for me, there must be a better way to express this. I also find it difficult to believe that Glitz was happy when he lost all of the technology he was hunting. Consider re-writing this paragraph.
    "the Doctor and Peri's activities immediately before the trial on Thoros Beta", it seems this would be more clear if it said "the Doctor and Peri's activities on Thoros Beta immediately before the trial", assuming that's correct.
    "is experimenting brain surgery", remains broken. I'm just guessing, but I think you mean to say that Crozier is experimenting with brain surgery on someone else before attempting... And am I correct in thinking that the brain surgery is actually a brain transplant?
    The next statement seems self-contradictory, it starts with "Crozier and betraying Peri and a local king" and then immediately says "he allies with Yrcanos to kill the Mentors". Was there some sort of change of heart here? And how does the Doctor betray Peri and Yrcanos? (I think I may have missed this episode).
    Maury (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the Valeyard's tampering that made the Doctor appear malevolent, to the point of betrayal. As for brain surgery, I think (it's a while since I saw ep. 5) that he's experimenting different ways to perfect the procedure. Though if it helps, he does work on Yrcanos. Sceptre (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The change of heart is actually specified: it's the fact Crozier chooses Kiv. Sceptre (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose, at least for now. I think this is overall a good work, but could definately use some polishing before it's ready to pass as a FA. I would highly recommend a good peer review and passing it through GA before resubmitting it to this process.

    • 1a: The lead is somewhat difficult to follow. In the second paragraph, you appear to be summarizing individual sub-serials, but that's not clear from the text. The lead is supposed to be a summary, but it's bewildering as it's written. It makes sense when you know what the "Valeyard" is and what those titles are, but it's a bit much for a new reader. Here's my take on an alternate version, just to give you an idea what I mean:
    In the serial, the Doctor is put on trial by the High Council of the Time Lords for allegedly interfering with outside worlds. In the first two segments, titled The Mysterious Planet and Mindwarp, the prosecutor (a mysterious figure known only as the Valeyard) uses events from the Doctor's past to prove his guilt. In the third segment, the Terror of the Vervoids, the Doctor defends himself by showing future events. In the final segment, The Ultimate Foe, the Doctor's trial is abruptly stopped by accusations of subterfuge; the Doctor faces off with the Valeyard and his long-time rival, the Master, to clear his name and to save the High Council.
    • "In the serial," ; "The serial," ; "The serial," Try to vary your word choice some more.
    • "which prompted a more creative format." - What does that mean?
    • "but was appreciated more by the audience" - By what measure? Citation please!
    • If production on Doctor Who was suspended, why was the series proposed? There looks to be a false cause-and-effect here.
    • The second paragraph in the "Production" section needs work. It's a little twisted and hard to follow. (Too many semicolons?)
    • I can't figure out what happens in the third paragraph. Obviously with the death and the many writers all working in parallel, this was a complex process, but the writing should do a little more to make it clear.
    • "Production block 7C"... this is the first time you mention production blocks. I don't know what a "production block 7c" means... was it the third plot arc in the seventh season? No. So, I really don't know what it is. :)
    • "all parties are able to leave with a positive attitude" - what does this mean?
    • Earth was moved several million light years? Maybe you should explain more in the description of this serial.
    • Speaking of which, you use "serial" to mean both the whole series as well as the individual arcs. I believe this is because the BBC itself uses the term for both, but it's confusing. I think in the cases above, you always used a different term.
    • "but the ship is being sabotaged while people begin to perish" - reword?
    • I've now noticed that you aren't consistent even within the article with the title of the fourth serial. Sometimes it;s the Ultimate Foe, sometimes Time Inc. You list both titles, but don't explain why it has two (that I saw) and you should stick with one to reduce confusion.
    • "He is offered the Time Lord Presidency". Who? The Doctor? The Inquisitor?
    • Consider merging the short paragraphs in the Reception section?
    • I notice that you have a Doctor Who season infobox. If you are classifying this as a serial, it may be better to have the serial one? (And note that the bottom infobox also uses "serial" in the other sense.)
    • 1b: You discuss the production and the reception with a little bit of plot outline, but for completeness you might want to pass on (at least briefly) some of the in-universe trivia. The appearance of Mel as the companion here is commonly remarked on by Doctor Who resources (which I admit, are not necessarily reliable) because it means that she effectively never meets the doctor for the first time.
    • Any idea why Peri was fired from the series?
    • Any fallout between seasons that should be remarked on? Obviously, there's a new doctor in Season 24 and if that came as a direct result of this series, devoting more time to it might help.
    • 1cde: seems factually accurate, neutral, and stable to me.
    • 2c: You list a lot of items in your References section which never have corresponding footnotes, and you sometimes use the same source over and over again in any given paragraph. (In which case you may not need to cite it multiple times or you should make clearer that intervening sentences are separately cited.)
    • Of greater concern is that most of your footnotes are from exclusively web sources. I will give you that the BBC here is reputable, but fansites should be used sparingly. (Even if they are as excellent as these! It's just not a good habit when you can avoid it. You have a lot more written references and it would be nice if you could use those instead of the fansite.)
    • 3: Absolutely no images. Are there any fair-use or free images which we could use here? None?

    I don't mean to nitpick. I know you've worked very hard on this. But there is a good amount of work ahead to make it featured, but I think it will be worth it. This is a fascinating and very important moment in the history of Doctor Who. For all intents and purposes, Doctor Who was on trial. It's a good start. JRP (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Agree with JRP that it's a bit odd to have all those references listed but never used. Otherwise sourcs look good, and the links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The references are what the (inline) sources use. Sceptre (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, whenever possible, you should site them instead of the inline sources, especially the "Brief History of Time Travel" one. Also, if you yourself didn't use those sources (they were cited upstream), I'm not sure they should appear in this article's reference section. That implies that this article used them as sources, when instead your sources used them as sources. But, since they are right and proper wikipedia-able sources, if you have them, you can just cite them yourself in the article and problem solved. JRP (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph needs, somewhere, the word television. That's a bit... odd, considering that would be where the most basic and straightforward information should go. giggy (:O) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:49, 24 June 2008 [16].

    Glenrothes[edit]

    Nominator(s): Mcwesty (talk)


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it appears well written, easy to read and understand and is presented well with good use of imagery. Mcwesty (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - The History section is nice, but the rest seems to be unfinished:

    • "Housing Precincts" is a list - convert it to prose and add actual context instead of just precinct names.
    • "Climate" section is too short to warrant its own header - merge into another section or expand if possible?
    • "Public sector" as above.
    • "Twin town" as above.
    • Format the references correctly using {{Citation}} or other templates. See WP:CITE
    • Cleanup the External links section, and move it to the end.
    • 'Further interest' should probably be renamed 'Further reading' and cleaned up.
    • Move the 'Pictures' gallery to Wikimedia Commons where it belongs.
    • 'Education' section is just a list - is there no actual context to add?
    • I would expand the lead to two paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Wackymacs mentioned a lot of stuff that I agree with, plus here's a few more.
    • Rename "References & Notes" to "References" per WP:LAYOUT.
    • Convert "&" to "and" in section titles.

    Gary King (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Agree about the citation issues, they need to not have the external links be plain numbers. They also need last access dates and publishers at the very minimum. When they've been formatted better, I'll try to revisit to judge reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose All sections have to have references, and this does not occur in this article. Idontknow610TM 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query; is the nominator responding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The nominator is still editing the article nominated in this FAC but is not responding and is not resolving any of the issues raised here. Gary King (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:49, 24 June 2008 [17].

    Gothic metal[edit]

    Self-nominator here: Bardin (talk). I have been somewhat hesitant to nominate this article for FA status even though I do believe it meet the requirements. There are some people who apparently feel rather strongly about whether some bands are really gothic metal or not. I suppose that's not really unusual among heavy metal genres though. I actually expect there to be some opposition to this article's FAC on such a basis: i.e. "so-and-so is not not gothic metal! this article is not accurate!". I seek solace though in wikipedia's policy of verifiability, not truth.

    This was the original version of the article before I came along. There were so much problems with the article that I felt a fresh rewrite would be more appropriate so that is what I did.

    References There are 239 citations (!) in the article at present. Some of these citations are used more than once too. Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources states that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. I believe all the sources are reliable but that might not be apparent to everyone so here's an explanation of the sources used.

    • Books There are 12 different books and one academic essay listed in the references section. I trust that there will not be any question of the reliability of these materials published in print.
    • News There are a few news report used in the article, mostly to support claims of commercial success and chart placement. With one exception, these news report are all from Blabbermouth.net. The exception is from CBS News and I do not think any explanation about the reliability of CBS is necessary here. Blabbermouth is a website that should be familiar to most online fans of heavy metal music but it is probably not something that you would come across otherwise since it only provides news concerning heavy metal music. It has a solid reputation and I reckon that it is probably the most reliable website that one can use for any heavy metal related article here on wikipedia. It has been used as a source for many other news media and even published books. It would be rather ridiculous if members of the academia and other news media find Blabbermouth to be reliable while wikipedia does not.
    • Biographies The overview of the genre's history in the article provides some biographical details regarding the more significant and/or prominent bands that are associated with the genre. Aside from the books, the biographical details are mostly sourced from the two databases Allmusic and Rockdetector. Both sites have their share of online detractors. I believe this is mostly due to disagreement about the choice of genre labels that are tagged to some bands. Those tags are not used as references in this article, btw. Both sites have also released numerous books in print: Allmusic and Rockdetector. These are not self-published books. As far as I know, these books provide biographies on bands similar to what can be found on their website so I think it would be downright silly if we can accept these books as reliable sources but not the websites from which they are derived from. For the record though, both sites have been used a reference by other non-related books: Allmusic far more than Rockdetector.
    • Reviews Pt. 1 These are mostly album reviews and a few concert reviews. The article only make use of professional reviews. No fan submitted stuff. A large proportion of the reviews come from the three mainstream publications Allmusic, PopMatters and About.com. About.com is another database site like Allmusic and Rockdetector only its scope extend to many other areas beyond music. Like Allmusic and Rockdetector, it too has released published books and it has also been used as a reference for other books: link. All the material used from About.com in this article are from Chad Bowar, an experienced journalist in heavy metal music who has conducted some newsworthy interviews as reported on Blabbermouth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. PopMatters is closer to the rest of the sources used in the article in that it is a webzine or online magazine devoted to music. Like Blabbermouth, it has been used as a reference for other news media and published books. There is also just the one single review from musicOMH.com used as a source in this article: the website is fairly mainstream with an editorial oversight and it has also been used as a reference in books. The only other review from a mainstream publication comes from the Rolling Stone. Need I say more about that famous magazine?
    • Reviews Pt. 2 The other reviews used in this article come from webzines that specialise in heavy metal music. These are not sites that have a mainstream presence in the news or in books although Chronicles of Chaos have been used as a reference in one book so I do not think I need to explain the reliability of that site any further. A large proportion of the reviews used in the article come from The Metal Observer, "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" and "one of the top international online metal resources" as identified by Blabbermouth here and here. Lordsofmetal.nl, Soniccathedral.com, Tartareandesire.com and Live-metal.net are the other metal specialist webzines whose reviews are used as sources in this article. I believe all of these sites have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as evident by the occasional report of their content as news on Blabbermouth. Here are some examples (two for each site): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Granted, none of these news report concern album or concert reviews since such reviews are generally not newsworthy but using some common sense here, I feel that if the content of these sites are deemed reliable enough for blabbermouth, then they should be reliable enough for wikipedia. Live-metal.net and lordsofmetal.nl also turn up a few hits on google news here and here. Bear in mind that the google news search is only for the past month and hence, the result will eventually disappear.
    • Interviews Pt. 1 By far the most diverse and numerous collection of sources in this article. They only represent a small proportion of the sources in this article though since each interview source are generally used only once or twice while the aforementioned review sites are used more frequently. Some of those review sites also have interviews used in this article as sources: Chronicles of Chaos, soniccathedral.com, tartareandesire and lordsofmetal. The other websites used are mostly music webzines as well. One exception is Gathering.nl which is the official website of the band The Gathering. The interview is used to provide information on a non-controversial biographical detail: namely, that their first album includes supporting vocals by Marike Groot. For some reason, this piece of info is not found on the band's biography on Allmusic or Rockdetector. I feel that the info is rather noteworthy in the context of the use of female vocals in the genre. Another exception is Suicidegirls.com. That's the website for Suicide Girls and I think that's pretty mainstream so I don't really feel I need to justify its reliability. Moving on. Releasemagazine.net has appeared as a reference in one book while Antimusic.com has appeared as a reference in several books.
    • Interviews Pt. 2 Metal-rules.com is a rather well-known heavy metal webzine. It has been identified by Blabbermouth as "one of the world's largest and longest-running heavy metal webzines" here and as the provider of "top-notch metal news, views, reviews and interviews" here. Its content are occasionally used as a source for news on Blabbermouth as are the content of Rockeyez.com, Fourteeng.net, Blistering.com, Metal-realm.net, Getreadytorock.com, Thegauntlet.com, Hallofmetal.com, Musictap.net, Metalstorm.ee, Metalmonk.co.uk, Rockezine.com/net, Metal-temple.com, Dprp.net and Musicaldiscoveries.com. Examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Phew! I think it would be rather odd if the original source for these interviews cannot be considered reliable by wikipedia's standards but the news report of these interviews on Blabbermouth can.
    • Interviews Pt. 3 That leaves just three sites: Metalcrypt.com, Stormbringerwebzine.co.uk and Ssmt-reviews.com. A single interview from each of these site is used on the article as a reference. None of these interviews are being used to support anything remotely contentious or controversial. They are all harmless in my view. I highly doubt that any of the person being interviewed would take issues with the points that these interviews are being used to support.
      • Metalcrypt.com is used for one interview with Christofer Johnsson of Therion wherein he credits Celtic Frost as playing a key role in the development of both gothic metal and symphonic metal. He pretty much says the same thing in other interviews such as this one on thegrimoire.com, a website that is reliable enough for a published book. Yes, I can switch the reference but I prefer the way that Christofer Johnsson expresses the viewpoint on the metalcrypt.com interview over the other. It makes for a nice quote in my view.
      • Stormbringerwebzine.co.uk is used for one interview with Moonspell vocalist Fernando Ribiero. The webzine is not well known but the interview is conducted by one Vinnie Apicella, a journalist with a fairly decent resume. Personally, I think it would be rather odd if his interview on one webzine is not deemed reliable but his work on other sites like KNAC would be.
      • Ssmt-reviews.com is used for one interview with Jeroen van Veen of Within Temptation for support on the band's early influence. I feel this interview is useful in drawing a connection between the early pioneers of the gothic metal genre and the later, more commercially successful bands. This webzine has been around for over ten years now and for what it's worth, the site does have an editor.
    • Articles The article also makes use of a few general articles as references. One of them is from Grammy.com, the website for the Grammy Award. The others are on Allmusic, About.com and The Metal Observer. 'Nuff said.

    That's all the references explained. Unless I've missed out on something, of course.

    Photos There are 12 photos used in the article which seems about right for its length. All the photos are free from wiki commons except for the Black Sabbath album cover which can be used for this article per Wikipedia:FAIR#Images: Cover art can be used for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. The block quote next to the image provides that commentary. I think it is quite important to have the cover art next to the block quote since such descriptions as a "spectral-looking girl" and "shot through a sickly pale ochre filter" are not readily apparent or understood without the accompanying image, i.e. "Oh, that's what pale ochre filter means."

    Sound samples There are ten sound samples divided into five groups of two samples each. Five groups for five sections. All of the samples have a specific purpose in the article as indicated in the accompanying captions. They all in Ogg Vorbis format with quality reduced to zero (64 kbit/s). None of them are longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the original, whichever is lower.

    Phew! That's it. Bardin (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - OK, so you have the references covered, and they do look very good indeed, but there are problems with the prose:

    • "Formed in 1968, the English band from Birmingham started with the name of Polka Tulk before first changing it into Earth and then later into Black Sabbath" - Hmm? Weirdly organized sentence to start a paragraph... Try instead: "English band Polka Tulk was formed in Birmingham in 1968 before changing its name to Earth and later Black Sabbath." - Much shorter, and much easier to read.
    • "The name was derived from the 1969 Boris Karloff horror film Black Sabbath." - You should clarify which name, so try: "The latter name was derived from the 1969 Boris Karloff horror film Black Sabbath."
    • ..."As one of the first exponent of the genre, Black Sabbath has had a massive influence on heavy metal music" - I believe 'exponent' is the incorrect word to use here, unless I'm wrong. But in any case, it certainly isn't needed and just making the reading harder. Try instead: "As one of the first gothic metal bands, Black Sabbath has heavily influenced the genre." - Please avoid words like "massively".
    • ..."and hasthey have been credited in particular as the pioneers of the doom metal subgenre." - More dodgy wording. And what exactly on earth is "doom metal" ?
    • I could go on, but the prose isn't up to the required standards, and thus this fails criterion 1a for "brilliant" prose.
    • I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I feel that the prose is fine but if others agree with your sentiments, I'll do as you suggest and make a request for a copyedit. I've made some changes as per your suggestions.
      • I've split the first sentence into two. It's supposed to be a continuation of the opening block quote and I do feel that it would be rather odd to jump from Black Sabbath to Polka Tulk without any preceding explanation so now the article uses the name Black Sabbath one more time. That's five time in the one paragraph. Something that I was trying to avoid but I digress.
      • I think it's quite obvious that the name referred to in this second (now third) sentence is the very same name that ends the previous sentence. If that's not enough, there's also the name repeated again as the title of the film in this sentence. Nonetheless, I've added the word latter as per your suggestion.
      • Massive is the word used in the reference cited. It's now in quotation marks. I was not aware that exponent is a difficult word to read but I've change it.
      • Doom metal is a subgenre as indicated in the sentence. It was wikilink in the lead section and I guess it should be wikilinked again here. I do not see a need to strike out "in particular" since that's what the sentence is stating: that they are being credited as pioneers of one subgenre in particular and not all the others. I've moved the expression to the end of the sentence though. --Bardin (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is common for articles to be copyedited several times before coming to FA in preparation. A good example are two of my last FACs, which were both quickly nominated to FA status because they had been copyedited several times already by editors new to the text. Indeed, what you see as OK, others might not - the main reason is probably because you wrote most of the text, and so it will naturally look fine to yourself. As for whether or not others agree, I'm not sure if you're suggesting that my concern alone isn't enough for you? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I understand now. No worries. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment

    Not half-bad. I'm ready to copy-edit this if you want in a couple of days (after major content/sourcing issues, if any, have been dealt with; copy-editing is really the last step). One thing I really dislike though: could you delete those ginormous quotes at the beginning of the Sabbath and Peaceville three sections?? Such large text copying could be construed as copy-vio (not sure), big blockquotes are not supposed to be at the beginning of sections, they are not being said by anybody famous (to spark interest in a reader) and, lastly, there's nothing special or unique about what is being said to warrant inclusion in blockquote form. Just incorporate the text in the quotes into Wikipedia text-form, and it'll vastly improve readability. indopug (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Done and please feel free to copy-edit this when you can. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't use a scrollbar for Notes
    • Place Notes before References per WP:LAYOUT
    • Use en dashes for page ranges in references per WP:DASH

    Gary King (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments You've done all my work for me, justifying all your sources for other reviewers to read and decide on their own. The only problem is you've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. That's it! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I'm not sure I'll oppose on this point alone, but I certainly won't support - the block quotes at the beginning of sections should be removed, with any relevant bits placed into the article text normally. As an example of why, the quote in the "Peaceville Three" section effectively replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view on the origins of Gothic metal with the viewpoint of a particular author. Whether that viewpoint is controversial or not, it is inappropriate to use his words instead of Wikipedia's neutral, encyclopedic tone. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a valid point. I believe it's simply bad practice to start a section with a blockquote. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Cut down on the detail given to Black Sabbath. All we need in the article is that gothic metal bands draw specific influence from the band. We don't need to go into detail about how the band helped create heavy metal as a whole (that's what Black Sabbath and Heavy metal music are for). You might want to move the musical characteristics section before the History. I've found this works very well in establishing a genre in the reader's minds and setting up the rest of the article. Compare to the FA Grunge music, which is the current model for articles on subgenres of larger rock subgenres (grunge as a form of alternative rock, compared to gothic metal as a form of heavy metal). Also, given this is an genre article, you don't need to talk about every gothic metal band. The grunge article barely mentions Alice in Chains, and doesn't mention Hole at all in the prose, because there's really no need to when the main topic is the genre as a whole. Keep focused on the major points. You could definitely shift a lot of the detail to the band articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've made some changes to the Black Sabbath paragraph. They are not actually in the article because of any influence they might have on gothic metal bands - I'm not aware of any such influence, quite frankly. They are there as a precursor rather than a point of origin, i.e. the relationship between goth and metal before goth metal existed. Nobody as far as I know has provided a historical overview of gothic metal the way that one can find about heavy metal music, grunge or punk rock. There are no books - at least, not in English - that is specifically on gothic metal and only gothic metal while there are plenty of books devoted to those three other genres. In the absence of such sources, I adopted the approach of highlighting the main bands in the genre. There are six bands discussed in the origins section; I can't dismissed any one of them otherwise the article would be in breach of a neutral point of view. Two bands are each highlighted in the subsequent sections followed by three bands in the final section. I just wanted to give the article some balance otherwise one might question why this band and not that one. If I remove the band details from the article, the historical overview would probably be shrunk to just two or three paragraphs and I don't think that would be right. The characteristic section is similarly short because of the lack of sources that are directly or specifically concerned about the subject; it's a common problem for heavy metal genres that have not attracted the attention of the English writing academics. After all, this is a genre that's big in Europe but little known in the US or UK. Anyhow, I reckon the article is better off starting with the historical overview and leaving the characteristic section to fill the blanks. I feel the lead should already help to set up what the genre more or less is in the mind of the reader. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably remove discussion of Black Sabbath from the article entirely, then. The article is pretty sizable (110 kb) and there are no subarticles that can help rationalize that size, so you're going to need to take a logn hard look at the article and figure out what needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually 99 kb and that's only with all the samples, images and the large number of references. Remove all that and the readable prose is only 37.9 kb. That's actually shorter than many other featured articles. Heavy metal music is 93.8 kb with a readable prose of 54.8 kb. Megadeth is 87.1 with a readable prose of 44.8. Eurovision Song Contest is 68.1 kb and 40.4 kb. Punk rock is a whopping 129 kb with a readable prose of 72.3 kb. Bob Dylan is even larger at 139.kb with a readable prose of 78.kb. The large gap between the article size and readable prose in the Bob Dylan, punk rock and this gothic metal article is due to the large number of references: over 200 in each. Compare that to the smaller gap in the Eurovision Song Contest with its 53 references. Both heavy metal music and punk rock exceeds the recommended maximum article size limit of 10,000 words. This gothic metal article only has around 6,400 words. So I do not think this Gothic metal article is too long. If anything, I believe the characteristic section can use some more expansion if only further sources can be found for support. The Black Sabbath info is in the article because it is relevant. That's why the heavy metal music article begins with the Yardbirds and the Kinks. That's why there's 10 paragraphs in the "pre-history" section of punk rock. People find these sort of things to be relevant. Gavin Baddeley saw fit to begin his discussion of gothic metal with Black Sabbath and other precursors before moving onto the actual gothic metal bands. I do not think his approach is unique or unusual. Heck, even the short Allmusic guide entry on gothic metal adopts the same approach. --Bardin (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Punk rock passed FAR at 37KB of readable prose; since it has doubled in size since FAR, it may need a new review. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't a measure here; the size of this article shouldn't be evaluated against others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing with the heavy metal and punk articles is that clear links have been drawn by various sources about the origins of these genres, and thus it is necessary to write about them. While obviously you wouldn't have much metal without Black Sabbath, the detail does seem very unnecessary in this article. As this is a subgenre page, it's already a given that it emerged as a form of metal. It basically comes across as, "Black Sabbath was pretty dark, and there were these other goth-y forms of music, and then gothic metal came along". Start with the direct roots of the genre, instead of trying to document the varying uses of the word "gothic". The article needs to stay focused. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand how you got that impression but it seems pretty clear to me that Black Sabbath is not mentioned in the gothic metal article merely because they were dark or the first heavy metal band. They are there because commentators have described them as precursors to the gothic metal genre. King Diamond, Celtic Frost and Danzig are all described there too as precursors but not Deep Purple, Motorhead or Metallica. The bands there are not mentioned without reason. It's not a documentation of the varying use of the word gothic. It's a documentation of the relationship between gothic music and heavy metal music before the emergence of gothic metal. I do not know how to make it any more clearer that the section entitled precursors is about bands that have been identified by commentators as precursors in the same way that garage rock has been identified by other commentators as precursors to punk and the Kinks & Yardbirds have been identified by other commentators as precursors to heavy metal. This isn't original research. For the Black Sabbath info, the commentators are Gavin Baddeley, Dave Thompson & to a lesser extent Barry Hoskyns. --Bardin (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That whole first paragraph about Sabbath is unnecessarily long. Why is it important that some consider them a precursor to death/doom? Stuff like that. My main point is that the article is at times unnecessarily detailed, and would benefit from some trimming. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Perhaps you're reading it wrong. I ese nothing in that paragraph about them being a precursor to death/doom. The first two sentences are not about Black Sabbath. The third sentence states that some have identified Black Sabbath's debut album as the first 'goth rock' album. The fourth sentence provides an explanation for this identification. The fifth sentence provides a couple more viewpoints from other commentators drawing a connection between the band and goth rock. The last sentence notes that the band has been credited as pioneers of the doom metal subgenre in particular from which some of the earliest gothic metal bands came from and also notes that they derived their name from a gothic horror film. That's it. I do not think that is unnecessarily long and if you disagree, I'm sorry but I can't help you. --Bardin (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tips to cut down the article size: I'm not sure why detailed reviews of individual albums are included, "The album was "largely written off as a result"[68] but critic Adrien Begrand of PopMatters notes in hindsight that the understated use of singer Martine van Loon on the album "showed where a good female presence could potentially take the music"." Try to be as succinct and concise as you possibly can. Try cutting down on the number of quotes you use.
    • Another wa to trim the article is to avoid long lists of band-names "Theatres des Vampires,[89] Graveworm,[90] Cadaveria[91] and Drastique.[92]", "Draconian from Sweden,[111] Macbeth from Italy,[112] Penumbra from France,[113] Silentium from Finland[114] and Undish from Poland.[115]", "Autumn[134], Imperia,[138] Nemesea[139] and the Within Temptation offshoot Delain.[140] ... Angtoria from Sweden,[141] Delight from Poland,[142] Elis from Liechtenstein,[143] and the German bands Atargatis[144] and Xandria.[145]"; since most readers don't know the significance of any of these bands, they degenerate to just a list of names, which readers will skip over. Since there already is a List of gothic metal bands, these are unnecessary. indopug (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviews of individual albums are included because in a peer review of a different article (folk metal), some concerns were raised that there was not enough negative coverage of the subject. Unfortunately, there's no sources as far as I'm know that criticize that or this genre as a whole but there are sources which criticize individual albums or artists so that's what I used. The long lists of bands that you encounter are there for a similar reason. For instance, there's no source that explicitly states that the genre is commercially successful in Finland and in the absence of such a statement, I do not see how I can make that point in the article without presenting a list of the different acts that have had big hits in that country. I have now removed some of the other lists from the article though like the ones you mentioned above. --Bardin (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed some more stuff that I can guess could be seen as filler. I do not know whether it's enough but that's a few hundred words gone. The readable prose word count is now 5862. That's below the danger level specified at Wikipedia:Article size. Indopug, are you still interested in doing a copy edit of the article? If not, I can look for someone else. --Bardin (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think "negative coverage" of a genre makes much sense actually; the Grunge and heavy metal articles don't have any (from what I remember) either. Also, I don't see how criticism of an genre can be conveyed through negative reviews of a few albums.
    • If the only reason you list band names is because you can't find a general ref, but only for individual bands; how about removing the band names and leaving the refs there? Instead of "The genre was very successful in Sweden, with X, Y, Z having hit records", just "The genre was very successful in Sweden and many bands had hit records" (with most of the refs at the end of that sentence).
    • I held off a copy-edit in light of Wesley's content-related concerns, many of which i agreed with. Anyway, I guess I can start tomorrow, tackling a section or so each day. Then again, find other voulnteers will only help; I suggest asking somebody at WP:PRV or maybe somebody at WP:HMM for a general review/comments. indopug (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008 [18].

    Service Excellence[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because the published work has been peer reviewed by the British Computer Society prior to them publishing it. - Mr David R Miller 15:50, 16 June 2008 UTC

    • Further comment.- The absence of citations is the first issue that should be actioned. GrahamColmTalk 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While I believe that the subject is a worthy one, this article is written for publication in a magazine, not an encyclopedia, and needs to be substantially rewritten. It reads like a personal reflection; statements like this one: "There is an assumption that if the IT services provider is compliant in all regards it will be meeting all project and service business objectives" need to be sourced. Who is making that assumption? I'd too would recommend withdawing this nomination and seeking help from a more experienced editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Same as above comments. Idontknow610TM 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If it's necessary to go through the hoops, then I'll simply point out that the article is entirely unreferenced, and has numerous (serious) MoS breaches. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I suggest you re-read the FA criteria. The article has no citations, or references for that matter. Its missing a lead, its categorized, and there are quite a few MOS problems. Sorry. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 01:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's obvious that this isn't going to pass - it's not even clear if this particular subject warrants an article. I'm not sure of what the convention is to do in such a situation - if the nom is unwilling to withdraw or inactive, could Sandy just archive this? More piling on would hardly be constructive. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator hasn't edited since June 16 when this article was nominated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [19].

    Ars Conjectandi[edit]

    This article is a bit short, but I think it's comprehensive - one piece of writing, though important in the field of combinatorics, isn't a huge subject. This has had a peer review, and I'd like to think it's ready for FAC. Self-nominator. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I didn't know that translations for italicized titles did not also have to be italicized? That's interesting to note.
    • "reputation [...]"." – The [...] can probably be removed since there you don't include any more text from the quote after that.

    Gary King (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The semicolon before "Pascal's triangle" in the "Background" section seems wrong. Additionally, the last two sentences of the "Contents" section seem like they should be joined with one.
    • In the next paragraph, de Witt is breaking at the line in my setup. Perhaps a non-breaking space would be appropriate?
    • Bernoulli's name is spelled as Bernoulii in the "Contents" section. You might do a quick look through for typos.
    • I would recommend using "upright" for the portrait-orientation images (all except the title page, I think) rather than hard-coding the size as is done currently.
    • Why are some of the citations enclosed in parentheses?
    • It may again be my setup, but the formula in note 11 is almost unreadable at that size. (Increasing the font size on my screen did nothing to improve it.)
    • In the "References" section, you might look at changing some of the parameters to show the original date of publication and the publication date of the version cited. (In {{cite book}} it would be with year and origyear; not sure what it is in {{citation}}.) It's a little jarring to see Bernoulli cited with a 2005 date and de Moivre's work cited with a 1716 date and an ISBN.
    • Also, it looks like some of the references are missing some info. The Bernoulli and de Moivre works (and possibly others?) are missing publisher information. If the Shafer work is a book, I'd expect some sort of locator aid like an ISBN or an OCLC.
    • The prose is clear and explains adequately (to me, at least) the concepts and topics covered.
    • Nice use of images to support the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The {{Harv}} template, which is apparently used in conjunction with {{citation}}, automatically puts parentheses. I suppose it's the Harvard citation style. For the ref 11 thing, it's an image in LaTeX - I can't really do anything about the size. I could make it a lot bigger, but then on the majority of displays it would be far larger than the surrounding text. It looks perfectly fine on my display, and apparently on those of the peer reviewers. I've fixed everything else. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the ref11 thing, I suspected that was the case.
    As for the Harvard referencing, I'm no expert on the Harvard citation style, but my understanding (seemingly reinforced by looking at the documentation) is that {{Harv}} should not be enclosed in <ref></ref> tags. Perhaps someone more well versed in this style can provide an answer or some guidance. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I'll change it to {{Harvnb}} if you like. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the Shafer ref isn't a book - it's a self-published paper. Per WP:SPS, it's also a reliable source - Shafer has notable work published by third parties as well, and hence it's reliable. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments, not ready to support it or not.

    • Consider expanding the lead, per WP:LEAD. Look for more details from the "Background" and "Content" sections which would help to make it up.
    • Who is "William Dunham" and why is his opinion important?
    • Putting the formulas on separate lines, rather than awkwardly in the text, would make it flow better. You may have to rewrite a bit to make it flow that way, but for the non-mathematically inclined it would also improve the prose.
    • What do you mean by "fertile year"?
    • Does "beginning" need quotation marks?
    • In terms of completeness, is there more information on the composition of the work? What parts were done when and why it was not published in his lifetime?

    The article does seem short and a little light on details for a FAC, so I'm not sure I can support it at this time. I'll check back in as this article proceeds through the nomination process to see if I can support it after it's had some massaging. JRP (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses

    • I'll expand the lead.
    • Dunham is a notable mathematical author and professor of mathematics (though no one has created an article on him yet), and he's written quite a bit on this particular book.
      • So mention it; for example: "The text has been considered a landmark on probability by mathematics professor William Dunham [redlink this?], who has written extensively on it." Otherwise Dunham's introduction appears incoherent. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't say "extensive" - something more moderate. It's certainly enough to mention, but "extensive" overdoes it. I'm at a loss as to a better word, however. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've put the formulas on separate lines.
    • It's explained in the text quite clearly. Try reading it more carefully.
    • Removed.
    • Short answer: no. I'm quite sure about the former. I'm not so sure about the latter; I'll do some research and see if anything turns up.

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • http://www.secondmoment.org/index.html what makes this a reliable source?
    • Wouldn't hurt to source to something besides Brittanica Online. Odd to for a generalist encyclopedia like WP to use another generalist encyclopedia as a source.
      • Well, it does cite mostly others, and I see nothing wrong with including Britannica Online as a source for minor, uncontroversial information. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen discussions go both ways on using general encyclopedias. Not a big concern for me, but others might be concerned, and just brought it up so you'd be aware. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments I have made some minor edits [20]. This is not a subject I know much about, but I feel the article is not comprehensive. Ars Conjectandi is more than a paper in the modern sense of the word. To get the bigger picture, I had to cross-check with Jacob Bernoulli, Bernoulli number and Bernoulli trial, (the last one is not mentioned in the article). I'm all for summary style, but the article is a little too lean for FA. GrahamColmTalk 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose the Contents and Legacy sections could be expanded somewhat, but I'm not sure what else you have in mind. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, Bernoulli trials are described in the article, just not named. I'll amend that. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    Flamebait by a passerby (oppose; bring to WP:GA)

    This article has potential but does not yet meet the FA criteria. I have taken the liberty of comparing the article's current state to the criteria...

    1. It is—
      • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
        • The article contains no obvious language errors, but some phrasings are a bit awkward. The article could use some tweaking. Example: in "on which Bernoulli based his Ars Conjectandi" in the Background section, "his" is redundant. The flow could be smoothened further by hammering it into "on which Ars Conjectandi is based". Overall the prose is competent but not "brilliant" or (the following is admittedly more subjective) "engaging".
      • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
        • How long is Ars Conjectandi and what language is it written in? (It seems to be Latin, as with the language of the title, but why prescribe assumptions?)
      • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge [...]
        • I believe FAC sources need to be checked against WP:RS and WP:V, has this been done?
        • Many statements need to be clearly attributed.
          • For instance, the phrase "The date which historians cite..." is not very useful if no historians are mentioned and referenced, and does not make the assertion that follows it any more trustworthy than if it had been omitted.
            • What exactly do you do if your source says in exactly these words: "The date that historians cite..."? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main Contents section of the article claims that his theory of combinatorics was the "most notable" subject covered by Ars Conjectandi. It is an unquantified and unqualified claim to me, and a candidate for sourcing.
            • That's probably OR that I unwittingly inserted. I'll try to find a source, since it seems self-evident to me. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Abraham de Moivre was particularly influenced by Bernoulli's work. He wrote on the concept of probability in The Doctrine of Chances.[reflink]" Sneaky, an unsourced statement followed by a superficially-related but sourced one.
        • Once nontrivial and unattributed claims have been substantiated I think the article will see the need for quite a few more footnotes as well.
      • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
        • The opinions of this William Dunham are suspect. Who is he and how seriously should we take his repeated endorsement of Bernoulli's text?
          • See Jrp's comments above. I'm doing further research into his writings at the moment and will provide a better response soon. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (e) skipped; probably met.
    2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
      • (a) the lead section also exhibits the problems mentioned under the 1a and 1c headings above, but looks otherwise good.
      • (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help);
        • Article needs more structure. Right now its table of contents is only one level deep. The various subtopics in the article should be expanded and sectioned. I am not saying this is a requirement for FA status, but that I believe the final, FA-quality version of this article, if it is attained, will probably be thus expanded. In other words, I think it's a good idea. Paragraphing is generally good although a couple of the longer paragraphs look like they could be split further.
          • A subsection could probably be allotted for each book of the paper. I'll look into this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (c) citation style appears very consistent.
    3. Images. It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. [...]
      • Usually it is better for an article to have lots of colour, but do the portraits add any encyclopedic value to the article, considering that the mathematicians in question are very notable and have been bequeathed their own Wikipedia articles?
    4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
      • Subjectively, I think that an article on this subject could (and should) be much more involved. Particular candidates for expansion might be
        • the content of the text. Discussion of the topics it covered should be more detailed: more individual proofs, results and demonstrations instead of general subfields of probability.
          • Like I said above, I'll give each book it's own subsection and this will definitely require expansion of the coverage.
        • the impact of the publication. Are there actual quotes from other mathematicians attesting to the quality and timeliness of Ars Conjectandi? Can concrete examples be given of advances in mathematics that were influenced by the text? (The portion about de Moivre's proof of the central limit theorem, if it mentions that Bernoulli's formula was obtained from Ars Conjectandi, looks like one.)
          • Dunham is a notable mathematician as noted above; there are definitely other quotes, though. I'll look for those. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If the above seems harsh, remember that I may or may not be tired and emotional, and also that the FA criteria is difficult to meet. The article appears to have met WP:GA (I suggest you nominate it there) and is probably A-class as well (so bring it up for assessment), but is definitely a distance away yet from featured article quality. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I fixed sourcing/information for several images, but did not remedy one: Image:Cardano.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (source is a hitherto deleted de.wiki page). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the page on Commons, it's a "Scratch by himself"; doing a quick search reveals that it's from this university's website. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it does indeed say that. The PD claim, however, is using an author lifetime + 70 years criterion (nice of someone who's been dead 70 years to contribute). The obvious falsehood notwithstanding, that source does not have publication or author information. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Need to close the peer review. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly is a peer review closed, then? It's already in /archive1 and the {{oldpeerreview}} template is on the talk page. I'm not sure what else there is to be done. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have commented here before. The missing step was to replace the {{Peer review page}} template to remove the review from WP:PR. I did that yesterday in response to Ealdgyth's comment. Geometry guy 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for the moment. As said above by someone, good article nomination would be in order first.

    • "These rational numbers were the coefficients of the expansion of as an exponential series" -- were??
    • In general, why do you use past tense do tell what the book describes? I'm not a native speaker, but this strikes me as weird. The book still exists, right? The problem is not only grammatical, but also mathematical. You state, for example, that Bernoulli numbers are more linked to number theory than to probablity. In (modern) number theory, Bernoulli numbers play a minor role.
      • I'll give the article a tense-check. They may play a minor role in modern number theory, but they're barely related to combinatorics at all. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bernoulli's formula for the sum of powers of integers" should be spelled out. What is the formula?
    • In general, I feel that the article is relatively weak on mathematics. For example, the weak law of large numbers should also be stated. How does it relate to the (strong) law of large numbers? The latter question could be answered in the legacy section. How did he prove the theorem?

    *Prose could be better (e.g. two times "covered" in the 1st paragraph of the contents section) **Fixed. I'll give it another copyedit, which should fix most of these types of problems. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article does not state why the book is called "Ars Conjectandi". What meaning did this word have at the time?
    • You write "Bernoulli particularly developed Huygen's concept of expected value.", but then you say that B took a special case of Huygen's work. This is not quite a development, but rather a simplification.
      • It's not a simplification; developing specific cases is still developing. I strongly disagree with the term simplification for this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. I agree that developing a particular case is not a simplification. Perhaps a short explanation what Bernoulli actually developed (in addition to Huygen's work) would give the impression you want? Another point that I'm just being aware of: you never tell the reader what an expected value is. It is wikilinked in the lead, which is good, but in the Contents section a prose-style explanation of the meaning of the formula seems necessary for a lay reader to understand what goes on. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *"The subject of probability in Europe" sounds awkward to me. **Changed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) *"Pascal also published his results on Pascal's triangle, which bears his name today" - the latter is fairly obvious. **It sounds awkward simplified, but I've gone ahead and changed it anyways.[reply]

    • What is the Shafer, Glenn (2006) reference? A PhD thesis?
      • See my comments to Bellhalla above.
        • OK. Hm. Don't you have any more precise information on the paper? A URL, a journal, a website of the author? Otherwise this kind of referencing is not so helpful for the reader, cause he doesn't know where to look up the stuff you have written. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added a link, changed publisher field to his homepage. How's that? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, this is article (apparently unpublished), not a book. We should not be using unpublished articles, since the author may well revise them upon review; but we should at least use the right format: Roman text in quotation marks, not italics. If the {{citation}} templates won't do that, dump them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Every Latin word should have a translation (in the text, too, not only in the lead). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Which don't? Even the clumsy throwing in of civilibus, moralibus, oeconomicis is translated, although we should be bold enough to just translate and throw the original into a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, sorry. My bad. I was thinking of civilibus etc. (I really did not see this translation afterwards) and of De ratiociniis in aleae ludo in the contents section, not seeing that the translation is indeed provided above. Actually, I think throwing the latin into a footnote would diminish the article's quality. Why not just Latin (English) also at this place? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the translation is perfectly adequate; the only reason to include the Latin at all is in case some reader would doubt that the English covered the Latin.
    • Another comment: a reference for the work of Huygens discussed in the text (just a collected works edition if extant) would be a plus. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not yet The Bernouilli numbers are the coefficients of the expansion of as an exponential series is not an appropriate way to define them. It is of course true; but Bernouilli did not know it, and it is not why they are important, to him or to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rutgers does not catalog the Shafer, whatever it is; I don't see it in WorldCat. (Where was it self-published? Not Rutgers University Press, which doesn't count. ) Fortunately, it is only being used for five assertions, four of which are statements about the Ars itself, which could be trivially verified by consulting the work.
    • A list of editions and translations seems to be missing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bernoulli titled the work Ars Conjectandi because in it, he conjectured about the nature of theoretical probability. Unsourced, and I don't believe it. That's not what Ars Conjectandi means.
    • He was the first mathematician to compute a theoretical probability (as opposed to an empirical one), This is an expression of opinion, on what constitutes a "theoretical" probability. It could be made, as phrased, almost equally well about Newton in one direction and Laplace in the other. (The context suggests that what is meant is something about distinguishing an expectation as a numerical value; but if so, we should say so, and cite a source.)
    • The compound reference to Shafer is, now we can see the paper, inaccurate in detail. It sources 5 items to pp. 3-4; one is actually on p.2. The problem, however, is the last one; before this, the use of combinatorial methods to determine theoretical chances of outcomes of an event were referred to as "equity", and "probability" was used in a strictly empirical sense. This is not what Shafer says; rather, Shafer argues that
      In 1684, a probability was an argument, not a number between zero and one. There was no presumption that events or propositions or things (“thing” is the word Jacob usually used: res in Latin) had numerical probabilities. It was presumed instead that they have arguments pro and con. Jacob had to make the case for the existence and meaningfulness of numerical probabilities. And he had to reconcile that case with existing presumptions about what probability meant and how it worked.
    This is not empiricism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General comment. I've hesitated to comment here because I'm not sure my view is "actionable". In short, I seriously doubt that this article is comprehensive. I would expect the article to have much more on the mathematical content of the Ars than is presented here. It may be worth comparing the article to Emmy Noether, which is also up for FAC. The latter article may be too detailed in terms of its mathematics, but it certainly shows that an article can provide both biographical information for the general reader, and carefully sourced detailed content for the more dedicated or expert reader. I believe this article needs to do something similar, at least in outline. Geometry guy 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only version of the Ars cited is a separate translation of part IV. Has the nominator looked at the whole thing? It is not as easy to come by as many classic mathematical texts, but I see that there was a translation (The Art of Conjecturing, together with Letter to a friend on sets in court tennis, translated with an introduction and notes by Edith Dudley Sylla.) in 2006. Its notes should be sources for much of this article, and better sources than many of those here cited. I recommend Interlibrary Loan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, in light of all this I should probably withdraw this nomination to work on the article a bit more. I'm not sure how - do I just ask Sandy to archive it? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just saw this note; I'll get it tomorrow. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:20, June 21, 2008.

    Science in the Age of Enlightenment[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because... Pavlov's Kitten (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Nominator[reply]

    Comments

    • This article has been nominated by an editor who has not edited the article. Also, another interesting side note: the article only has about a dozen edits in total.
    • There are a few MOS issues, like "195.)" which should remove the ")".
    • "7,103." – add a space after the comma
    • Page ranges must use en dashes per WP:DASH in references.

    Gary King (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose, suggest withdrawal - the prose is in general extremely bad; this needs either several copyedits or an extremely good one. I only checked the lead, but virtually every sentence in the lead has prose problems, and a quick scan of the article reveals the same. Aside from the obvious MOS violations (which I list below), there are countless redundancies, grammar errors, etc.

    MOS and other issues
    • Non-breaking space between measurement and unit.
    • Standardize spelling to either British or American, the article has both right now.
    • If you're going to source the lead, source the entire lead.
    • The first sentence talks about the "Age of Reason" while the title says "Age of Enlightenment". Which one is it?
    • You sometimes link centuries, sometimes not. Link them all.
    • "By the eighteenth century, scientific authority began to displace religious authority, and the disciplines of alchemy and astrology lost scientific credibility." - phrased as it is, it's a definite violation of NPOV. Suggest rephrasing, though the statement isn't far off.
    • No categories at bottom.
    • One reference formatted oddly (different from others), I'm sure you know which.
    Prose
    • "The scientific history of the Enlightenment traces developments in science and technology during the Age of Reason, when Enlightenment ideas and ideals were being disseminated across Europe and North America." - makes little sense in the present tense. Also, how can the "scientific history" of the Enlightenment "trace" something?
    • "Generally, the period spans from the final days of the sixteenth and seventeenth-century Scientific revolution until roughly the nineteenth century, after the French Revolution (1789) and the Napoleonic era (1799-1815)." - "generally" is either a redundancy or a weasel word depending on the source, and plus how can a time period "generally" span a certain length of time? Additionally, the "the" in "the sixteenth and..." is either incorrect, redundant, or both.
    • "The scientific revolution saw the creation of the first scientific societies, the rise of Copernicanism, and the displacement of Aristotelian natural philosophy and Galen’s ancient medical doctrine." - questionable. The "first scientific societies" part is almost certainly factually incorrect, but besides that, "Copernicanism" is not a word.
    • "While the Enlightenment cannot be pigeonholed into a specific doctrine or set of dogmas, science came to play a leading role in Enlightenment discourse and thought." - seems to change topic in the middle of the sentence. How does one get from the non-existence doctrine or school of thought that characterizes the Age of Enlightenment to the importance of science in it?
    • "Broadly speaking, Enlightenment science greatly valued empiricism and rational thought, and was embedded within the Enlightenment ideal of advancement and progress. As with most Enlightenment views, the benefits of science were not seen universally; Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticized the sciences for distancing man from nature and not operating to make people happier." - "broadly speaking" is a weaselly term - be specific. "Were not seen universally" seems to characterize the benefits of science as fact, while this may be widely accepted, it's POV when mentioning the other school of thought.
    • Many, many redundancies throughout the article - watch for these terms: "some," "a number of," "a variety of".

    I didn't have time to proofread the third paragraph, but the prose can't even be described as competent, let alone brilliant. The lead is opaque and seems to contradict itself in places, and I really don't think this is good coverage of the subject. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I also note the lack of editing on the article by the nominator and no notice to the editors of the article that it was going to be nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The account behind the article has about four edits (all of them on this article), which I find a bit odd. Also, the nominator has no other edits. Women in the enlightenment was created very recently as well. Is there some sort of group/class behind these articles?-Wafulz (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is approaching at the very least GA quality, so we should give it a look. I oppose the article's promotion, however, because the Disciplines section leaves out Biology, Geology and Physics (as well as others, but those are the crucial ones). If those were added, I would be more inclined to be neutral for the time being. Perhaps if I get a chance, I'll go through and fix the more minor/cosmetic MOS and prose errors. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now, per concerns mentioned above - prose (gets off to a very shaky start, as mentioned above), disciplines missing - to which Medicine and the measurement of longtitude & similar issues are other essential omissions in my view - and general newness, and outside nomination. Also, although this may not strictly be an FA issue, the article has only one link to it from a related article, and has not been included in the History of Science template (somehow it appears on the one here, but not on others in the series). Needs polishing and bedding in. I'm not able to comment on the general accuracy, though it seems ok & well-referenced, except to say that this was surely the period when scientific advances really began to have a large economic impact in the West, and this should also be covered. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—were the criteria and instructions read? TONY (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:20, June 21, 2008.


    SummerSlam (2007)[edit]

    previous FAC (00:11, 14 April 2008)

    Self-nominator – The article failed its previous nomination mainly because of the reliability of WrestleView, see here. Since then, an RFC and numerous discussions on whether or not WrestleView and CompleteWWE are reliable have taken place. During the most recent discussion, User:GaryColemanFan pointed out some interesting facts which, IMO, proves WrestleView reliable. As for CompleteWWE, there is only one source currently in the article. It is backed up with other reliable sources, however, and can be removed if not proven reliable. Thanks, –LAX 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment To make things easier, I'll move my comments about WrestleView here. I have always avoided using WrestleView as a source because I didn't consider it reliable. I have recently changed my mind, however, after objectively looking at the facts. I believe that a few factors combine to make it a reliable source: (1) it is well established, as it has been around for ten years, (2) per this, they do not publish unsolicited articles, and they have an established staff that has gone through an application process, and (3) during a recent professional wrestling FAC, Sandy Georgia stated that sources may be considered reliable if well established sources claim that they are credible. I believe that the mention in the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun (see here) and the fact that a SLAM! Wrestling reporter is appearing on a radio show with a WrestleView reporter (see here) indicate that SLAM! Wrestling, an unquestionably reliable source, accepts WrestleView as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliability of a source isn't black and white and depends on the text being sourced: can you please give an indication of where you obtained the 3) paraphrase of my wording above for context and exact wording? I'm not the Reliable Source God :-) Also, I'm not sure how 1) is related to WP:V, your link to 2) the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun are dead, and I'm unclear what the final link demonstrates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that reliability is (not always) black and white. When a source like WrestleView is used to support information that is hardly controversial (eg. moves used in a wrestling match), it should obviously be given more credence than if it was to claim that Vince McMahon is smuggling drugs to Morocco. I think the text sourced with WrestleView could potentially even be given a blanket source from the original broadcast, since the facts can be verified by watching the event itself. With that said, I understand that longevity isn't necessarily a criterion for reliability, but I do note that WP:RS states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While longevity doesn't fully satisfy this, I believe that it helps demonstrate a positive reputation for the site. As for #2, the link works for me most of the time. It might help to check http://www.wrestleview.com/historyofwv.shtml and click on the link directly, which is found in the January 12, 2003 update. Again, while I understand that the final link (the radio show) certainly does not establish reliability on its own, I note that the vast majority of reliable reporters would hardly be willing to do a broadcast with a complete hack. To an extent, it puts them on the same level. I believe the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is demonstrated by the application process required of potential writers. It shows editorial oversight and a requirement for writers to live up to certain standards, which I think are key aspects of any reliable source. Finally, I am still looking for the statement I attributed to you. The discussion was taking place in at least 3 or 4 locations, so I haven't been able to find it. I apologize if I found the statement somewhere else and have mistakenly claimed that it came from you. I wouldn't have made the claim unless I was certain, but I'll admit that I'm starting to doubt myself. I know I read it around April 6, so I'll continue my search. Thanks for your reply and input, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really up to you. Every one of them is backed up by a more reliable source. If you just must have them, they aren't hurting anything, but they aren't helping either, if you understand. When the article appears on the main page (see, thinking positive!) it might attract detractors because of the usage of the site, but it might not. It's really up to the editors, I will strike this concern when all the others are addressed, because it's really immaterial whether it stays or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much much much better this time around folks! I'm impressed. Links all worked good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to where information is gotten from Pro Wrestling History; they get their information from a variety of (IMO) are reliable sources (such as video tapes, Dave Meltzer, magazines, etc.), which could be found here--SRX 02:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I'd be happier if we had some sort of third party mentions, etc., like were found for WrestleView. (Which, by the way, worked, but finding more wouldn't hurt it's case for reliablity. It's borderline at the moment, a few more notes would help). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the source states that they also use the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which is a third party website.--SRX 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking for another source for the attendance figure. WWE confirms here that it was "more than 17,000" (implying between 17,000 and 18,000), but I agree that it would be nice to have something more concrete. It was apparently mentioned on the broadcast. WP:PW has tended to shy away from using the broadcast (or even the DVD release) as a source. If we can't find any reliable print or web sources, would citing the broadcast as a last resort (of course, after viewing it to ensure that the information is there) satisfy the requirements? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If they mention it in the broadcast, I can't see why not. I wouldn't think you'd want to cite the broadcast for anything too controversial, but I would think attendence figures would be uncontroversial enough, especially with an another source that confirms that it was close. Yeah, you want to avoid primary sources for some stuff, but this doesn't strike me as an occasion to be worried too much about it. It's a pretty straight forward fact. (And since it's probably where the website got their figure, why not go direct to the source for the information rather than going through a middleman?) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know what ya'll decide on the attendence issue. On the 411mania, as I explained above, since everything it is sourcing is backed up by other sources, it's really not needed, and whether we prove it's RS or not is immaterial. But by leaving it in, I'm not going to take it as a RS for future wrestling articles without proof, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've backed up the attendance with the DVD broadcast, and will probably remove the 411mania sources tomorrow. –Cheers, LAX 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed all 411mania sources. –Cheers, LAX 10:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done then! Congrats! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - This is the first wrestling article I've reviewed so far, and I must say it's looking pretty good. Still a few minor issues, though.

    • "Khali got himself intentionally disqualified." Picky, but I would say, "Khali intentionally disqualified himself." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Report, Background: "due to the high media attention of the Chris Benoit double murder and suicide." Something tells me those boys wouldn't have minded media attention, unless it was negative.
      • I believe that is beside the point. That is the reason why they dropped out, and I don't see why that should be justified. –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm assuming that the reviewer is saying that "media attention" is kind of vague. I changed it to "negative media attention", which adds some clarification (ie. they weren't afraid of publicity, but they didn't want to be associated with the company right after the murders). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need John Cena's and Randy Orton's first names repeated here? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as the new number one contender to the WWE Championship" Should this be "for the championship", or is this standard?
      • The thing is, there are currently eight championships in WWE; and by just saying "championship," one could say "Which championship?" –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bolded version of Smackdown! should be in italics.
      • Bolded version? –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Linked version. My bad here. "The main feud on the SmackDown! brand" is the one I meant to refer to. Giants2008 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nope. Only when referring to the show, and not the brand, does it get italicized. –Cheers, LAX 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a bunch of World Heavyweight Championship usages here. Could a couple of these be shortened to champion?
      • But the thing is, there are currently eight championships in WWE; and by just saying "champion," one could say "He was the champion for which title?" –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Punk defeated Morrison in the 15 Minutes of Fame match he had earned the previous week." You just told us in the last sentence that he earned the match; it doesn't need to be stated again. I would stick to describing how Punk won the match here. –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't like the repetition. Try "The following week, on ECW, Punk defeated Morrison in a 15 Minutes of Fame match by pinfall after executing a GTS (Go To Sleep)." Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. –Cheers, LAX 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change "and hit Mysterio with a steel chair" to "by hitting Mysterio with a steel chair". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "off of a guard rail" Off and of back-to-back looks weird somehow. Perhaps remove of? –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Event: "pinning him after for the win." How about "afterwards"? Giants2008 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing. I noticed current ref 71 has a spelling error (SumerSlam 2007 DVD Review). Giants2008 (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm back for more. I left you a note above, so make sure you get that. Also, I think the lead could use information from the Background section. Here are the rest of my problems with the article.
    • Still in Event: Is there a a link for crossbody anywhere in the article? If not, place one in the third paragraph.
    • –Cheers, LAX 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two "then elimated"s in consecutive sentences in the next paragraph. There are only so many ways to phrase things, so I don't envy you here. Mixing up the order could be the best remedy. Now that I'm paying attention, there are a ton of eliminates in general here.
    • I did as best I could. –Cheers, LAX 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Easily eliminated" sets off my POV alarm. I'd stick to describing how she was knocked out.
    • –Cheers, LAX 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should Steve Austin have Stone Cold before his name?
    • –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which led to Triple H pinning him for the win." Triple H is the last wrestler you mention, so I would reverse this to "which led to him pinning Booker for the win."
    • –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see later that Khali hit Batista with a steel chair. Mention it in the match recap.
    • –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Orton controlled the match for several minutes, Cena gained control..." Two controls. How about "gained the upper hand"?
    • Aftermath: "With 537,000 ordering the event" People or households?
    • –Cheers, LAX 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "until Batista made the save". Seems a little casual for me. I'm sure this can be phrased differently.
    • –Cheers, LAX 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Results: Isn't Stunner supposed to be Stone Cold Stunner?
    That's all from me. Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One quick note: I don't like "until Batista came out and attacked him." There is already an "attacked" earlier in the sentence. Normally I would fix one minor issue myself, but I'm having trouble coming up with a good phrase, so I'm leaving it up to you. That's all. Giants2008 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: I think that whole sentence needs a rewrite. (After the match, The Great Khali attacked Mysterio until Batista came out and attacked him.). Did Batista come out and attack Khali or Mysterio? Nikki311 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed it. –Cheers, LAX 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I have no more complaints, so it gets my support. For what it's worth, I think this is better than the 1988 SummerSlam article, which I supported recently. Giants2008 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—It could be saved by a good copy-edit. Here are issues I noticed at random at the top, indicating that a thorough massage is required.

    • On the edition? "In".
    • Why "In"? Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW are TV shows; shouldn't it be "On"? –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "number one contender"—hyphen needed (more than one occurrence).
    • –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "World Wrestling Entertainment had originally planned an angle between the cast of the Jackass TV series and Umaga, with the feud concluding in a match at SummerSlam." Nope, another "noun plus -ing" problem. See here for ways of fixing it. In any case, what does "planned an angle" mean?
    • I've fixed it. –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "with ... [noun plus -ing]" ugly ducking occurs in other places and needs to be fixed. Take this, in the same para: "with the two battling over", and then "which led to Orton giving Cena an RKO through a steel chair". Please audit the whole text for this. TONY (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I've fixed all mention; please correct me if I'm wrong. –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Simply clicking on the "angle" wikilink provides a clear enough definition of the term's meaning in this context. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While there's no rule or policy about forcing people to hit a link to find out what on earth it means, I think that common sense says it should be explained on the spot. Slow connections make this kind of process clumsy, and most readers won't bother to find out the intended meaning. I still haven't bothered.
    Now, this is a very in article—clearly pitched at those who know. I find several aspects hard as a normal reader. Why, for example, does a "storyline" come into boxing at all? Why, suddenly, are we told about a TV series? Can you see what I mean? TONY (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand what you mean, but honestly I think you're reading too much into things. Like the thing on the TV series, the sentence I found mentioning it is "World Wrestling Entertainment had originally planned an angle between the cast of the Jackass TV series and Umaga, with the conclusion of the feud in a match at SummerSlam." (this is a copy and paste so wikilinks aren't here) You said "Why, suddenly, are we told about a TV series?".. well if you read the sentence it tells you that the cast from that TV series called Jackass was going to be part of SummerSlam. That is pretty self-explainatory. I can make style edits like to add the short definition of a professional wrestling angle in the article but this is an encyclopedia, not a "For Dummies" book. — Κaiba 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is well-written, and Tony striking his opposition is a testament to that. However, I have some other basic troubles with the article:
      • 1a – almost the entire article is written "in-universe" without any context of the business and entertainers involved. One could easily read through this without understanding it is all setup by writers, i.e. a fictional event.
      • 1b – no sections on critical reception, business context, etc. What writers were involved in constructing the story-line? Where is the production information?
      • 1c – heavily sourced to primary sources.
      • Random: "With 537,000 buys, the general reaction to the pay-per-view was positive." Suggests the number of buys correlates to the "general reaction" which just isn't true. The number of buys should be sourced to a secondary source. --Laser brain (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he is saying like the article has to many references from WWE, a primary source.SRX--LatinoHeat 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment* It is generally a complete unknown which writers wrote what in wrestling. Though we know what writers as signed to WWE, they or anyone never really release info like "Michael Hayes wrote this storyline and Dave Kapoor wrote this one." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Why does the reference "SummerSlam 2007 [DVD], (2007), ', WWE Home Video, Stamford, Connecticut: WWE94600', (2007)." have bold and has ", (" at the end? It looks like it has very broken formatting.

    Gary King (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe it is something with Template:Cite DVD-notes. I looked at the template itself and tried to fix it, but I could not find anything. –LAX 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the citation to Template:Cite_video which has removed the bold, but if this isn't correct feel free to revert. --Apsouthern (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Image:Kane Entrance.jpg practically burns out my monitor, but I understand there's likely no free alternative.
    • The above image, and Image:SummerSlam 2007 Set.png, are free and could be hosted at Commons, and a category about this event set up there with a link from this article. That's just my opinion, though, not an FA criteria. Kelly hi! 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I found this article confusing and incomplete for several reasons:

    • 1) If one were not already aware that this type of professional wrestling were an entertainment event, this article would not make that clear. The article needs to be written in such a way that it is absolutely clear what is real and what is not. Plain English words need to be used rather than jargon.
    • 2) The article is structured like a sports article when clearly it also needs to have sections reflecting the "entertainment" nature of this events: what about the scripting/writing of these events? what about their reception?. As far as I could tell, there was only one sentence about reception.
    • 3) The article is hard to follow for someone unfamiliar with wrestling like myself or for someone only passingly familiar with the language of wrestling - it needs to be rewritten to remove some of the jargon.

    I have not looked into the source controversy above. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:56, June 21, 2008.

    Radio (LL Cool J album)[edit]

    Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because... Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Format all references according to WP:CITE/ES.
    • Add a Production section that mentions how the album was created.
    • The lead should at least have two paragraphs.
    • References go after punctuation, so something like "hop[14]:" should be "hop:[14]", per WP:FOOTNOTE.

    Gary King (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Needs alot of work. Major issues include citation formatting, unreliable sources, fair-use images in a list, and a poor lead. I suggest a peer review, asking for some help from WP:ALBUM, and/or nominating the article for Good Article status. As it is, it's far from FA-standards. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I see you've put a lot of work into this, but it's not ready yet. There are way too many fair-use images; the references need formatting (titles, publishers, dates, and access dates); there are quotation issues; and the prose needs a thorough copyedit. Drewcifer gives good suggestions above for pursuing a project review. Maralia (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Snowball oppose You might want to model it on the articles here. Read as many of them as you can, and then you may have idea of how to begin. indopug (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. Link checker tool shows two dead links. Probably a number of your websites are unreliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You might want to shoot for WP:GA first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - This wouldn't pass GA on my watch let alone FA. Spend a few weeks on it though and GA is a definate possibility. References need formatting correctly, im not familiar with the style used here. Try using the templates they are a real help. Im a great fan of this one <ref name=" ">{{cite web |first= |last= |url= |title= |publisher= |date=[[2007-02-19]]|accessdate=2008-06-20}}</ref> — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Still needs work. References need to be formatted. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:56, June 21, 2008.

    Go (board game)[edit]

    FAR, has been on main page.

    Nominator HermanHiddema (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Serious problems with the references, among other issues:

    • It seems the history section is meant to be in chronological order, but fails at doing this. 2008 is mentioned before 1996 at the end of the section. Please reorganize.
    done. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreferenced paragraph: "Generally, it is not allowed to play a stone in such a way that one of your own chains is left without liberties. Such a move is dubbed suicide. An exception to this rule occurs if doing so captures one or more of the opponent's stones. In this case, the opponent's stones are captured first, leaving the newly played stone at least one liberty."
    Will reference this, but need to determine the status of sensei's library first.HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Referenced. HermanHiddema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reference for "Go was introduced to the West at the end of the 19th century, when German scientist Oskar Korschelt wrote the first Western treatise on the game."
    this is referenced in the reference at the end of the next sentence. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could add another ref tag, just to avoid any confusion in the future. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, but since this reference is of questionable reliability anyway, I will wait until I have a better one. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Referenced. HermanHiddema (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Important consequences" section is unreferenced entirely except for one sentence.
    The single reference supports this whole section. I can add named ref tags a few times if required. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A ref tag at the end of each paragraph would be good. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are two basic ways to count the score at the end of the game." - end of the game, or end of a game? (Not sure)
    I am not sure what the difference is, can you explain? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    End of the game is clearly better in my opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like there is only one go game, but the context is always referring to the end of this game, so I would suggest that the is better than a. What a would mean is at the end of each game, so either could be used. Oakwillow (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose could be better: "The oldest counting method of these is called territory scoring and which is used in Japan, Korea and most Western nations countries."
    done. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the refs seem to be misplaced. And you've got an odd period: "...standardized set of international rules.[34]."
    Can you be more specific? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really personal taste, so it's not mandatory - but I prefer it when ref tags come at the end of a sentence instead of in-between after commas. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, I have only placed references in the middle of sentences if there is more than one reference or if the reference very specifically supports only part of the sentence. I will look in to this though, but will give other issues priority for now. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is mostly fixed now, where appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the book refs do not have page numbers.
    I will look in to this. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite a lot of the web refs are missing access dates.
    Will look in to this too. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes the following sources reliable?
      • Sensei's Library - this reference is used for many of the footnotes, but the site itself doesn't seem to be reliable?
    This is an important issue. If Sensei's Library is not accepted as a reliable source, we may as well scratch this FAC for now. I have created space for discussion on this below HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Written by John Fairbairn, well known expert in the field that has published on it. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Written by Robert Jasiek, well known expert on rules, member of the EGF rules committee. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Google brings up 8,820 results for Robert Jasiek, but I'm not seeing any notable publications. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The publishing market for Go is rather small, especially in the rules arcana area, so I would guess that most of Jasieks work is either publiched in eg Go World or is only distributed to other specialists in the field. The EGF lists Jasiek as a rules commission member, and he is usually present at IGF rules meetings, eg this report lists him as the EGF representative and also notes that "In between the 5th and the 6th meetings, some documents were circulated by email". I do not think Jasiek has published in any peer-reviewed magazines. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to find a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to find a better source. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Publication of the European Go Federation, but I may be able find a different reference. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Converted to footnote. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles on Go here were written either by John Fairbairn or by Charles Matthews, both well knows experts on the subject that have published. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I hadn't seen that one when going over it, will find a replacement. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please use the language parameter of the Cite/Citation templates to identify non-English sources.
    Ok, will work on that. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't spot any non-english sources. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Variants and related games" section seems like an afterthought, only one paragraph long - consider expanding or merging with another section?
    I will discuss this with fellow editors. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed, merged into See Also. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the sections are full of short paragraphs which do not flow together. I recommend a reshuffle.
    • I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A wiki can't be reliable? Is that supposed to be a joke?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the reliability scale, a wiki is not reliable because anyone can add any information, reliable or not. The same applies to Wikipedia, except we try to use reliable sources in the form of footnotes here, so at least readers know what our material is based on. Technically, an encyclopedia in itself is not a good source (for example, I would not cite Britannica or Wikipedia for a term paper because it's just bad practice). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...Anyway, the criteria is: factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; Wiki websites can of course be vandalised, but the evidence suggests that they are infact accurately maintained sources of reliable information. See wikipedia for an example of this. This argument is slightly veering toward the ridiculous, isn't it? Anyway, the question is whether Senseis Library is a reliable source. As a Go player I would answer yes, ask any other Go player the same question and I bet they'd say yes too. However glorious regulations prevent this reputation for reliability being allowed to stand here, I can have some sympathy for this. There are things I cannot have sympathy for. The practice of citations on wikipedia is, in my estimation, done in a pedantic and braindead fashion, and I have no idea why it has been allowed to develop in this fashion. Why should we demand featured articles are not referenced properly? Instead of referencing several sources for complex points, one source must be given to satisfy each and every blindingly obvious point that didn't need to be cited in the first place. Yet whole viewpoints are not touched because that would require the reviewer to consider something deeper that visual representation of text. Personally, I would suggest that Senseis Library is a perfectly valid reference when used in combination with other sources. Paticularly where we are citing for trivial claims that might as well be supplied with http://www.mysearchengineofchoice.com. Please excuse my rant, but I really find the attitude toward citations so completely ridiculous that I can no longer bring myself to even attempt to reference an article toward some degree of divine status--ZincBelief (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically a reliable source is one which has a widespread reputation, its own peer review process, or some other way we can be sure of accuracy. The wiki in question does not cite its sources, so it's simply out of the question to use it instead of a published book. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that Senseis Library actually has a widespread reputation amongst the Go Community. I think the American Go Association cited it in the Top 10 most useful Go websites. One software developer even made a product which uses it alone as a reference source for Go terms. If you research on your own free time (a chore I know) you will find it a consistently reliable source of information. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't agree with Wacky and I's take on this, you're welcome to post a question over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about it, and see what others think also. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that really help do you think? Senseis Library has a reputation for accuracy. Its editors ensure articles there are kept informative and up to date. This is a living peer review process as it where. When pages are deemed broken, there is the wiki-master-edit process on Senseis Library. The material on the wiki is also non contentious (in the main), an important adjective in the field of Wikipedia Reliable Sources. To describe use of Senseis Library as out of the question is perverse to my mind. I mean I could live with forcing somebody to link to a page version, but just claiming that the whole library cannot be used seems barking to me. A library used on a day to day basis to provide accessible and educational material to beginner Go players cannot be used as a reliable source? Is that really a sensible claim? No it is not really a senseible claim. I don't need to ask on another page to convince myself of that. It stands to reason that a library of information maintained by the Go playing community can be used to explain basic concepts. If Featured Article Status forbids logical arguments like this then it is entirely without merit. To denigrate information and knowledge on an arbitrary basis is not the job of Wikipedia.

    I realise though that I have begun to rant again. Sorry. --ZincBelief (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All I can say is that the WP:V and WP:RS both specify "third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking". The general consensus is that wiki's don't qualify, but I really urge you to go to the Noticeboard if you want third or fourth opinions. It isn't the FAC process that demands RS, it's a WP policy. FAC just requires that articles meet WP policies. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that if you can produce an reliable source (preferably more than one) that states that Senseis Library has a reputation for accuracy, then the Library would acceptable as a source for this article. In some ways, it is analogous to our policy on self-published works – normally disallowed, but we'd be prepared to make exceptions. Bluap (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The internet is full of hotlinks which recommend Senseis Library as a useful source of information. I take it these wouldn't be acceptable though. I wonder what would suffice. Can we have certified Go players bizarrely laying down some speel recognizing Senseis Library as a reliable source of information on non contentious issues? Charles Matthews, certified third dan, third biggest contributor to wikipedia, and one time most profilic author on senseis library, would he do? Or would there be some doubt that he had just mistaken it for uncyclopedia?--ZincBelief (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard will help if you ask there. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 89 is broken.

    fixed.

    By me. :-) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 90 and 92 need page numbers, ISBN information.

    will look that up.

      • Ref 93 needs 'pp.' before the page numbers.

    fixed

      • Ref 60 and 91 access dates are not linked, but the rest are.

    I'll go check why :-) Ok, 60 is fixed, used "accessmonth"/"accessyear" instead of "accessdate". 91 is still not linked, because it uses the "citation" instead of the "cite web" template. But as this is now a web citation, that doesn't seem proper to use. It is published in Bozulich 2001, the url is a bonus.

    OK, I was not aware of that. That'll take some time to fix :-( HermanHiddema (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, careful use of good ol' Find and Replace has done it for me in the past! Just copy and paste the wikipedia syntax into a text document, then, once done, paste it back into wikipedia and save the changes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My text editor doesn't like the Kanji and other strange characters used in the page :-( HermanHiddema (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 2 and 84 are Sensei's Library.
    These are footnotes, not citations, meant to provide extra info, not to verify.
    Issue: Acceptability of Sensei's Library as a reliable source (resolved) ~ HermanHiddema (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sensei's Library is used many times to reference basic go terms, tactics and rules. If this is not acceptable for WP, then there is no reason to go through with this FAC at this time, as it will take some time to find other sources for this. Sensei's Library is a wiki, and as such is self-published, it is an active wiki, which gets anywhere from 10 to 50 edits per day. A significant part of the editors are experts, and it is recognized as a very valuable resource within the Go community. The referenced articles are generally long-time stable articles which deal with very basic "common knowledge" kinds of subjects. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct, I personally believe it's not a reliable source, as it is a self-published wiki which does not cite its sources. We'll see what Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) thinks when they get around to reviewing the sources. You should get some books on the tactics to replace the Sensei's Library footnotes, in my opinion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Not only is Sensei's library a wiki, which pretty much means it fails the reliability test, there are a number of references that are websites that don't give publisher or last access date. Also a problem would be http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/ this site, or http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html. I strongly suggest cleaning up the references, replacing the Sensei's library with published strategy guides, and then dropping me a note on my talk page when the website references are giving publisher, last access date and title of the page at hte very least. I'm sorry that I just don't have the time to go through every single website when it's pretty clear that they are going to change radically shortly. I'm not sure if it would be best to withdraw this nomination or try to work on it some more, that's up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have replaced most Sensei's Library references on rules, strategy and tactics with a new reference to a stategy guide. Will do the rest later, right now I'm gonna watch the Dutch play in Euro 2008 ;-) HermanHiddema (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All references to Sensei's have been replaced, except for those where the reference is a footnote (refs 2, 82, 83 and 85 in this version), providing extra information, and not a citation meant to verify the text. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "# Shirakawa Masayoshi (2005). A Journey In Search of the Origins of Go. ISBN 1889554987. " – author should be last name, first name and then sort References section alphabetically. There are a few more references that need last name, first name format.
    Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many references are missing publishers. Format them per WP:CITE/ES
    Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use en dashes for page ranges in references.
    Done. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's it for now. As others have stated above, there are many more issues with this article, even after disregarding MOS issues, which there are many.
    Can you tell me what these are? HermanHiddema (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Mainly 1c, but also some other issues. In addition to the reliable source problems above, the Strategy section is unreferenced. There are scattered paragraphs without citations in other sections as well. "Go is not easy to play well. With each new level (rank) comes a deeper appreciation for the subtlety and nuances involved and for the insight of stronger players" is POV, among other sentences in Strategy. In Origin in China, three references are inside parentheses; these should be moved out. I also see one in Software players. This article is a long way from FA. Giants2008 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    References inside parenthesis were moved outside. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    References fixed All the Sensei's Library references have been replaced, as have other references questioned here. References now also include publisher, accessdate, etc where appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nope:
      • Book refs 3,4,5,6,7,8, 50, 51, 62, 71, 73, 74 need page numbers.
    3, 62, 73 and 74 still need to be done, 71 is done, the rest are essays without page numbers. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Online refs 15, 32, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 94, 95 need access dates.
    I have added accessdates to all notes that are citations, but not to those that are just footnotes providing extra info (these do not use a citation template anyway). HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have tried my best to catch all problems with the citations, please check through all of them properly.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Ealdgyth - Talk Edits - 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 15 "AGA 1995 Historical Book is lacking a last access date
    Fixed.
    • Same for current ref 16 "Bozulich, Richard The Magic of Go...
    This one is no longer available, but is available through the web archive. What is the proper way to fix that?
    Use the web archive or replace with a book. Now how exactly you use the webarchive things.. I don't know. Where I edit, I don't need them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Magic Of Go was a newspaper column of the Daily Yomuri that isn't really necessary. One can simply reference the newspaper instead--ZincBelief (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced this with a link to the web archive version HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the GoGD (Farbairn & Hall) note refering to? I can't find it in the references.
    See below.
    Need to list it in the references like the other often used ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have listed it under the references HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 30 John Fairbairn, probably should list it Fairbairn, John to match the rest of the references
    Fixed.

    GoGoD is short for Games of Go on Disk, and is a commercial product which includes essays on many topics, as well as records of high level games. The articles are written by John Fairbairn, the games entered by T Mark Hall. Fairbairn is well published on Go. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GoGoD is now in the references section (see above) HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 32 Hansen, Fred is lacking a last access date.
    Fixed.
    Written by the Rules Committee of the American Go Association
    You should actually be using the latest AGA rules text (from the usgo website) in combination with a link from the French and UK websites (I don't know how to format links to foreign websites). John Fairbairn wrote an article about AGA rules on the GoGod website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This document is an appendix, and is not included in either the "conciserules" or "completerules" PDF documents on the AGA website. Instead, the AGA website links to the url used above from their rules section as being a Commentary/Clarification. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jasiek is a member of the European Go Federation Rules Commission and the International Go Rules Forum (IGRF), and is generally considered one of the foremost experts on rules arcana.
    • What makes current ref 47 an FAQ from a usenet group reliable?
    This is basically subject specific common knowledge, a newsgroup FAQ gathers a lot of that kind of information.
    Yes, but who wrote the information? Usenet postings are very hard to use as RS's and knowing who wrote the information is a step towards that. Or you could source the information to a book, which would solve the usenet problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is subject specific common knowledge and doesn't need a reference. The current reference again seems to point to Senseis Library. How about using page 188 of Go, The World's Most fascinating Game. A book published by the Nihon Kiin? (No ISBN noticeable on my copy) or perhaps http://www.britgo.org/organisers/mcmahonpairing.html mentioning traditional system. Either of these should be fine, but no actual reference is needed per wikipedia guidelines on Citation.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the reference to the Usenet FAQ in favor of the reference provided by ZincBelief HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ales Cieply is the ratings commisioner of the European Go Federation, and the site in question is the official EGF ratings page. I guess publisher would be EGF?

    Yes, the publisher would be EGF. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the European Go Federation as publisher. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MSO World articles are written by either John Fairbairn or Charles Matthews, both go writers with published work.
    Leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: I'm sorry, do you mean that I should remove this reference? HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that I think it's an "on the fence" source, and I'm not striking the issue as resolved, but leaving it unstruck for other reviewers to decide whether its reliable on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As with GoGod articles on GoBase are published by established authors. It can also be viewed (like Sensei's Library but without being a wiki) as a repository of subject specific common knowledge which doesn't need to be cited per wikipedia citation policy.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    GoBase is a well respected site which provides a database of game results, players and tournaments. All such information is verifiable with the relevant organizers, pro organizations, etc. The references provided give easy access to an overview of which players won how many tournaments in what years. This is basically raw data, GoBase does not draw conclusions from this other than to list the tournament winners in the order of "most tournament victories". HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 60 Charles Matthews, probably should put last name first to match the rest of the notes
    Fixed.
    • Current ref 71 Nakayama noriyuki "Memories of Kitani" is lacking a page number
    Fixed.
    • Current ref 79 Keene, Raymond & Levy, David "How to beat your chess computer" is lacking a publisher
    Fixed--ZincBelief (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is current ref 85 Trevanian as quotedin McDonald, Brian "Go in Western Literature" a newsletter, journal, book? Needs more bibliographical information and a last access date
    Trevanian is a Fictional Detective I think, he should be referenced elsewhere. Will look... So somebody has deleted the article on Shibumi itself. http://www.britgo.org/general/celeb/ gives another reference, http://www.epinions.com/content_12566892164 is another, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Shibumi/Trevanian/e/9781400098033 is another. The one currently shown appears to be an edited version of a newsgroup post (original research perhaps?). Referencing the book itself is another approach.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed this reference by using a proper citation template, and adding publisher and editor. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 89 is borked somehow.
    Fixed.
    • Current ref 92 Gobet F ... is lacking publication date
    Fixed--ZincBelief (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 94 Chen et. al. is lacking a page number
    Probably because the whole publication is relevant, is there a convention for that circumstance?--ZincBelief (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then if the work is small enough, you just leave it as it is. If it's over about 100 pages, citing the whole work is borderline (unless you're citing the fact that the work exists). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 95 Verghese et al is lacking a page number
    One dead link with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The dead link was the "Bozulich, Richard The Magic of Go..." link that was also mention above as missing. This has been replace with a web archive link. Assitionally, there was one link which returned a "Permanently Moved" status (Asiaweek, current ref 88) which I hace also replaced with a web archive link. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Just curious. Does anyone have any concerns about the article beyond formatting? (These are less tedious to address)--ZincBelief (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes. Layout and prose issues, mainly. But the citations need sorting out before those issues. This really does have a long way to go before its FA standard. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think citations are the most important part of this article, I mean nobody actually challenges any of the material on it. At the end of the day Citations are only one part of featured article criteria, even if they are the easiest part to review. Anyway, could I ask you to detail some of the layout issues, or some of the prose issues, or both. Thank you.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The best thing is not to rush. One thing at a time. As I said, working this up to FA standard will take a long time, and this certainly won't pass FA if you argue over minor issues like missing access dates. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the work of a minute to change a typo in a reference, or to add in an access date. It takes longer to address prose or presentation. If you have concerns over those it is more helpful or efficient to address those now in my opinion.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Open issues:

    • Current references 3, 62, 73, 74, 90 and 92 need page numbers. By User:Wackymacs above.
    3 could possibly be replaced by a reference to Teach Yourself Go I think, or you can also try one of John Fairbairn's articles again.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other than that, all references are now properly formatted, I think
    • Article need general copy-editing. By User:Wackymacs above.
      • Contact some copy-editors about this shortly.
    • Reference from sources other than http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/ and http://gobase.org/ have been vetted by User:Ealdgyth. These two sources have been left "on the fence", not necessarily unreliable, for each reviewer to make up his/her own mind on. Info on these sites:
      • MSO World Mindzine articles currently cited have all been written by John Fairbairn, a published author on go.
      • GoBase is a well-respected (within the go community) database of tournaments, players and game results, maintained by Jan van der Steen, a strong player.
    • As others have stated above, there are many more issues with this article, even after disregarding MOS issues, which there are many. By: User:Gary King above.
    • The strategy section and other issues. By User:Giants2008 above.

    -- HermanHiddema (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose on the basis of many issues with accuracy and comprehensiveness - Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • For example, if a 5k plays a game with a 1k, the 5k would need a handicap of four stones to even the odds. - there are no odds in GO and the text reads poorly - 5k is not a noun, a 5k player works better.
    Every game has odds actually. The odds of who will win and who will lose. 5 kyu is clearly a noun much like grandmaster or novice. I don't agree with this comment personally.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In Go the handicap is given to offset the strength difference between the players and make the game a more equal contest...is a better way. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Top level amateur players sometimes defeat professionals in tournament play. - in even or handicap games ? It's an assertion which I know to be true but would be better with a reference
    I will look for one with Fernando Aguilar.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Linked to Fan Hui in EGD, it mistakenly describes him as 3p when he is 2p, but apart from that it is fine.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To prevent this, the ko rule is sometimes extended to disallow any previous position. - surely this is disallowing 'replication of any previous position
    I think replication is obviously implicit there, matter of taste.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the section where it notes that Go Seigen "who scored an impressive 80%" - does this mean he won 80% of all matches he played from 1924 in newspaper-sponsored matches or is this linked to a specific time period ?
    Will look--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) There is a reference provided for this. It seems clear to me that it is 80% in Newspaper Matches. I can check this if I want to.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From the reference is it not clear - newspapers are not mentioned in the referenced - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will look to see if there is another additional reference available. For me, the newspaper matches are implied when I read it.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The reference says 80% in all matches he played. Matches were generally sponsored by newspapers. This seems ok to me, don't know how others feel.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no mention of the concepts, and importance to strategy and ko fights of sente and gote.
    Don't understand this comment.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Decisions on keeping sente and playing gote moves so giving sente away are critical to the game - books by James Davies and others on Joseki go into this in detail. Is the comment that you don't understand sente and gote or why they need to be discussed ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right I see what you're saying now. I suppose this could be worked in quite concisely. Personally I prefer a merger of Strategy and Tactics, so this may take a while to implement.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under the scoring section "Each of these scoring methods has advantages and disadvantages" - what are the advantages and disadvantages
    Yes looks like Weasel Words there.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second look I note there is a reference for this comment. The brace reader can click on that to investigate further.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is - why does the article not tell you... the reader should not have to click on a link to get information like this - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are pretty "hardcore" topics, I don't think it is appropriate to go into depth on them here.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *No citation for the first two paragraphs in the "Nature of the game" section - particularly needed for the assertion that Go is a "zero-sum, perfect information, partisan, deterministic strategy game"

    None needed for subject specific common knowledge.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps this is fair enough - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the software players section - "the best Go programs only manage to reach an average amateur level" - what is an average amateur level ? There is also no note of the well discussed point that repeatedly playing the same program makes it easier to defeat due to the predictability of play in some places. SOme of the text in this paragraph does not precisely agree with the linked reference [77]
    Will trawl through this. 1kyu on KGS is currently the best acheived I think.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Changed average to intermediate, but yes, probably one more reference would be useful here.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing I can find on the stages of the game. Fuseki -> middle game -> end game and the qualitative differences between them. This does not need much but something is required
    Hmm, I think those have individual pages devoted to them elsewhere. You have to be considerate of what is possible to cover in an introduction to the game.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree that just wikilinking is sufficient - look at the brief but well descriptive section in Chess#Strategy_and_tactics - Peripitus (Talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yose theory and middlegame theory are difficult to present to beginners. It is a matter of taste I suppose, but I think they are better discussed elsewhere.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How popular is the game ? how many might play it ? How much do professionals earn from playing ? I seem to remember that tournaments were/are televised in Japan but there is no note of this. The Japanese Go Association sponsors the world amateur championships but there is no note of this.
    Will look on the IGF pages, but statistics for actual numbers are likely to be wildly imprecise.--ZincBelief (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1/222 sourced--ZincBelief (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

    National Museum of Beirut[edit]

    Self-nominator

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because i expanded from stub status and was encouraged by reviewers to proceed to the next step after it gained GA status. it is a fairly well written article not cluttered with irrelevant info and has overall consensus from the local wikiproject ( no edit wars) thank you Eli+ 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Some web references are missing publishers and/or accessdates. Gary King (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    books citations do no require access dates, one reference (jean-Michel wilmotte biography article) does not have a publisher it was published on a website Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Perhaps "archaeological museum" rather than "archaeology museum"?
    i kept it as it is in accordance with the name of the category (archaeology museums) both work actuallyEli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest renaming the "Early beginnings" section. The "early" part just serves to confuse, but I'm not sure it works just as "Beginnings" on its own. Perhaps something more explanatory like "Origin and inauguration"?
    totally AGREE Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The National Museum closed its doors when the Lebanese war broke out." - "its doors" is unnecessary.
    changed Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the first paragraph of the Closing and Devastation section could do with some editing to improve the prose. Plus, at the moment the whole section seems to be a pretty much direct copy from the first reference (the museum website history section), with some minor changes. This could have copyright problems.
    rewritten Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Armed elements"? What about "soldiers"?
    this term was used explicitly and on purpose since there was not one soldier or army group but many militias, foreign armies and factions of the fractured lebanese army as well. Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps change the "Prehistory" section to "Prehistoric" (this makes sense if you think of it as "Prehistoric Collections" as opposed to "Prehistory Collections", imo).
    yes it may work... but the official NMB brochures and publications name it like this Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe change "amidst the exacerbation of the civil war" to "amidst the worsening civil war", or similar.
    • I'd suggest decreasing the resolution of the museum logo to better conform with the fair use policy. I also wonder about the public domain status of the Sarcophagus of King Ahiram photo, I think it's probably ok, so I'll leave it to one of the more experienced image rights FAC reviewers.

    In general I think a lot of the prose could do with tidying up, quite a bit seems to be copied from sources without much paraphrasing or rewording. Adacore (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    we can do without it Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    totally biased website, i agree but this one was used a secondary website for citation. Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    also used as secondary ref Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no, it's actually the daily star newspaper, look further down,, the end of the article Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    also used as secondary ref Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    biography article is featured on the website, no publishers Eli+ 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay, and web links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: You say in your preamble that the article is fairly well written. Unfortunately (see WP:Featured article criteria) the standard of prose required for a featured article is higher than that. In fact, the prose in this article requires a lot of work. Here are three examples of poor construction:-

    • "These excavations were carried out by Dr Georges Contenau at Saida and the Renan mission at Saida, Tyre and Byblos". Excavations have not previously been mentioned, so "these" makes no sense. The rest of the sentence is confused.
    • "The Museum was supposed to be inaugurated in 1938, but due to the Second World War the museum was not opened until 1942. The Museum was inaugurated on May 27, 1942 by…"(repetitions, inconsistent capitalization of "museum", "inaugurated" and "opened" meaning the same thing).
    • "…turned down by the general director of antiquities […] since there were still no doors or windows preventing the looting of the museum". I have no idea from this what the general director’s objection was based on.

    Please note that these are examples, and that there are other cases of inadequate prose. Other random comments:-

    • History section is unbalanced. The 33 years up to 1975 are dealt with in a single sentence (relating to Mir Maurice Chehab), followed by long subsections relating to the 17 years of civil war and the post-1992 reconstruction. The earlier period should be more adequately summarised.
    • Why does an Architecture section appear in the middle of the article? Surely this information belongs to the Foundation section, where you first mention the architects?
    • Terms like "neo-pharonic" are incomprehensible to the vast majority, and must be explained and/or linked. Your later use of the term "aisle" is wrong; an aisle is an interior gangway. I think you mean alleyway or something similar. Also, I believe that "pre-emptive" is always hyphenated, but it may be non-hyphenated in AmEng.
    Egyptian Revival architecture is the normal English term here. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The detailed list of names in the Foundation section is unnecessary and tedious to read.
    • Re Hellenistic period. Alexander died in 323 BC, so it’s a bit strange to read: "After Alexander’s untimely death, Phonecia came under Seleucid rule in 198 BC." That's 125 years after Alexander’s death – so what was happening meanwhile? It’s not relevant to your article, so rather than go into detailed ancient history I’d insert "eventually" between "came" and "under".

    Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i appreciate your comments, not your tone Eli+ 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if my tone has offended you - what exactly are you referring to? I am trying to help you improve the article, and some criticism is inevitable, but it's not personal. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The Architecture section has inconsistent measurement/unit combinations - since it's in the main text, all units should be written out in full.
    i think we ought to report this issue to the convert template talk page Eli+ 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd really like to see the "Collections" section prosified - I'm uncomfortable with the list-like format.
    • The lead should be two paragraphs, not only because of WP:LEAD but because "During the 1975 Lebanese Civil War, the...." begins a new topic, and thus should start a new paragraph.
    • Link "20th century" - it provides context.

    Prose is excellent in general; I couldn't find any of the problems I find in most articles. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for your time, I'll see that the changes you proposed be done Eli+ 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    what description, what repetitions, where ???? Thank you for your useful "comment" Eli+ 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied you here. [21]--Mojska 08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now.
    • Prose is not up to FA standard, & needs tweaking throughout. Lots of redundancies, and some vocabulary that is not right. Otherwise, the organisation and content seem ok. Taking the first para after the lead:

    "In 1919, a small collection of ancient artifacts compiled WRONG WORD by Raymond Weill (a French officer stationed in Lebanon), was CUT [housed and] exhibited at a provisional museum in the German Deaconesses APOSTROPHE building in Georges Picot Street, Beirut.[1] Meanwhile, a prototype HMMM of the Archaeological and Fine Arts Service was instigated "BEGUN" OR SIMILAR and began assembling items, which were scattered WRONG WORD in the vicinity of Beirut.IS THIS CLAUSE NEEDED? The initial collection was rapidly enriched through the work DID THEY MAKE THEM? of the successive antiquity directors DIRECTORS OF ANTIQUITIES, I THINK along with the addition of excavation finds CUT [that have been carried out] GRAMMAR, REDUNDANCY, MADE by Dr. Georges Contenau at Saida and the Renan mission MISSIONARIES? OR EXPEDITION/DIGS/EXCAVATIONS? at Saida, Tyre[2] and Byblos.[3] Donations from private collectors SIMPLIFY[also contributed to the inventory],[2] among CUT [which were] THEM Henry Seyrig’s private OBVIOUSLY coin collection[4], General Weygand's collection in 1925[2] and that of Dr George Ford (Director of the American Mission School of Sidon) in 1930.[5][2]"

    I could give it a copy-edit if you like.

    • Sourcing - all sources are mostly on-line, which is not a good sign. There must be printed sources, which usually have more in-depth information.

    Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now copy-edited it, at Elie's invitation, so I hope those concerned with the prose will take another look. I may have missed MoS points - for example it uses "B.C.", not "BC" which I prefer, but can't remember the Mos position - and there are a lot of these. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm - I didn't look at the website until after I copy-edited, and I'm now concerned at how much I was correcting the Ministry's English, from pages like this [22]. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

    Dutch Empire[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is finished, and it is good enough to become a featured atricle. Red4tribe (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • En dashes for year ranges per WP:DASH
    • Space for page numbers, so it's "p. 10" not "p.10"
      • Done. Someone needs to check out ref#45 and 46, however. -Señor Lelandro 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove spaces before references like in "war. [9] The "

    Gary King (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is no requirement in any guideline that I'm aware of for a space between the page and number; many editors (depends on the country, I suspect?) do not use a space. WP:WIAFA calls for consistently formatted citations; as long as the space or lack of space are consistent, that's fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That is a terrible picture of the declaration of Indonesian independence. Can't we do better? Rmhermen (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Nearly all your non-print references are unformatted. Ref #45 looks odd.
    • Section headers shouldn't start with articles and shouldn't repeat the title of the article unless absolutely necessary.
    • Uncited weasel word - "arguably" - in "Dutch language" section"
    • Both American and British spelling are present in the article: i.e. recognise, defence, neighbor, colonise.
    • Plenty of redundancy:
      • "There are still some archaeological remains of Fort Goede Hoop (modern Hartford, Connecticut) and Fort Orange (modern Albany, New York)"
    • "The success of these voyages led to the founding of a number of companies competing for the trade."
    • "During the Franco-Dutch War, which saw the Republic be invaded by France, the Dutch seized a number of French possessions in the Caribbean and South America, including Tobago and French Guiana"
    • Per User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Misplaced_formality, "in order to" should probably be replaced with just plain "to".
    • Not all footnotes are placed directly after punctuation.
    • Centuries should probably be linked in the lead - they give context.
    • "Dutch merchants and sailors also participated in the surge of exploration that unfolded in the 16th and 17th centuries, though the vast new territories revealed by Willem Barents, Henry Hudson, Willem Janszoon and Abel Tasman in the Arctic and in Australasia/Oceania did not generally become permanent Dutch colonies."
    • "With Dutch naval power rising rapidly as a major force from the late 16th century," - awkward phrasing, recommend replacing the word "from" in particular.
    • "reigned supreme at sea"? You don't need to source the lead, but I'd like to see a reference (provided here) for such an extravagant claim.
    • "The restored portions of the Dutch empire, notably the Dutch East Indies and Suriname remained under the Netherlands' control until the decline of traditional imperialism following World War II." - you're missing a comma
    • Many short paragraphs that need to be merged

    I probably barely scratched the surface here - you're going to need a full copyedit, preferably more than one, before this article is up to par. Recommend withdrawal. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments your website references are lacking all bibliographical information. At the very least you need publisher, title and last access date. Author and other information are good to have if known. Some of the website sources are just plain urls, they need titles as well as all the other information. The link checker tool is showing a dead link. When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to recheck for reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now:

    • The prose problems are mentioned by others. Needs a good copy-edit.
    • Pictures - the maps are good, but the only image with people is a poor photo of the declaration of Indonesian independence. Not a single ship, of all the Dutch ship paintings! Nothing by Frans Post, the earliest significant painter to paint scenes in the colonies of any European country. The page of illegible writing that is the "formal declaration of independence of the Dutch provinces from the Spanish king, Philip II." adds little here, and the stumpy monument is not much better. There is plenty of room for better images.
    • The more colonial nature of the Cape colony should be mentioned earlier - it only appears in "Legacy". Did the North American colonies also involve a population settling; one would guess so from the numbers staying behind after the English takeover?
    • There is no real explanation of the process by which small forts and "factories" are turned into significant territories. Wars with other European powers are covered, but were there none with indigenous rulers or peoples? Did the VOC have an army, like the East India Company? No mention of the role of planters, or how that system worked, or even the crops grown. Who owned plantations in the East Indies?
    • The legacy section has no mention of post-colonial immigration into the Netherlands, and the issues, including terrorism, that has produced.

    Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. Problems with 1b (comprehensiveness). There is very little information on the impact of the colonial power on aboriginal peoples. With the exception of Peter Stuyvesant, there is no mention of other governors. Were they all non-notable? How did the Dutch carry out their rule? What about the movement of peoples (Dutch immigration to the colonies, aboriginal people to the Netherlands)? There are some section organisation problems. The fifty years of Dutch hegemony section appears to cover more than that period, making the two sections afterwards covering the 150 years up to the Napoleonic period look small. Cape Town is under the "Asia" subsection! The Cape Colony information should be expanded. It might also be a good idea to look for more relevant sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawl-I'd like to withdraw this from the FAC. Red4tribe (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

    2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it covers the matter wholesomely. It has been peer reviewed which has been archived here. A failed WP:GAN; the actionable objections raised in its not-so convincing review have been dealt with to the best of my capacity. I know the failed nom is a major setback for the article but by nominating it at FAC I wish to garner a wider opinion on its worth. Your suggestions and criticism are welcome and deemed priceless. I hope I can address them satisfactorily. Thanks, (Self nomination) - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Replaced with Times of India link
    • Current ref 46 "Mumbai taxis go on flash strike after attack..." is lacking a publisher
    Done
    Replaced with The Indian Express
    Sify.com is web portal that publishes news from established news agency sources like Press Trust of India, Associated Press, IANS, UNI etc. These agency sources are mentioned on their pages (top-left corner)
    Leave this out for other reviewers, mainly because we're not all familiar with Indian sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To make matters easy I have replaced all the Sify refs with citations from The Hindu, Financial Express and The Economic Times. Lets bid farewell to Sify. Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just waiting on the deadlink issue? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 103 Kiran Tare "Raj promises more of the same" is lacking a publisher
    Done
    Replaced with Bihar Times
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ealdgyth, for checking the sources. Kindly re-check the new links after the above mentioned changes. Are they fine? – KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Italicize publications in references per MOS:TITLE
    Done
    • "Satpur,Nashik" – space required
    Done
    • "2008-03–09" – no en dash necessary in this case
    Done Well spotted!
    • "The Indian[89])." – ref goes outside punctuation
    I am not too sure what change(s) is required?
    The Indian[88]). → "The Indian).[88]" per WP:FOOTNOTE Gary King (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes agreed, but since the citation pertains only to The Indian — sections of the media (The Hindu,[1] The Times of India,[87] Deccan Herald,[88] The Hindustan Times,[89] The Economic Times[78]), and international media (Khaleej Times,[90] The Indian[91]). — and not the whole sentence I feel one can ignore the rule. What say? - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "hype".".[91]." – there are three periods in succession...
    Done

    Gary King (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. Kindly check whether the concerns marked as done have been addressed. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Should use million/hundred thousands (or the whole numeric figure) alongside lakhs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I have a query (posted on your talk page) KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images:

    Kelly hi! 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Kelly for your comments regarding the rationale and copyright issues. I have requested the uploader of Image:MNS flag.png to convert it into svg format. The rationale of Image:Raj Thackeray as Hitler.jpg has also been revised. I have now nominated Image:Mumbai violence 20080205.jpg for speedy deletion using {{db-author}} I need some more time for resolving (if at all they can be)the issues regarding Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg. Will keep you updated. Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment

    All dates need to be formatted in the international date format: ([[1 January]] [[2008]]). indopug (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Indopug. I re-visited Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates and it says nothing about the International date format. But then I saw the last India-related FA–2007 Samjhauta Express bombings. It uses International Date formatting.
    Hence It would be wise to switch over to the International style (just like you suggest).
    Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (Note: I have changed all full dates ie.February 3, 2008 -> 3 February 2008. Should I also change dates without year? (ie.May 9-> 9 May)?? KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, if you check the Samjautha FAC, you'd see that I had suggested/implemented the date format change. I can't seem to find the suggestion in MoS either (although I know its in there somewhere), I'll find it eventually. And yes, it should be [[3 February]]. LoCE is broken beyond repair, hundreds of articles are in the backlog. Asking somebody at WP:PRV is recommended nowadays. I'll be busy with a few other on/off-Wiki things for about a week, after which I can hopefully read up on the topic and give it a go myself. I only read the lead yesterday, and while I removed the obvious redundancies, I found problems with the basic structure itself. I'll read the rest and give a review later tonight. indopug (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Will wait till then. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No specific date format is prescribed by MOS: dates need to be consistently formatted in whichever format is chosen, and consistently linked or not linked. To see if you've done this correctly, log out of Wiki and see if you see consistently formatted dates, then log in to Wiki and see if all dates are formatted consistently according to your preference settings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose
    • I had difficulty following the details and the reasons for this unrest. Part of it, I think, is a cultural gap. At least where I live there are few political parties. I think the issue of outsiders coming in and not assimilating is easily understood, but the various names of the parties kept confusing me, and I had to keep scrolling up to understand who was who. You may have to simplify that issue.
    • Disambiguate hawker, and describe what one is briefly.
    • Perhaps part of my confusion is that there don't seem to be concrete examples of how North Indians were adversely affecting the standards of living for the people of Maharashtra. Were they fighting for jobs? Housing? What's the root cause of the riots? It seems, according to the article, that a politician and an actor are taking rather silly potshots at each other in the press, and then the region erupts into violence. I'm trying not to be superior, but that seems very, very silly.
    • A petition was drawn against someone for his remarks: to do what? People signed something asking someone to do what about someone's comments?
    • Why target a theater playing a film? These acts seem random and again, if they don't make sense, they seem foolish.
    • The article needs a copy edit. There are some bumpy spots in prose. For instance, saying people where beaten is smoother than saying they were beaten up. This sentence: He was severely beaten following which he fell unconscious is very awkward.
    • Is there a difference between rioters and activists?
    • The blockquotes are too short to deserve being differentiated from the rest of the text.
    • Who said this? It was perhaps one of the largest exoduses from a single district in the country ever
    • Crore has to be explained.
    • I had to stop here. I could no longer understand the following text without a basis for comprehending the riots. I don't believe the article is ready for feature right now. I wondered even if analysis is possible only three months following the unrest. Is it too soon to be featuring a topic that may not really be over?
    • I know it's a lot of hard work to write this article. It appears that a lot of research went into it, but I also think too much is taken for granted in understanding the political factions of India. I think the article would benefit by going through GA. FAC should not be a second peer review - major problems should be taken care of before articles come here. I wish you luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns and I do feel it needs changes are required. I shall make them as soon as I can. As for the cause of the violence– it sure is petty– but thats how politics works in India–caste, region, language etc are cards which politicians usually play–and succeed as a unfortunately 44% of the population is uneducated. These issues are important probably due to the diversity in the society and segration coupled with discrimination at different levels. (Politics≠Logic!) (The cause can be interpreted as xenophobia or [[[Nativism (politics)]])
    On the attack on theatre– They attacked theatres which were showing Bhojpuri films. Bhojpuri is the vernacular lingo of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. I thought just wiki-linking Bhojpuri and Bhojpuri films will be enough but…I guess a bit more explanation is needed!
    I know the random acts of violence against North Indians seem foolish, but the fact is hate crimes follow this pattern. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A fundamental element of the article should be understanding why the riots took place. If it's your claim that they took place because the rioters are poor and uneducated, easily swayed by popular suggestion that unrest is a form of activism, that should be in the lead and in the first paragraph in the Background section, with renowned Indian culture analysts saying the same thing in quotes. If that information doesn't exist, or you haven't found it, the article will be incomplete and therefore not ready for feature until the cause of the unrest is stated right out. The immigration of people from North India is not reason enough without an explanation that this is somehow threatening to the people in Maharashtra, that something concrete (i.e. Money, Jobs, Regional Identity, etc.) will be compromised. In the state where I live, the largest immigration occurred within the past 40 years: Cuban exiles in the state of Florida. They adapted quite well, and so did the region where they settled. That's my local frame of reference, which may be why I'm so confused. If you're taking for granted that readers will know this about Indian politics, that a massive influx of people from another state will cause violence and rioting, that's insufficient. It has to be explained. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

    Alleyway[edit]

    Self-nominator I'm nominating this article because I feel it to have gone as far as it can, and it discusses the full detail of the subject matter as informatively as possible for every reader to understand. Please be as detailed as possible with any issues you have with the article so I may tackle them as efficiently as I can.Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Use {{cite web}} for web citations so they are uniform. Title, publisher, URL, and accessdate are needed at the minimum, and some are missing those.
    • Page ranges such as "pg 4-5. Nintendo." need en dash per WP:DASH
    • "Alleyway is good -- but" — use an em dash per WP:DASH
    • "in Japan in 1989,[3] and was " → unlink the year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS

    Gary King (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The use of cite web is not required, although it is required that citations be in a uniform format. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but it is easier for me to ask that {{cite web}} be used in most cases because it does all the work for you. I've sometimes asked that all references simply be uniform but have had to revisit the article several times because a few things were still missing. Gary King (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since cite templates are not required on featured articles (or any articles), and since some of us hate them, you'd be better to refer nominators to WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 2 is lacking a publisher Video Game Rebirth ...
    • Same for current ref 5 Nintendo Database Alleyway...
    • What makes the following sites reliable:
    Database site being used to verify release dates and version codes for the different versions of the cartridge, on par with Gamefaqs's means of gathering release date information. German version release information correlates with review dates from German magazines and version codes shown on auctioned cartridges on eBay.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but WHY is it a reliable source for this information? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I couldn't find a means to guarantee quality control and because it just relies on submitted material, I ended up removing this as a reference. It's only importance really was to confirm the 1990 germany release date, but that ended up in retrospect being too much detail. The version numbers didn't need a citation due to nintendo's standardizing of them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    N-Sider was created by an IGN Entertainment editor, and the staff have contributed articles to IGN, with a merger discussed at one point that became a partnership between the two for some time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Iffy, and borderline in my mind. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is current ref 25 a book? If so, it's missing a lot of blibliographical information including page number (Super Game Boy Nintendo Stragey Guide)
    The ISBN number doesn't work for that book. I can't find a title by that name at Google either, to correct the ISBN. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that wasn't a ISBN number listed, but a ASIN number, verifyable by Amazon.com here. From digging around, the book and several SNES strategy guides from Nintendo did not seem to have a ISBN (this one in particular was bundled with the Super Game Boy itself). Will that suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine to go with the ASIN number. Main reason I clicked on it was I'd never seen an ISBN number formatted that way, I was curious! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Game Rankings was the one to link to the scan of the review and used the excerpt mentioned in the article. Beyond that for the site itself I don't know other than it serves as an archive. Should I add a reference to the Game Rankings cited excerpt alongside it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. No clue, honestly. I'm not THAT up on copyright law, especially German. Anyone else? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well altered the reference to cite the magazine itself, and pointed the reference at the except on MobyGames (it wasn't Game Rankings in the end, mistake on my part). That should clear that one up...I hope.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 30, is that a journal article? Can we get more bibliographical data perhaps?
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I managed to fix all the errors thus far mentioned at this time, and corrected the citations as needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Site owner's information is based upon information covered in book authors (which he lists), and interviews he's conducted. I've changed the reference to a more direct one with ex-Tengen/Atari employee Ed Logg which states the same cited material more directly, and added a book reference that also makes mention of it (Game Over). Will that work?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Quite a few issues to fix before I can support:

    • Why does the lead focus on the release dates/locations so much? A lead is meant to summarize an article, and as such the lead should mention the gameplay, and reception. It is a general rule of thumb to make sure every heading is covered in the lead in summary form. See WP:LEAD.
    The release dates as mentioned further in the article played an important role with reception, notably due to the fact that in Japan it didn't compete with Tetris right out of the gate, but in the US and international releases, the two were put side by side.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And? The lead still does not include enough information about gameplay (levels, ball behavior) and you probably should mention some part of Development in the lead too. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...much like the game Breakout" - Why not: "similar to Breakout"
    Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Paddle speed can be made faster or slower by holding either B or A while moving," - Alright, let's assume the reader is an average joe who doesn't play video games. What is B or A. You might try: ""Paddle speed can be made faster or slower by holding either B or A buttons on the controller while moving," instead.
    Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...When released, the ball will always start off at a downward 45º" - Why not begin instead of start off?
    Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is good throughout, but video game jargon needs weeding out.
    • I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
    • Your page numbers are inconsistent. Sometimes you use "pg." but sometimes only the page number. Please use p. and pp. to precede page number(s).
    I should have all of these corrected at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Check refs 8, 17 (page number in title instead of page parameter), 22, 23, 24, and 30. I might have missed some, so please go over all of them. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In current ref 24. "Nintendo Magazinet" - I think you mean Magazine, not Magazinet. Please check all refs for mistakes like this.
    That actually is not a typo. It's actually a Swedish magazine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable sources mentioned by Ealdgyth need resolving.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Languages should be indicated for the non-English references (use the relevant parameter in the citation templates). Kariteh (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added to each one. Should be fixed now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Maybe it's just me, but I really have no clue what the game is like after reading the lead. More needs to be said on gameplay, I think.
    • the screenshots (at least the first one) need better FURs. User:Giggy/FURs may help.
    Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also the first one needs a much better description/caption.
    Fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "until the player has over 10000 points" - does the game end at this stage?
    "An additional paddle is granted for each one thousand points scored, until the player has over 10000 points." I'm a little confused how that sentence could be misunderstood...every thousand you get an added paddle is awarded until you get over 10000. How could that be taken any other way?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""this variant doesn't have much more to offer than the original."" - maybe it's just me, but what original?
    Added alluded term within brackets.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Electronic Gaming Monthly also reviewed the game, giving it mostly moderate scores of 6/10, 6/10, 5/10 and 3/10." - what do each of these numbers mean?
    Confused how that could possibly be taken wrong: you have a 3 scores that are midway out of 10 (thus moderate) and one that's below the middle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what do each of these scores represent? Gameplay, audio, graphics, etc.? Or something else? giggy (:O) 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah understood. Added a bit at the end of the sentence describing the scores as covering the game as a whole. Hopefully that'll suffice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still unclear to me. "giving it mostly moderate scores of 6/10, 6/10, 5/10 and 3/10 for the game as a whole" is the current reading - the average Joe will have no idea why it was given four numbers, and what each number represents. giggy (:O) 03:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The two reviewers that gave the highest scores did state they felt the design was perfect for the Game Boy, one adding "It's also a very good game that combines some new features...with the original Break-Out theme" and closing with "...Alleyway is good—but a bit long."" - but who were these people?
    Unknown. I can present you with a scan of the article, but it was a single column that never showed who the writers were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's cool. giggy (:O) 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    giggy (:O) 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support; the only other minor niggling is being discussed now, everything else is fine. giggy (:O) 03:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments regarding images:

    • As Giggy mentioned above, the rationales on the non-free images are very weak. They basically just say "being used for illustrative purposes". The rationales need to address WP:NFCC#8 by stating why they significantly contribute to a reader's understanding.
    • Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG should be cleaned up by having the "moment of contact" text edited out - it is unreadable at the image's rendered size in the article, and should be removed anyway per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text. Another concern for this image is that it's sourced to Nintendo but has a GFDL license.
    • Image:Alleyway-bonus.gif should be in PNG instead of GIF format per WP:IUP#Format. (It also has two rationales for some reason.)

    Kelly hi! 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:51, June 19, 2008 UTC.


    SummerSlam (1988)[edit]

    Self-nominator: I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It had a successful peer review, was copy edited by several people, and had a very helpful pre-FA review. Because this is an older pay-per-view, there are books and magazines available to source the information, so it doesn't have the problem of reliable sources that a lot of wrestling articles have. All comments are welcome, and if opposing, please leave suggestions I can use to further improve the article. Many thanks! Nikki311 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Lulu.com is a self-publishing site, correct? What makes Ian Hamilton's book reliable then?
    • Please format the references with last name first, and in alphabetical order in the references section, makes it much easier to find the repeatedly used sources
    • Books and videos not used in the notes section should go into a "Further reading" section, not the references section.
    Sources look good. Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Thanks for the feedback. I added a different print source to back up Hamilton's claim. For the "references with the last names first", are you referring just to the References section, or does this apply to the Notes section as well? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a review of Hamilton's book by SLAM! Wrestling, where they praise the "extensive" research. [23] According to its official site, it was in the top 10 (6th) of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's (WON) book awards. [24] Lastly, here are some reviews from people associated with SLAM! and WON. [25] Nikki311 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last name first in both sections works best, honestly. It's just how these things are usually done in the humanities. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All completed. Nikki311 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - This is looking good, and I am close to supporting. This is all I could find during a read-through.

    • Comma after Madison Square Garden?
    • Development: At first use of World Championship Wrestling, provide an abbreviation as well. You can then use that abbreviation in the next paragraph, where a WCW mention or two would be useful.
    • "Those four events, along with the King of the Ring, are also known as the "Classic Five." Remove also.
    • Report, Background: Hyphen for most watched?
    • Link WWF Championship here.
    • Event: "The following contest was a rematch between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco of their WrestleMania IV match-up." Awkward wording. Try "The following contest was a re-match from WrestleMania IV between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco."
    • Link Frenchy Martin.
    • Slick is linked a second time here. I don't think it's needed.
    • The last match of the night was the main event match-up" Do we need match-up here? We already have match and main event here.
    • Aftermath: "in a match over for Savage's WWF Championship.
    • Hyphen for record breaking? Giants2008 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed all of these except the Bravo-Muraco line. I agree that it could be improved, and your suggestion might be the best phrasing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the line. Nikki311 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very fast response. Since I have no more objections, I declare my Support, and wish you good luck with the rest of this FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article, per WP:LEAD.
    • Have you considered putting the Results into a wikitable? At the moment, they are hard to read.
    • Otherwise looks very good, well done.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments. I don't have time to address them at the moment, but I'll get to it later tonight. Nikki311 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've expanded the lead a bit more to cover more of the development and aftermath. What do you think? Also, I think the results don't lend themselves to being in a table. Many times, a list is best left as a list (WP:WTUT). I'm open to any other suggestion you may have on how to better format it, though! Nikki311 03:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That table is for one match, an elimination match, where a table is appropriate. Nikki311 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The data you have in the Results section is perfect for a table. Names of the wrestlers, and the length of match - 3 columns (Winners, Losers, Time, as an example...) I don't see why this is such a problem. At the moment, the data is hard to read in the messy list format. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll make one up in my sandbox to see what it looks like. Nikki311 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a sample, but all the people who have replied to my thread at Project Wrestling prefer the current list format. I just think there are too many variables, which makes the table large and hard to read. There are not always winners and losers, and when there is, there are sometimes confounding factors (interference, etc). The original purpose for the results section was for someone to (at a glance) see who won, how, and in what kind of match without having to read through all the text...so to reduce it to a table of just winners, losers, and match time would be a disservice IMO. I really am open to changing it, I just don't think a table is the answer. Nikki311 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the way the table looks and certainly think it should replace the current list. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in the Nikki's post at WT:PW, the table is hard to follow and a bit confusing. To make the change from list to table in every pay-per-view article would take too much time, be way too messy, and way too confusing. The current list is perfectly fine, easy to read, and nothing but simple. Is there anything that you think can be fixed with the results section, without having a table there? King iMatthew 2008 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Nikki and Matthew: I will consider opposing as per FA criterion 1a which states: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" Is the disorganized list professional? For argument's sake, let's say you were an author writing a book about SummerSlam 1988. The author would use a table because it's the traditional way of organizing this type of data. I can confidently say they would not use a list. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WWE's official SummerSlam 1988 results page has the results in a list. [26]. The book I used Main Event: WWE In the Raging 80s has the results listed out with paragraphs of texts below describing what happened. Online World of Wrestling, an extremely popular wrestling site, has the results in a list. [27]. Nikki311 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list you've linked to is better than the one on the Wikipedia page because it precedes each point with what seems to be the match type. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll play around with it a bit more, and hopefully I can come up with a good compromise. Nikki311 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it to the new version with numbering. I think it is much easier to read and understand (especially visually). Nikki311 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - According to the Results, it says: "Brother Love Show with guest Jim Duggan", yet nothing is mentioned in the main body. Did nothing whatsoever happen worth to note? D.M.N. (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never read anything more than "it happened". It wasn't substantial or relevant to any storyline. Nikki311 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I have fixed everything. Are they alright now? Nikki311 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a reason for using both "WWF Tag Team Championship" and "World Tag Team Championship"? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think both are exactly the same, but I believe "WWF Tag Team Championship" was used as the name back then. It should probably be made consistent. D.M.N. (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch! I can't believe I didn't notice that. Actually, the title was referred to as the WWF World Tag Team Championship from the late 1970s until the 90s, and that's when it became known as just the WWF Tag Team Championship. I've made it consistent in the article. Nikki311 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Generally looks good. Gary King (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, some basic problems:
      • Criterion 1a (prose): Almost entirely written from an in-universe perspective. Unfamiliar readers will not understand that this even involves writers and entertainers and is not real.
      • Criterion 1b (comprehensiveness): No information about writing, production, or critical reception.
      • Criterion 3 (images): The fair use rationale for the image of Miss Elizabeth is very weak. Fair use requires critical commentary. I don't see any critical commentary about Miss Elizabeth in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies:
    • 1a: There are mentions of writers and storylines in the text.
    • 1b: Information about writing and production is rarely released because the company at the time was operating under kayfabe, or tat they wanted everything to seem real. Releasing that info would be in opposition to that, but I'll see if I can find anything more.
    • 3: I wasn't aware of that requirement. Is there a policy page that I can look at that would explain further what exactly is meant (or what constitutes) "critical commentary"?
    Nikki311 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here and there, but not sufficient. Most of the article describes was various wrestlers did, but it is not framed as a fictional event. Imagine an article about a television show episode where you only described what happened in the episode. Readers would not get that it is a show with a plot, production, etc.
    • Tricky indeed. Did you do a library search of prominent magazines and other books? Might have to dig in a bit to get all the information, but the article is definitely not comprehensive without it. As above, an article about a television show would never become featured without all the context, business, and production information.
    • Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, item #8, but I'm actually striking that item because you do talk about what is depicted in the image. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't exactly like a TV show, so I think it is unfair to compare it to that, but I will do my best to find what I can. Nikki311 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - images and rationales look good. There were some revisions in their histories that were probably a little too high-res for non-free images (so I tagged with {{non-free reduced}}) but the current versions are OK. Kelly hi! 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took care of it. Thanks! Nikki311 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I know nothing about wrestling at all and I found reading this article extremely confusing. I reread it several times to figure out why I was so confused and I think there are two major problems:

    • 1) It very difficult to tell what is fictional and what is real. The article indicates that some feuds, for example, are part of a "storyline", but I had no idea what this storyline was. Also, all references to this "storyline" disappear after the "Background" section, so I was left to wonder: Is the storyline just a set up for a fight that is actually real? From Laser brain's comments above, though, and the some of the details of the fight, I suspect that the fight is not real, but this is never made explicitly clear to the reader. I believe that this article should be written using the guidelines of WP:FICT. That includes adding material as Laser brain has pointed out, about reception and writing.
    • 2) Because I have never seen a wrestling match and am not conversant with its jargon, it was never very clear to me what was happening in the fight and I soon tired of clicking on every term I didn't know. I wonder if the fight could be described with a little less jargon? The first time I read the article, I ended with the conclusion "they fought in a sort of fistfight manner". That is why I had to reread the article several times. I think that we can be assured that few people as ignorant as I are going to read this article, but certainly some readers will not have the familiarity that this article assumes.

    As the other elements of this article have already been checked by others (the sources, the images), I think that with some additions and some careful and thoughtful rewriting, this article can become featured. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to Awadewit (talk · contribs): To your second suggestion, the reason why there is a lot of jargon is because each individual move a wrestler performs has it's own unique name that it is referred to by others as a whole. I unfortunely cannot find a way the contest cannot be described with less jargon. All the moves performed should be wikilinked. Unfortunately that's the way it is, but each move has it's own unique name. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure each move does have its own name - every domain develops its own jargon. Every sport has its own jargon, science has its own jargon, and my field, literary criticism, has its own jargon. However, we have to at least attempt to make articles accessible to readers who do not know that jargon and to readers who only know some of it (see WP:JARGON). Since many of these terms are defined in plain English at Professional wrestling attacks and a whole series of other pages, I don't think such an attempt would be impossible. Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I see some of the same issues that Laser brain and Awadewit have previously pointed out.

      • Prose questions
        • "SummerSlam (1988) was the first annual SummerSlam professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF)." - does this mean there were SummerSlams that weren't produced by WWF?
        • I agree with Awadewit about jargon. In the lead I have questions about what an undercard is and what a storyline feud is (how is that different from a regular fued)? It would also be nice to have more of an explanation of the moves.
        • Long sentences that might need to be broken up: Example (also an example of overly emotional language) "After defeating Crockett in the ratings war, McMahon created the Royal Rumble, an event airing for free on the USA Network in January 1988, which set a ratings record for the network with eight million households tuning in to watch the event. " Example 2 "To keep the WWF from having a pay-per-view market monopoly, Turner began airing monthly WCW pay-per-views, and both companies began bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue" (much better as two sentences)
      • Is the tagline really notable enough to go into the lead? That seems trivial to me.
      • "After WrestleMania III" - when was WrestleMania III? That will help me put things in proper date perspective
      • I don't quite understand why a section is named "Report". The three sections in this article could be individual top-level sections.
      • Background seems very in-universe. In fictional works, plot sections generally need to be more grounded into reality, and this is essentially a plot summary for this wrestling event. It looks like the section tries to do this in some places but needs more work (especially in the first few paragraphs)
      • The event section has a similar in-universe sound - lots of so-and-so "attacked" someone, which is dramatic word phrasing for a scripted event
      • "JYD was disqualified after Jake Roberts attacked Rude" - who is Jake Roberts and why did his actions disqualify JYD?
      • I think the results would look better in a tabular format rather than a list that has two lines for each match.

    Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to Karanacs, Laser Brain, and Awadewit - I understand your concerns about jargon and in-universe writing, but I'm beginning to get really frustrated with this whole thing. For an event this old, information about writing, booking, and production just isn't available. Wrestling isn't exactly a sport or a scripted television show...it is a hybrid, and I don't think comparing it to either and requiring all the information for both is realistic. Wrestling, especially in the 1980s, operated in a fashion where they wanted everything to seem real, so they never released the sort of information you are looking for.
    As for jargon and wrestling moves, I also don't think it is a reasonable request to explain every move in the writing. The moves are complicated, and the article would be four times longer than it currently is...not to mention, explanations of moves in detail would become tiresome to any reader. Now, I don't think things like a headbutt or dropkick need explaining, because those are pretty well known moves. However, in the article I have attempted to explain (in a basic manner) some of the move difficult moves, such as saying that in a Ghetto Blaster, the recipient gets hit in the back of the head. How much more are you looking for? What are some moves that you think could use more explanation? Furthermore, Awadewit commented "Every sport has its own jargon", which is correct. Can someone please point out a baseball Featured Article where a homerun, grandslam, or triple is fully explained? Can someone please point out a football Featured Article where a quarterback, turnover, or touchdown is explained? All of these terms aren't known to people who don't follow the sport, and I don't think it is fair to require such thorough explanations in a wrestling article, but not in other sports articles. Nikki311 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it is highly unlikely you'd be able to find production details (even today, I suspect that info is just not available). Since that section can't exist, it is even more important that the rest of the article make it clear that this is highly scripted so that users aren't confused. That might mean different word choices, it might mean adding in phrases such as "According to the pre-planned story", "The script dictated that", "The writers/developers decided", etc. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia on 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[28][reply]

    Iloilo International Airport[edit]

    Self-nomination. After over a year of work on this article (and the peer review), I believe it has been expanded well enough to merit FA status in time for the airport's first anniversary on June 14, 2008. Any comments, of course, are greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Sky Harbor 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Comments

    Several major issues exist in this article, including but not limited to:

    • Improperly formatted references. Use {{cite web}} and include title, url, publisher, and accessdate at the very minimum.
    • Structure-wise, the beginning is pretty good, then later on it starts to fall apart and there are many stubby paragraphs.
    • Two dead links
    • "($148 million)" needs to specify US$ because US dollars is not the 'default' currency of Wikipedia.
    • Stuff like "in March of 2007" can just do "March 2007"
    • "nine billion pesos" — I think when talking about money, it's best to stick with numbers even if it's less than 10
    • "the New Iloilo Airport Development Project, or NIADP." — No need to italicize.
    • "The final opening date was finally set for June 13, 2007,[25] with commercial services commencing on June 14, 2007." — "The final opening date was set for June 13, 2007, with commercial services commencing the next day." might be better?
    • There are more prose issues, too, so please do a thorough copyedit of the article.

    Gary King (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Points 4-8 have been fixed. The reference format that I used is the same on the other two FAs which I have initiated (the Manila LRT and the Manila MRT), and the vast majority of them are newspaper articles, but I suppose I can fix them as well. I would also need the dead links so I can fix them. --Sky Harbor 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a URL, then at the very least you need an accessdate. Dead links are found by clicking 'External links' in the toolbox in the top-right corner of this FAC. Periodicals need their publishers italicized. A lot of references are using blogspot, and that is a huge no-no; I don't think they are considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Blogspot references in question are actual newspaper articles. Articles leading to the Panay News can only use their respective Blogspot entries because the Panay News website was taken down. One which leads to The Daily Guardian, a major newspaper in the area, does not have a direct link to the article (I will look for it). Yahoo! News articles are never saved for some reason, so I will replace them with their respective archived versions from the Internet Archive, if available, or I will replace them with other articles. References are likewise being fixed. --Sky Harbor 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Points 1 and 3 have been fixed. Save for the Explore Iloilo/SSC refs, all other refs have been fixed. I will fix those remaining refs soon. --Sky Harbor 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: All refs have (finally) been fixed. --Sky Harbor 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more:
    • "via a three-kilometer long, thirty-meter wide access road linking" — provide conversion to feet
    • "See also" section goes before References
    Gary King (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both done. --Sky Harbor 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    • There are stubby sentences and sections and paragraphs.
    • The references are not well formatted. For instance, the date the source was retrieved are not specified.

    --Efe (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops! The same concetn by Gary. Anyway, these stuffs will be the concerns of the reviewers, at most. --Efe (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fixing the refs. Once I finish those, I will move to the paragraphs. Which paragraphs are stubby? --Sky Harbor 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the terminal subsection. There's a one line para there as well as the following section. ACtually, the first half is balanced in terms of paragraph size. The next half breaks the prose. --Efe (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll merge the info about the amenities of the terminal. The last sentence stays because it's about the cargo terminal, not the passenger terminal. --Sky Harbor 03:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cargo terminal information has been expanded and the terminals subsection has been divided. --Sky Harbor 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Per previous comments, I am fixing ALL refs as these comments come in. To prove that I am fixing them, I will save the intial work that I have done. Per the last two points, here's something that I can vouch for:
    • Explore Iloilo is widely regarded among Ilonggos, both resident in Iloilo, Negros Occidental and outside the Philippines even, as one of the most comprehensive websites about the province of Iloilo. Authors from Explore Iloilo, like the one who wrote the article on Iloilo International Airport, have even had their work published in Philippine publications.
    • Some information on IIA was taken from SkyscraperCity. Not everything about the airport is indeed written, so pictures are used to describe that. In fact, once I find suitable sources for that, I intend to remove that source.
    Hope that answers your query. --Sky Harbor 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: SSC ref removed, Explore Iloilo refs retained. --Sky Harbor 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving the bit about Explore Iloilo out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is consensus that the references are objectionable, then I can replace them. However, it will be hard to search for new references. --Sky Harbor 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose, too many prose issues in the lead alone.

    • If you're going to abbreviate miles as mi, kilometres should be abbreviated as km. Consistency! Also, hectare -> ha. I'm not sure if there's an abbreviation for acre. All measurements now use {{Convert}}. Since I presume this template is based on the MoS, there's nothing I can do about it.
    • There should be a non-breaking space between measurement and unit, not a normal one nor a hyphen. Same as the first bullet
    • Short paragraphs should probably be merged. Some sentences have been merged.
    • "Iloilo International Airport (Filipino: Paliparang Pandaigdig ng Iloilo, Hiligaynon: Internasyonal nga Hulugpaan sang Iloilo) (IATA: ILO, ICAO: RPVI) is an international airport in the Philippines designed to serve the general area of Iloilo City, which is the capital city of the province of Iloilo and the regional center of the Western Visayas region as well." Rewritten
    • "The airport is a replacement for the old Mandurriao Airport located in Iloilo City proper and opened its doors to commercial traffic on June 14, 2007." - awkward sentence, it should probably be split into two sentences. Also, is the "old" really necessary? Rewritten
    • "With the closure of Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo International Airport inherited its IATA and ICAO airport codes from the former, as well as its position as the fourth-busiest airport in the Philippines.[1]" Done
    • "The airport is located 19 kilometers (12 mi) northwest of Iloilo City on a 188-hectare (465-acre) site between the municipalities of Cabatuan and Santa Barbara,[2] with the main entrance and airport access road in Santa Barbara and the rest of the airport infrastructure in Cabatuan." - I'm not sure if that comma should be there. Additionally, there's a list with two occurences of "and," which I'm fairly sure is grammatically incorrect. Rewritten. The comma is valid in that location per the conventions of Philippine English, so it was kept.
    • Sometimes you use the leading comma (i.e. "1, 2, and 3") and sometimes not (i.e. "1, 2 and 3"). Be consistent. Fixed
    • "Iloilo International Airport is designated as a secondary international airport by the Air Transportation Office, a body of the Department of Transportation and Communications that is responsible for the operations of not only this airport but also of all other airports in the Philippines except the major international airports." - "airports" is written out in full many times (I can't count); it feels awkward to read it. Perhaps the last occurrence can be changed to "ones" instead. Rewritten

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed items are struck out and comments are bolded. I also intend to give the article a good copy-edit, which I am doing per section. --Sky Harbor 02:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I can't quite support the prose, but if the lead is spotless, then that's good, so I withdraw my oppose. Anyways, a word of advice: Generally you shouldn't strike out others' comments. I'm not personally bothered by it, but it's etiquette to let them strike it out or otherwise indicate that it's no longer an issue themselves. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologize if I unintentionally sent the wrong message by means of striking out comments for my own convenience. Typing is such hard work! But, of course, thanks so much for the comments. I'll keep the advice in mind. --Sky Harbor 02:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on images

    • Image:Iloilo Airport Exterior.jpg, Image:Iloilo Airport Interior.jpg, and Image:Iloilo Airport Access Road.jpg needs a linkable source and/or evidence for the Attribution license, such as an OTRS ticket or a link to page providing permission. Kelly hi! 05:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permission was granted via a message posted on the SkyscraperCity forum where I asked for these pictures. That would involve this message. I was free to choose the license for the pictures, so I used said license instead. The link will be posted on the summaries of the pictures. --Sky Harbor 09:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Link posting done. --Sky Harbor 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sky Harbor, I'm sorry but I'm afraid the permission is not adequate - there is no license specified, and the permission seems to be for Wikipedia only. Unless this can be improved I fear the images will likely have to be deleted under WP:CSD#I3. See WP:COPYREQ#For images for what is required in an image license permission. Kelly hi! 12:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have written to the owner of the pictures regarding this issue (he is an inactive Wikipedian, as far as I know). I hope I can extract like an e-mail (or something) from him and post the results here. Frankly, I don't even know how to file an OTRS ticket. Updates will be posted as they come. --Sky Harbor 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's pretty simple - once you get the license, forward it to "permissions-en AT wikmedia.org" including a link to the image pages. A volunteer will put the OTRS ticket # on the image pages. WP:COPYREQ has the details. Kelly hi! 13:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The creator of the pictures has given (clarified) permission to release the pictures under said license. See this and this. He will likewise prepare a formal letter for forwarding to the OTRS system. (On a side note, I will really need to move my schedule for this article given that this will probably not reach FA and Main Page display by Saturday, as I hoped.) --Sky Harbor 12:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ←Oppose—1a

    • "The airport is a replacement for Mandurriao Airport located in Iloilo City proper, having opened its doors to commercial traffic on 14 June 2007." Which one opened its doors? Don't make the reader backtrack to verify.
    • "a body of the Department of Transportation and Communications responsible for the operation of all airports in the Philippines"—So there are other bodies that do this too? Why "a"?
    • "Meanwhile" serves no earthly purpose.
    • Getting tired of "is located in/at".
    • Clumsy grammar: "It is one of three international airports in the Visayas, the others being Mactan-Cebu International Airport in Cebu City and Bacolod-Silay City International Airport in Bacolod City, the first international airport in Western Visayas, and the first international airport built on the island of Panay." Could you replace with: "It is one of three international airports in the Visayas; the others are Mactan-Cebu International Airport in Cebu City and Bacolod-Silay City International Airport in Bacolod City, the first international airport in Western Visayas, and the first international airport built on the island of Panay."?
    • "Its construction"—The poor reader has to pause to determine which of the preceding nominals "its" refers to.
    • "Comes some ten years"—Remove "some": or is it 11 years? And present tense will date; isn't it already built?
    • "Philipino" (language)—Isn't it called "tagalog"? English is also an official Philipino language.

    The whole thing needs serious massaging by a new collaborator. TONY (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am looking for new people willing to do copy-editing on the article. A follow-up on your points:
    • Rewritten.
    • There are four agencies that operate airports: the ATO handles all airports in the Philippines excluding three major international airports (Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Diosdado Macapagal International Airport and Mactan-Cebu International Airport), which have independent airport operators also under the DOTC. However, I have changed "a body of..." to "the primary body of...".
    • Removed in sentence rewrite.
    • Sentence rewritten.
    • Sentence replaced with your suggestion.
    • Sentence was removed.
    • See above
    • Filipino (not "Philipino") remains as is. Tagalog may be the basis of Filipino, but it is politically incorrect to say that it is "Tagalog", especially in the Visayas and Mindanao. Filipino is only known as "Tagalog" in Metro Manila and in Tagalog-speaking provinces (note: the province and even the region where the airport is located primarily speaks Hiligaynon). English likewise is an official language of the Philippines.
    I hope the resolution of these points bring it one step closer to being able to reach this status. Thank you so much for the review. --Sky Harbor 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, concur that a serious copy-edit is needed. A new editor can also spot and trim some of the minutiae scattered throughout. Two elevators, one for "very important persons"? I know it's a small airport and such mundane details are available, but we need a cutoff for what is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A lot of randomly slapped-together bits that don't flow well. Example issues:
      • "It runs at 02°/20°, the same as Mandurriao Airport." I don't know what this means.
      • "Runway lights and an Instrument Landing System were also installed, making the airport capable of supporting landings during periods of low visibility and at night." Excessively wordy—could say the same thing in half as many words.
      • "The airport has a 12,000-square-meter (130,000 sq ft) main passenger terminal designed to handle around 1.2 million passengers annually." How does it "handle" them?
      • "... making Iloilo International Airport capable of supporting up to six aircraft simultaneously." Suggest different wording so it doesn't read like the aircraft are on top of the airport.
      • "Some airlines, however, such as Air Philippines, do not make use of the airport's jet bridges." Not sure why this is relevant. It's also unsourced.
      • "A train linking Iloilo International Airport to Iloilo City proper, similar to the Airport Express in Hong Kong and similar systems in other cities, is being studied. A feasibility study has since been commissioned by the city government." A study has been commissioned since its being studied? I don't understand. --Laser brain (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up on your points:
    • Rewritten to say "The runway runs at a direction of 02°/20°...".
    • Rewritten to read "...making the airport capable of supporting low-visibility and night landings."
    • Changed to "...designed to accommodate around 1.2 million passengers annually."
    • Changed to "handling". I hope I am using this in the right context.
    • Can a picture count as a source? However, I removed this.
    • Rewritten to read "...A study to determine the feasibility of a train service..."
    As always, thank your for your comments. I hope I have been able to bring this article a little bit closer to getting FA. --Sky Harbor 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia on 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC).[29][reply]

    The Greencards[edit]

    I began this article back in August 2006 but unfortunately wasn't able to work on it again until recently. I've significantly expanded and rewritten it in the past few days, and wanted to put it up for a possible Featured Article. If it matters, almost all the development was here in my sandbox. Self-nom. rootology (T) 04:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Not every reference needs the publisher to be italicized—only the ones that are publications.
    • The prose is pretty good, so now, the main problem is comprehensiveness. Specifically, most, if not all, musician FAs have sections such as 'Musical influences', 'Style', 'Reception', etc. depending on the artist. There is no analysis of this musician, there is no reception, no analysis of their music, etc.

    Gary King (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can adjust the italicizing. The analysis and reception of their music is interspersed throughout the text under each album section--it's all chronological, with the responses and analysis mixed in to the corresponding time period of each album, as the responses changed as their music did each album. For example,
    "were said to bring a global sound to bluegrass and by drawing on influences such as Bob Dylan and The Beatles, were pushing the genre's boundaries,"[30] "Young's voice was noted for it's "dreamy, haunting quality," [31] "was seen as a deliberate move from the jam-style of their debut album Movin' On to instead focus on Americana-focused music,"[32] "was described as a "Pogues-like romp'",[33] "compared to Nickel Creek and Alison Krauss & Union Station's own musical work to expand bluegrass,"[34] and "traditional bluegrass core, with a worldly flavor."[35]
    Is just the ones I picked up with a quick re-read (sourced to the section its found in). It seemed like a better idea to make it proper prose instead of a bunch of smaller little sections? rootology (T) 04:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A recently promoted musical artist article, with Musical style and Reception sections: The Wiggles. Please take a look. Gary King (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll start to break it up thus. I found an additional 10+ sources, which at a glance seemed solid, so it should grow further into that format. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and done, in the form of The_Greencards#Musical style and The Greencards#Reception, with summaries of whats in the existing sections in the flowing prose, and I've also got another large batch of reviews and material to go through now, so it will expand a bit more beyond that. I've adjusted all the reference italicizing as well. rootology (T) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Many many many of the articles at the bottom have authors given, you should list those when known.
    • I'll retool all the citations to include more of the fields. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The authors are all included where listed now. rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Authors should be entered with parameters like ... | last = Payne-Hertz | first = Shirley | ... so they are listed last-name first (except with um... I don't know... Chinese names I guess) with the option to link to an article if | authorlink = is provided. Also anything that vaguely resembles of a newspaper should probably use the "cite news" format (I think all the parameters you have used are compatible with both templates, so relatively easy to fix and I will do it if I get bored enough but it's just something to remember if you are adding 17-odd more sources). — CharlotteWebb 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the refs should show the exact publication date of the source if the source is kind enough to provide it. — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All set, all the references are formatted with all specific publication dates and that standard name format! rootology (T) 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 4 Greencards drawn to American roots music ... the publisher is Deseret News, not Desert News.
    • No worries, I've just spent enough time in Salt Lake City to have that jump at me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's Eamon McLoughlin, one of the three band members.[36] He's a reliable source about the band. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just remember the caveats about self-published sources, and their bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I thought about that... its pretty uncontroversial information, so self-published is fine there, for info about the band. rootology (T) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its one of the larger radio shows for that niche genre of music (Bluegrass, and specifically the forms that this band plays, aren't big market--the fact this band got a Grammy and the press it is has is monstrous). It looks like a smaller site, but thats like comparing a smaller-town newspaper to CNN, if you're comparing this scale of the music industry to MTV News. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it looked like a radio show site, but wanted to double check my understanding, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is a radio producer, on-air host, authority with 30 or so years of experience.[37][38][39] rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fairly well-known music magazine that is cited by a fairly wide array of other news sources.[40]. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankee. I'm not really a music person. Except classical. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another smaller online magazine, but dedicated to a smaller audience. Going through the coverage of them, and the reporting they've done, they're a reliable source, but they're no Country Music Television or Rolling Stone (but not everything needs to be to the A-list standard, or else we'd be cutting off all sorts of small press as valid sources). rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks... any other feedback? I'm going to go through based on all feedback mid week when I have time to clean up. rootology (T) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I didn't read the prose, and we're just waiting on the other bibliographical information! Thanks for the replies, they are very helpful. Will you be planning on bringing more bluegrass/country articles to FAC? If so, I'll make sure to archive these sites so I don't necessarily question them again (although there are times when my brain cells don't fire and I forget to check.. so I make no promises to never ever question, just try to not question) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the help and feedback, I meant to get to this tonight and tomorrow, but can't--gotta run out now and I got a bluegrass show tomorrow for The Paperboys, hopefully I may meet the band to get more info (they apparently have a stash of hard copies of lots of good sources)! And yeah, I want to get a bunch to FA. The Greencards, The Paperboys, and Bluegrass music itself are at the top of the list. :) rootology (T) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Songs should be in quotes, not italics. Albums should be in italics, not quotes. Some stuff is in italics and quotes. Also, the infobox needs to be filled out with label and associated acts. Finally, are you sure it's not Kim Richey who produced the albums? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll run through it Saturday--I'll have several hours then. Thanks! rootology (T) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, all set--I fixed the weird indenting/italicizing and you're right, it was Kim Richey, I got stuck on a typo and confirmed on the liner notes and other sources, and expanded out the associated acts. rootology (T) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've expanded the article still more, and I've got a large number of sources to pore through that I found via http://thegreencards.com/reviews.html#, which were not appearing for the most part from other searches I was doing. I will expand it even further this week from these. What else does this need immediately for fixing? rootology (T) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks great, Joe. The only suggestion I do have is moving the album cover images into (newly created) articles about each album rather than using the "preemptive merge" format. I might be able to help with that tomorrow or the next day. A belated welcome back, by the way! — CharlotteWebb 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. :) I was thinking about the eventual forking... I've got yet another 17 sources to go through, I think, and once the album pages would be forked there would be more material for each in the existing sources already in place. How much would reasonably trimmed from this one, for those? I did forks back before but nothing on that scale. rootology (T) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the best approach would depend on what information can be gleaned from these yet-untapped sources. If they primarily focus on the albums, then the album articles will be expanded and the "recording history" section of the main article may need to be fine-tuned to more fairly summarize the content of the album articles. If they primarily focus on the band itself, the information would be added elsewhere in the main article and the album-specific information could be trimmed (to avoid exactly duplicating the album articles). Have to play it by ear I think. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image issue; those album covers are unnecessary fair use. There's no real justification to keep them in this article. No harm in creating a few album stubs to house them. :) giggy (:O) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already done yesterday, I just didn't have a chance to remove the FU images from the main article till just now (I updated all the FURs yesterday, about an hour (?) before you posted. :) See... [42][43][44] rootology (T) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, all looks good on image front then. giggy (:O) 07:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semantics issue: Apparently "progressive bluegrass" and "newgrass" refer to the same genre (one is a redirect to the other) so it would be best avoid implying a distinction between the two, unless of course there is one, in which case we should have a separate article. I'm sure you know more than me about this. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's messy, since the descriptions are interchangeably used in different sources for the Greencards, probably leaning a fair bit more over towards progressive. Someone redirected newgrass there since nothing else really fits it until someone (probably me :P) writes Newgrass as a separate article. It's honestly pretty accurate to describe the Greencards as they are based on the sourcing and interchanging language depending on who's speaking about them, since sources label them both ways, and to WP:OR it they do bounce back and forth from song to song I'd say. rootology (T) 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's on my reading list. :) rootology (T) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - image sourcing and copyright all looks good. Nice work. Kelly hi! 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Joe Ross' review of Viridian seems to have slipped into a crack. I can't find it on his site or in any of his archives [45], just an anchor link to a non-existing section. A site-wide google search [46] led me to the cached version [47] which contains the same broken link. — CharlotteWebb 16:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just nixed the Ross source and replaced it with sourcing to the CMT bio. What a weird disappearance, there. The new source is better though anyway. rootology (T) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments There are some problems with the prose:

    • ’’The trio had all been separately raised on a variety of American country and bluegrass musical talents’’ - raised on talents is non-idiomatic.
    • ’’ The Greencards were formed to raise funds by performing to record the original music the three had written.’’ This is messy, can this be better expressed in plain English?
    • ’’Found themselves’’ - this occurs a couple of times, and it sounds odd, as if it were by accident or after a heavy drinking session.
    • ’’ After meeting, they made the decision to emigrate to America for their music’’ – emigrate for their music is non-idiomatic.
    • ’’ Warner credited the frantic pace during their Austin formation for their cohesion as a group and for driving them to create more new original music.’’ - frantic pace of what?
    • ’’ Their music through the Weather and Water album had been called Celtic-influenced and bluegrass-flavored, but noted that the band had a distinctly American sound despite their overseas origins.’’ - I know this is followed by a citation, but who noted?
    • ’’ Luckily, their winning personality translates to this disc -- even with several melancholy, yet melodic, songs’’ – Should be an Emdash I think, and why the ‘’yet’’? Many melancholy songs are very melodic.
    • ’’ The Washington Post observed that The Greencards plays traditional American music’’ – should be Greencards play.
    • ’’ The Greencards relocated from Austin to Nashville, Tennessee to be closer to their label and production staff.’’ – I suggest ‘’closer to their production company and its staff.’’
    • ’’ During the 2005 summer tour, Kym Warner wanted to get the chance to pick Dylan's brain, but never had the chance.’’ - a nasty repetition of ‘’chance’’.
    • ’’ The Greencards had individually recorded their separate musical tracks in isolation booths’’ - tautology, ‘’musical tracks’’.

    Lastly, because the Lead is not referenced, it suffers a little from weasle words. I enjoyed reading the article, it’s close to FA standard prose but some wrinkles need ironing. GrahamColmTalk 14:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose (comprehensiveness concerns)
    • The reception section is a positive POV dump, everything in there could be incorporated chronologically into the article.
    • No music samples? They are essential to understanding the band's sound.
    • The musical style section is rather sparse (compare with Joy Division); for instance what does Progressive bluegrass even mean? "In particular, on their latest release, The Greencards evoked the sounds of progressive 1960s American folk rock.[30] However, in spite of this, it has been observed that The Greencards maintain a distinctively Americana sound."--what is that even supposed to mean? You pretty much have to describe all the major elements of their sound so that somebody who has not even heard their records has an idea. And try to do it without too many unexplained genre terms. Is there anything about general lyrical themes.
    • Early history and Recording history are very odd ways to study a band; why not just section it album-by-album (or similar) like any other band article? indopug (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment pursuant to criterion 2b: I have to say I'm stymied by the system of headings, which doesn't seem granular enough. "Early history" and "Recording history" are entirely too broad. Check out some other musical group FAs (like Red Hot Chili Peppers) that break down the history by album. --Laser brain (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was withdrawn by nominator and closed by User:SandyGeorgia 04:17, 16 June 2008 [48].

    1947 Sydney hailstorm[edit]

    I appreciate that, on the face of it, this may look too brief to be a featured article and therefore considered 'Wikipedia's best work'. However, as I said in the GA review here, the fact that this storm occured over half a century ago has meant that finding information on it has been very difficult, which I found surprising given how serious it was.

    Given this, I believe the article is comprehensive as I am of the opinion I have included all encyclopedic-worthy material on the subject at my disposal, and hence I believe it is not ineligable for FA on length grounds. That doesn't necessary mean that there isn't other problems with it, and I would like to thank all those who offer constructive and actionable suggestions to help improve this article, hopefully up to FA standard.

    Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "£750,000" → "GB£750,000" per WP:CURRENCY since several countries use Pound
    • "A$45 million" → "AU$45 million" per WP:CURRENCY (it's even used as an example there)
      • It was used as an example not to show to use two-letter acronyms, and I must confess I have never seen any objection to using "A$" before (especially in an Australian article). I've changed it, but I can't say I think it needed to be changed.
        • Alright, it was just a suggestion. Personally, I think that it's best to always use two-letter abbreviations of country names for currencies, although you can change it back if you want. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nah, it looks OK. Plus, it's also now consistent with GP and US by being two letters. Thanks for bringing it up, 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Subsequent mentions of currency don't have to be linked
      • Well, mentions in the lead and then in the last section are far enough apart to merit repetative linking. Plus, infoboxes are sometimes omitted, so the linking in there does not constitute an initial link. I did, however, remove a link from Australian dollar which occured twice in the one section (the last section).

    Gary King (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I realise this was discussed above, but I'm not sure about the use of three two letter currency abbreviations in one sentence. Might it not be better to write one of them out, for example "...equal to 45 million Australian dollars in modern figures." I know, it's not proper style, so you probably want to ignore this.
    • In Conditions and Climatology, the second paragraph should probably begin "Hailstones have a history..." or "Hailstones have had a history...", right?
      • Indeed fixed. Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The storms that appear on the 'top ten list of most insured damages' - are these lists just for Australia, or worldwide? If specific to Australia, suggest adding "...in the country." or similar to the end of the sentence.
    • The figure for number of people requiring hospitalisation or other medical attention is only in the lead, it's not mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, which seems strange to me.
      • Indeed it was - I mentioned the 1000 injuries but forgot the 200-350 hospitalisations. Fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed a few phrases and passages I thought were a little clunky, the article could maybe do with a more thorough copyedit, I may look at this later, but no significant improvements spring to mind immediately. Adacore (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to slap some people I know into running their eyes over it, which will hopefully result in a copyedit or two over the weekend period. Cheers, and thanks for your suggestions, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Good work overall, but I have a few comments.
    • Maybe change the first sentence to specify what kind of natural disaster it was?
      • I considered doing this initially, but saying "The 1947 Sydney hailstorm was a hailstorm which struck..." just seemed, well, a tad odd :) Does the bolded "hailstorm" do the job sufficiently? Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cut down on the references in the lead.
      • Any reason for this? I was under the impression that the lead can either be referenced not at all or to the same standard as the rest of the article, and the current version falls into the second category. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add non-breaking spaces.
      • I think I got everything that needed this; if I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks for bringing this up. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The day was hot and humid, with the top temperature recorded during the day being 32.7 °C (90.9 °F) and humidity reaching 73%. "the top temperature" would be better as "the high temperature".
    • Is "Sydneysiders" a word? Maybe give a Wikitionary link?
    • The conditions and climatology section could use a copyedit to improve prose flow.
      • Hopefully will come with the copyedits (see above) :) Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all from me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the review. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Kelly hi! 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The quote in the first para of "Progression of the storm" contains some meteorological terms that could do with explanation and/or linking - for example, "curtained" and "mammilated".
    • As a drawing, Image:1947 Baro Map.JPG should be in SVG format per WP:IUP#Format.
    • Image:Pitt St Tram cropped.jpg has no details on authorship or date of creation/publication, aside from a statement that it came from the National Archives of Australia. The same is true of the image this was derived from, Image:Pitt St Tram.jpg.

    Oppose. This is an interesting contribution but there are many problems with the prose. Here are some examples:

    • The storm cell developed in the morning of New Years' Day, a public holiday in Australia, over the Blue Mountains before hitting Sydney and dissipating east of Bondi in the mid-afternoon. I think on the morning would be better, and we already know it was New Years' Day because we were told this in the first sentence. Before hitting is too colloquial this should be simply and hit.
    • The strength of the storm was put down to the high humidity - this is non-encyclopedic language.
    • Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately .. - Estimated and approximately have the same meaning here, this is tautology and it should be The cost of damages
    • many people had no cover or shelter. - more tautology here.
    • It moved directly over Liverpool at 2:25 pm, heading in a north-west direction before slowly bending its path to be travelling almost due west, - why to be and not simply and?
    • The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, - Did the hailstones cause injuries by directly striking flying debris or did the debris cause injuries outright? This is not clear. And, why the vast majority instead of plain English more?

    The article needs tidying-up; the prose does not meet the required FA standard. GrahamColmTalk 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - Sources look good. Links seem to work with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • First sentence could do with a wlink to hailstorm.
    • "A boat at Rose Bay in water which is being churned by the hailstones." - active voice?

    giggy (:O) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for now

    • Lots of terms linked to multiple times. As an example, Blue Mountains is linked three times (not counting the infobox off to the side). (See WP:OVERLINK for guideline.)
    • Lots of unnecessary links for common words, like beach, car, cloud, roof, breeze, ambulance. (See WP:CONTEXT for guideline.)
    • World War II ended 16 (not 18) months prior.
    • For hailstones compared to sportsballs (a habit in the US, too, I'm afraid), some approximate measurements are appropriate. Being from the US, I have no feel for how big a cricket-ball-sized hailstone is, for example.
    • Needs a good copyedit to improve prose. A couple of representative examples:
      • Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately… Use either estimated or approximately to show that it is not exact; you don't need both.
      • The convertible cars, which were in fashion at the time of the storm, also sustained severe damage… Are these specific convertibles, or do you mean convertibles in general?
      • The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, with the latter mainly from shattered windows. Currently it could read that the hailstones struck "people" or "flying debris", which I don't think is the case.

    — Bellhalla (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strictly there's only one case of overlinking that I could find - Australia was linked twice in the Conditions and Climatology section. The three Blue Mountains links are all in seperate sections which is technically acceptable per WP:OVERLINK, however I agree the latter two cases are close enough together that this is unnecessary (despite being in seperate sections they're in consecutive lines of prose), so I've removed the 3rd link. Adacore (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Looks fairly good, but I have some concerns. Not sure I can support this right now, but I will revisit later:

    • According to MOS:UNLINKYEARS, you should be careful with linking dates like 1990 to events 1990 Sydney hailstorm since it could break auto-formatting. It doesn't, but I suspect the reader may not be aware that these links point to anything buy dates. So spelling out these events (in some way that isn't damaging to the prose), will do a better job of connecting these together.
      • The other option (in addition to the status quo) which I believe is plausible is to delink them entirely. Any preference? (I'm not fussed either way.) Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider not having all of the images right-aligned. Maybe stagger them.
      • Unless they overlap, is there any reason for this? To be perfectly honest, I don't see how staggering them looks any better than having them all right-aligned, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You presume in the lead that most people know that the capital of New South Wales is Sydney, but that's not true. (We Americans barely know the capitals of our own states.) Yes, you can infer it from context, but it could be clearer.
    • "The strength of the storm was put down" - consider rewording
      • Done by Wackymacs (with thanks for the general copyedit). Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time" - consider removing "at the time". This could use a bit of copyediting for unnecessary clauses.
      • Any suggestions on how to note that the figures were in 1947 currency values (ie. inflation-non-adjusted) without using that term? I couldn't think of any :( Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch your overlinking. Do you really need to link the units in the lead, for example?
      • The first occurace of units are normally linked for those not aware of imperial/metric values. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most severe injuries were located on Sydney's beaches" - sounds like the beaches were injured, not the people.
    • "and humidity reaching 73%." - humidity reached?
    • "The general weather pattern for Sydney in summer is movement from the west to the east" - consider rephrasing.
    • "However, the Bureau of Meteorology reported that the formation of the storm was different to most others" - this sentence (and several earlier in this section) feel tangled and not well phrased.

    Otherwise, the references look fine. You should consider getting a peer review, if you haven't already, since the largest remaining issues here are just prose. JRP (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose—The prose is clearly not yet of FA standard. I suggest you withdraw it, search for word-nerd collaborators from Sydney members or the edit histories of similar articles, and maybe consider resubmitting when it sparkles.
    • The caption at the top: MOS breach in the full-stop.
      • The irony being that the Manual of Style guideline on the topic uses a caption in its very first image. Apparently, "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period", but the infobox caption is just as much a full sentence as the one in the guideline. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the time, it was the most severe to strike the city since records began in 1792."—The most severe hailstorm? By what criteria? Perhaps it's justified in greater detail further down. The first three words are redundant, and the same phrase is also redundant in the next para.
      • This is the lead, not the body. It's a generalised summation, as you well know, so such statements are commonplace. I also believe the terms are not redundant because it explicitly clarifies that it is not the most severe storm now, but that it was back in 1947. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "approximately equal to"—bit ugly. "Equivalent to"? And it's the second "approximately" in five words.
      • I've removed one, but you should consult significant figures - something can only be as accurate as the numbers with which it was produced. Therefore, if A is "approximate" and B was derived from A, B is therefore also approximate. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "of Sydney"—redundant.
    • Approximately again. Try "about" or nothing.
    • comma plus "with" twice in two sentences. It's B-grade grammar, anyway.
      • I fixed one, but I fail to see how it doesn't read well and is therefore considered "B-grade grammar". Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "broken glass shards" ... um ... hasn't a shard broken off from a larger piece of glass already? What about "flying shards of glass"? TONY (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could just be that the skylight in the roof has collapsed, which would result in the individually cut pieces of glass to fall out of their slots and have therefore become flying shards of non-broken glass. Has happened once at the Central railway station at the Southern end; the same place, coincidentally, where the "broken glass shards" fell. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [49].

    Halo (series)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because...Nominator...The members of The Halo WikiProject have put a great deal of effort into it. I am nominating on their behalf as we all feel that the article passes the Featured Article Criteria. Thank you. Blackngold29 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. Great start! I started out enthusiastic about this one because a lot of effort clearly went into the preparation. However, I got bogged down in issues quickly and stopped reading after "Common elements". Examples below illustrate problems with MoS, jargon, and organization. I also stumbled into some basic grammatical problems ("amount" vs. "number") that show a solid copy-edit is still needed. Get a non-gamer and kill the jargon issue at the same time.
      • Needs copy-editing by an MoS stickler. Lots of little problems (ex. "including the upcoming real time strategy game"; should be "real-time")
        • Done I fixed the ones that you addresed and all others that I could find. Blackngold29 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're dousing the reader in game jargon starting in the lead. Imagine you know nothing about video games but you're reading this because it's featured on the main page. "First-person shooter"? "Console game?"
        • Internal links do not suffice? Blackngold29 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I think Black is saying is that we do have internal links, and it kind of breaks up any flow to say "Halo is a first person shooter. First person shooters are games where stuff takes place through the eyes of a character and you blow stuff up." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why hyphenate "technologically-advanced" and not "cybernetically enhanced"?
      • "The strong sales of the game series have led to a massive Halo franchise." "Massive" sounds a bit POV; would help to have a citation or even a quote of an authoritative source calling it massive.
      • "The main trilogy featured first person shooter gameplay, along with third person vehicular gameplay." Why "featured" when a sentence before you wrote "features"? Also, "main trilogy" has no prior context. You write about Halo 1, 2, and 3 in the lead, but you don't ever call it a "trilogy". In fact, you haven't yet delineated what games comprise the series, which would seem to be required for the lead. I see further down you introduce the main trilogy..
      • "There is also the option to fight ..." Messy.
      • "Players can carry a certain number of grenades, which can disrupt masses of enemies or flush out entrenched foes; together, this "weapons-grenades-melee" format forms the "Golden Triangle of Halo" gameplay ..." Imagine your grandma reading this.

    --Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments: As one of the more recent contributors to the article, I don't feel the article is ready for FAC and as Laser brain has pointed there are multiple MoS issues. David and I were working on it in April and had put it up for peer review, but we both got bogged down with other things. I know my time on Wikipedia lately has been sparse and erratic, and I don't really have the time for an FAC of an article that is not ready. Also, I'd hate to see excess strain on already strained reviewers. If David or one of the other major contributors has the time to address issues for FAC, I'll certainly make an effort to do the same. If not, then I'd like to ask for a withdrawal. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I've got my own FAC right now, but I'll try and help out as much as I can. I think we prolly shoulda done a copyedit before the FAC, but whatever, it's here now. I'll ask around for some outside editors to help, since they'll be able to note more jargon and stuff. Either way it'll wait until tomorrow for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cool. I'll make an effort to address issues as well. Thanks for helping out David. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Reply to Guyinblack25:

    I have not worked on the article much, but I would be willing to help you address any issues raised. Perhaps some fresh blood will be good for the article. Blackngold29 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes the following reliable sources?
      • tiedtheleader.com
    Have to plead the "interview" card again... it's an audio interview with a voice actor which was conducted by the site, I can't talk about their reliability as they are a gamer's blog with no special credentials. I mean, unless they were got someone to fake the voice of a well-known disc jockey... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I'm not convinced, but it might pass muster with others. Leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also an interview; the site's about page is here, I've sent them an email like gamecritics below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The site's founder responded to my queries (since it's pretty much the same as below, I guess leave for others to check?) ..."Hi David, Kikizo has been active since 1998, formerly under the name GamerWeb and operating as Kikizo since 2003. [...] all information is fact-checked and mistakes are always corrected - major updates and/or corrections to stories/features will be posted as additional updates, rather than rewriting the original piece, and in such cases this is clearly stated." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely been doing this too long with David starts predicting my replies before I make them... Yep, leaving it out for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are independent, but they appear reliable: I've sent them an email with queries regarding their content review and editing process, hopefully that will help clear up this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From email correspondence with site owner Chi Kong Lui: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave this out for other reviewers to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just note that interviews aren't always reliable. Who did the interview and where it is published has a bearing on how reliable it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's compromise and put up a quick explanation of that, so that folks have both sources? Something like what you just said above in a footnote would work, say "(first source) is a condensed version of the information contained on Niven's site in much longer form here: (Niven's site). THat work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, someone else already did as you suggested. James086Talk | Email 03:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted above, just because it's an interview doesn't make it reliable. The fact that the company is owned by a reasonably large sized media company makes it more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No arguments here, I simply replaced the ref with a more notable publication (The Inquirer). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 10 "Dawson, Brett "Halo 3 Hype is justified" the publication needs disambing
    • Current ref 13, are you referencing a Wikipedia article? The link goes to a section on a wikipedia article? Or are you referencing the videos? Are they still available?
    • Current ref 41 is lacking a publisher. Also seems to be a blog?
    • Current ref 68 Longdale Holly Game Worlds in Written Words is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 70 Greene Marty First Strike Author Eric Nylund Q&A is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 72 "The Next Halo Novel is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 79 Staten Joseph The Great Hollywood Journey Part II is lacking a publisher
    • Current ref 117 Wilcox, Jon "TVG Review Halo 3" is lacking a publisher
    • THe link checker tool is showing a a dead link to an MSNBC page. Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the link checker shows dead to this, but I'm able to access it... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As to ref 41, it is a blog, but one published by IGN and written by Matt Casamassina, as such it fits WP:SPS because it is only being used to identify a claim he made, which is elaborated on later. I'll go through and fix the cites and fill them out properly when I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know when the missing publishers/etc. are taken care of. Also have you fixed the mixing of the citation and cite templates? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at a poor computer to do that kind of find/replace stuff; hopefully I'll have all the publisher/citation issues done for your review by the end of the day (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth, publishers have been added to the refs you listed above and the 404 MSNBC ref has been replaced with a Microsoft Press Release on GameSpot and an article from The Sydney Morning Herald. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Another comment - You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still mixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth, all uses of Template:Citation have been removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comments

    • Most of the other issues have been caught by reviewers already, so I'll focus on one: redundancy.
      • "Some aspects of the SPARTAN Project"
      • "IGN listed it as the number two top Xbox game of all time"
      • "Several spin-off games have also been announced"
      • "He and a few other SPARTAN-II's"

    There's definitely others that I missed. You'll probably disagree with at least some of these - that's fine, as long as you can tell me why the words add anything to the sentence. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone through and removed all the instances except one I felt was needed for some clarity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References do not need to specify that they are in English.
    • For page numbers in references, prepend with "p." (or "pp.") when it does not appear automatically.
    • "The three main games in Halo series focus on the adventures of the main character, Master Chief." The three main games are mentioned in the lead before this, so they should be reiterated again in the body somewhere before this text.
    • "set centuries into" Unlink common words like this one.
    • "Evolved[32] Ensemble" Missing a period?
    • "'new trilogy' " Use double quotes.

    These are a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary, the issues you mentioned above have been addressed except for the "p." in the references. I believe citation style guidelines do not require it unless using Harvard referencing. Any other issues you see? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I'll strike out for now. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Watched this article for a long time, and it has grown to a formidable article covering every aspect of the Halo franchise. It also meets the requirements and has improved while it has been at FAC. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comments - I did another read-through this morning and I'm still not happy with the prose quality and jargon. I didn't have to go far to build a decent list of representative issues. I don't think it's within reach for this nomination period—recommend withdrawing to work on issues. I still maintain that it needs a solid copy-edit by a non-gamer who would likely catch the same issues I am seeing.
      • "In this science fiction setting, the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large orbital constructions, similar to those first popularized by the 1970 novel Ringworld by Larry Niven, though smaller in scale." Here, you are making a comparison that is quite complex for the reader to understand. They have to go to the Ringworld article, find the information about the "large orbital constructions", then imagine something smaller. Seems like a lot of work.. why not just describe them as they appear in Halo?
      • First-person shooter and game console are not wikilinked in the lead. Non-gamers will be lost.
      • The "with <noun> being" construction found in "... with Halo being the Microsoft Xbox's "killer app" and other places is poor grammar; these need to be revised. First paragraph of the body has "with the player experiencing"; check throughout.
      • The lead still does not clarify that there is a "main trilogy" until the reader stumbles on "... and soundtracks have been released for the three main games." It should be clear without clicking links that Halo: Combat Evolved is the first game of the trilogy.
      • "In Halo: Combat Evolved, the player's health is measured in both hit points and a shield which can continually recharge." What is the word "both" doing? More jargon... to most people, a "shield" is a physical device, in which case how does it "regenerate"?
      • "Later games exclusively featured the recharging shield and removed the health bar." Health bar? Isn't that where you buy diet frozen yogurt? Please don't force the reader to click away to find basic context. You haven't even mentioned a health bar yet and you can't take for granted that the reader will associate "hit points" with it.
      • "Rather than creating entirely new maps and geometry ..." What's the difference between "entirely new" and just "new"?
      • "Players can save their games as films and watch these saved films from all angles." I think "video" is a more apt term than "film", perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've addressed all your concerns, Laser. I still think it's important to mention Niven's ringworlds, but I shortened the tangent to him and increased the discription. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Image:Halo-Logo.png should be reduced in size per WP:NFCC#3a.
      • I halved the vertical and horizontal resolution so it is now a quarter of it's original size. James086Talk | Email 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good. I put the rationale in a standard template, hope you don't mind. Kelly hi! 14:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Halobox.jpg seems to be a decorative image - the rationale doesn't make it clear why its presence in the article is significant per WP:NFCC#8.
    • Image:Clixhunter.jpg should not be on the Commons - it's actually a derivative work of copyrighted art. Yes, unfortunately toys can be considered "art" under U.S. copyright law. The image needs to be moved back to en Wikipedia and the Commons copy flagged for deletion. It will actually need two license tags here (one for the photo, and one for the figures, such as {{non-free character}} or {{non-free 3D art}}) and a fair use rationale. See Image:Pikachu ThnksgvDayParade.jpg for an example of an image of this type.
      • Done I think. You'd better check to make sure I did it correctly though. James086Talk | Email 13:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:RvB ep58 Sarge Donut.jpg needs cleanup to remove the black spaces in the image. The rationale also needs to be improved per WP:NFCC#8 to explain why it is significant to this article. It seems kind of decorative right now, IMHO.

    Kelly hi! 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other two images specified above have been removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Should this article be moved to Halo series? It seems more natural to me (I'm not aware of any naming conventions regarding this, though). · AndonicO Engage. 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah there's a naming convention (See point 6 of this). Although I too would prefer the title "Halo series" there isn't consensus for that. James086Talk | Email 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still finding issues, pursuant to my opposition above. Whenever I dive into a random section (these are all from "Main trilogy") I find lots of issues. Please, this needs to be withdrawn and given proper attention.
      • "The standard Halo 2 edition has traditional Xbox packaging, and comprised of a single disc, which contained both the single and multiplayer components." Grammar—mixed tenses and ambiguous use of "comprised"
      • "It holds the record for the longest streak as the number one game on Xbox Live, retaining the top spot for two years, after which Gears of War replaced it as the most-played multiplayer game." The term "longest streak" is too informal, and "number one game" is not defined until later. Don't make the reader skip ahead to discover the meaning. The transition of the subject of the sentence from Halo to Gears of War is awkward. The whole sentence needs reworking.
      • "A PC port for the Windows Vista operating system was later released by an internal team, dubbed "Hired Gun", which was composed of both Microsoft Game Studios and Bungie Studios personnel." What was dubbed Hired Gun, the PC port or the internal team? Internal to what? Again, readers have to skip ahead to discover the meaning of what's written.
      • Why "Halo: Combat Evolved was the first Halo video game ..." and then "Halo 3 is the third game and final game ..." Also, please: "third and final game". --Laser brain (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe all issues have been addressed. Blackngold29 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I sincerely mean no offence, but some of your changes (particularly "The game remained in the top game ...") are introducing more errors. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I kind of rushed it. I re-wrote some. I will look over the article later and try to eliminate the "main trilogy" confusion. Blackngold29 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments (lead only)

    • "the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large, habitable ringed structures, similar to Larry Niven's ringworlds" - I'm thinking the first comma should be a semi colon... it's kinda unclear for now.
    • "The Halo trilogy video games..." - what about the games outside of the trilogy? It's a bit confusing in that regard.
      • "As of 4 October 2007, all three Halo games combined have sold over 20 million copies.[8]" - same again.... you're making it sound like there is only the trilogy (which isn't correct)
    • "The cultural impact of the Halo series has been compared by Brian Bendis to that of Star Wars,[9] and dubbed those who enjoy the series the "Halo Nation"." - the stuff after the comma needs reworking.

    giggy (:O) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Done - sorry I forgot about the intro when looking for "trilogy" references in disguise. Blackngold29 04:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Fails FACR § 1: prose. If the story section, which I just rewrote (it's been a long day, so I don't guarantee perfection), is any indication, this article has serious prose issues including: tense shifts, passive voice, exceedingly long compound-complex sentences, and weak verbs. I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself, so the help of copy-editors should be sought.
    • Regarding FACR § 2: the article has a halfway decent lead. The structure is OK, but could use some tweaking. The citations and sources are strong which is good.
    • Fails FACR § 3: images. Is it that hard to capture illustrative screenshots of rendering, characters, and gameplay? Or are there copyright issues that I don't know about? Fair use would have a strong argument here.
    • The length is OK, but I would say that there is considerable room for added depth here, particularly in cases where there are no related or sub-articles on the topic.

    I would even hesitate to call this a "good" article. There is considerable room for improvement in prose, content (depth), and images. Most definitely fails multiple FACR. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding your comments:
    • Multiple editors have done copy editing to the article, and I'm sure more will be done. (Maybe a case of too many cooks.)
    • What is missing from or needs tweaking in the lead/structure?
    • Similar images that illustrated the characters were removed (see Kelly's comments), though I'll see about adding in at least one gameplay image.
    • Length is normally not a major concern for an FA, not so much as comprehensiveness anyway. Content was restricted to a general overview of the series, though details were included when appropriate to help illustrate certain points. Some sections are divided the way they are to make the content easier to take in for the reader; the "Development" section for example. Also, further details can be found in the separate game articles (Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3), which are all linked a couple times in the article.
    • On a side note, I'm not sure I see the benefit in telling us the article does not deserve it's GA status. If you feel it does not you are welcome to take it to WP:GAR if it does not pass this FAC, or even WP:FAR if it does.
    We'll see what we can do to address your concerns, especially the prose as multiple reviewers have commented on this. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [51].

    Germany Schulz[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been stable as a WP:GA for some time and is extensive enough and interesting enough to be a WP:FA. This is one of many Michigan Wolverines football bio articles that I worked on with User:Cbl62. He did most of the research on this one and my contributions were more organizational. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - A lot more information than I would expect for an early 1900s college football player. Here are some issues I found during my first run-through.

      • I worked with User:Cbl62 on a lot of Michigan Football players and he repeatedly found endless information on older players. I still wish I could get him to work on two newer guys (Thomas Wilcher and Thom Darden). He says he unsubscribed to his information service however so I don't think I can look forward to his magic on those guys.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He eventually entered a long career in the insurance industry." I would change the order to "He eventually entered the insurance industry, where he had a long career." I don't like my own ending, so I'm sure you can improve it.
    • Is the College Football Foundation the same as the National Football Foundation?
    • Childhood: Is his mother's name known? I'd like to see it if possible, but it can't be held against the article if unknown.
    • Concerns that Schulz was a ringer: Is "many decried the increasing recruitment of ringers" cited by the following source?
      • I don't have access to the source and I don't think Cbl62 does anymore either. The paragraph seems adequately sourced, but if you want to be certain on the attribution for each sentence that may not be possible because as I said before Cbl62 is no longer subscribing to the information source he used for this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were hyphens for "student athlete" in use a century ago?
    • I'd like to see it made clear that Willie Heston came from Stanford.
    • "Schulz was factory worker in an Indiana steel mill" Grammar.
    • Is "swell time" a quote? If so, it needs a reference.
    • Freshman year: Don't need another Willie Heston link.
    • 1905 season: Why is stardom not capitalized?

    When these are done, I'll come back to read more of it. Giants2008 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm back for more, as I promised. I left a note above, so check that out.
    • I don't think you can find a source for this, but I'd like to know how he returned to Michigan after 1906, especially since one report says he was basically kicked out. Later the article implies that Michigan's fortunes took a turn for the worse, so I'm sure that was a factor.
    • This seems quite heavy on quotes. I presume that the sources avaliable dictated this, but paraphrasing a couple wouldn't hurt.
    • When I work with Cbl62 he finds quotes and inserts them. I could paraphrase things, but I do not know the context of the surrounding paragraphs in the articles so I just work with his quotes. Do you want me to paraphrase his selection of quotes from articles I have not read?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some of the more modern player articles I am able to balance out his quoting with more paraphrased contributions and greater emphasis on statistics. I work with him less on older players because I am unable to balance them out and I don't know how to contribute as effectively. This athlete is so extraordinary an individual that I decided to work along.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, it is not clear that there is any policy suggesting heavy quoting is undesirable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Controversy over eligibility for 1908: "before the making of the rule on freshman ineligibility". This is awkward, so change it to, "before the conference's rule was enacted."
    • Comma between "Michigan where"
    • "about inaccurate reporting about his age" Change to "of his age".
    • I'm not a fan of using "In fact" to rebut material from Schulz's time. Isn't it our job to deal in facts?
    • Awards and accolades: Picky, but Century should be in italics, since it was a magazine.
    • Another Grantland Rice link.
    • Would it be possible to turn these bulleted items into a paragraph of prose, about awards given to him posthumously? Giants2008 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tulane University: Comma after "take charge of the linemen during football season".
    • Later life: "including as state agent for an insurance company" Should this be "a state agent"?
    There's the rest of the minor flaws I could find. Giants2008 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments regarding images:
      • Image:Germany Schulz.jpg: source does not assert a date of first publication. How can we verify the PD-US claim? Why is a purportedly PD image using a non-free rationale for the James B. Craig article?
        • Given his year of birth, it seems extremely likely that this publicity photo is from before 1923 when he would have been almost 40 years old. I think it would be pretty reasonable to let this PD claim fly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, merely existing is not the same as being published. Proof is needed that this was first published before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Ferry.gif: source site indicates this is from a 1924 Wisconsin game and credits the image to "BHL, Ath. Dept.". This contradicts the PD-US license's assertion of first being published before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 1 "Schulz to play center" is lacking where it was publsihed?
    • Same for ref 21. "Schultz Played Star Game against Penn..."
    • Current ref 51 is lacking a publisher ( Glamourless Gridirons..) Deadlinked for me too.
    • Current ref 60 is lacking where it was published (Mrs Sophia Schulz is dead...)
    Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am handicapped by the source being from a newservice that a co-author used. I can not recover any further detail. He is unsubscribed now to my knowledge. He is not becoming active in this discussion, so what you see is what you get.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried logging on to add the publisher cites this afternoon. These articles were derived from the microfilm newspapers of http://newspaperarchive.com/ However, that company is based on Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is presently under water, causing power loss and loss of service, per that link. Accordingly, I cannot access the information at this time.Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Support - I'm not happy about a couple of the reference issues I described above, but it does seem comprehensive considering the time period. Overall, gets one thumb up from me. Giants2008 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly hi! 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:24, 15 June 2008 [52].

    Curtis (50 Cent album)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets the featured article criteria. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    Comments

    • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title.
    • One reference is giving a cite error note.
    • Link checker tool is reporting a number of dead links or timeouts.
    When the references are formatted consistently, I'll try to return to evaluate reliablity of sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Indefinitive prose, poor referencing methods used, some other factors which are quite detremental to the quality of this article. I'd suggest bringing through a rigourous peer review to get up to FA. Rudget (Help?) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose This article could use considerable improvement, generally and requires quite a bit of work to bring it up to FA standard. A rigorous peer review as suggested by Rudget would certainly be useful. Further comments:

    • The singles chart position table is very long, I'd suggest formatting it like the one on Hybrid Theory, with different columns for each chart.
    • The prose could do with quite a bit of work throughout. For example, from the concept section:
      • Stating that the album title was changed twice is a bit misleading, and the explanation of the change could be compressed. For example, "The album title, originally just "Curtis", was changed to "Curtis S.S.K." and back."
      • Did SSK stand for SoundScan Killer; SouthSide King; or Shoot, Stab, Kill (the latter being unreferenced)? If more than one, the section should probably be rewritten to incorporate all these into one more structured sentence. This sentence should probably mention the source of any meaning behind the name (the stated intention to "show the pressure 50 Cent felt to succeed") - did 50 Cent himself say this, or was it a commentary from someone else?
      • In the final paragraph of the section, "He also stated that..." could be changed to simply "and that..."
      • The paragraphs in the Concept section are quite short, and with the above suggested revisions would become even shorter, so combining the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs might be a good idea.
    • There's some repetition of information. For example the sales figures are given in Curtis vs Graduation, then again under Sales.
    • Also, the reception section seems to have the same view repeated by more critics than I'd consider necessary.
    • Is it really necessary to list the performer of every chorus and verse in the track listings, especially if the entire song is performed by 50 Cent, such as "I Get Money" or "Amusement Park"? I'd consider just listing the performers on each track, without the chorus/verse references, but certainly drop those references for tracks with only 50 Cent. Probably also cut for sections of songs performed by 50 Cent, leaving only the guest artist references, for example "All of Me" - Chorus: Mary J. Blige. From the history it looks like this information was only added in the last few hours, so possibly isn't stable yet and could use some editing.
    • There are quite a few referencing problems, unformatted references and the like. And #53 is showing a cite error warning.

    Adacore (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - I see a broken reference, and a stack more unreferenced. The reception section is far too short for a significant album like this one, and there is far too much quoting (as opposed to using your own words). A copyedit (as well as the other issues raised) would be really helpful. giggy (:O) 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - What is the deal with the huge stacks of lyrics? Withdraw, and try to model the article on FAs like Adore, Loveless, and Be Here Now. Probably needs to be delisted from GA as well. indopug (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Untidy and unpolished, needs a lot of care and attention to bring it close to FA. There are too many quotes, including the lyrics, and poor prose throughout. Here are a couple of examples:
    • The album's title was changed twice. The first time, it was changed from "Curtis" to "Curtis S.S.K.". The second time, it was changed back to "Curtis". - redundancy.
    • The first week sales totals of Graduation and Curtis have outsold the first week sales totals of Guns N' Roses' two albums. - you can't outsell a total and some possessives are missing.
    • And stated instead of said occurs about ten times. The article needs a radical copy edit and a peer review. GrahamColmTalk 15:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:Raul654 16:52, 13 June 2008 [53].

    Roman Catholic Church[edit]

    previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

    Nominator NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nom restarted, old nom SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrea may be an intermediate speaker of English and an expert on the article subject. I do not think that we should be placing notes like this under people's votes. NancyHeise (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "under people's votes" - this isn't a vote. D.M.N. (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per previous nom. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen. Magnetawan (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    Gary King (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good, no major issues, although

    • "In the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the formal," (entire paragraph) is unreferenced.
    Thanks for pointing that out, I went back and added references. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "helped".[117][82] Catholics " ascending order
    Good eye - I corrected that one and rechecked the entire page for more (there were a couple of others that needed correcting). NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese." unreferenced
    Thanks again - referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These were random samples. I really admire your determination in bringing this through FAC and sticking with it. Great job! I hope to support this FAC soon.

    Gary King (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support To reiterate: In my estimation, this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. While I am not a fan of 'officially known as' in the lead, I have few stylistic concerns; the article is appropriately structured, and I like the distribution of the Nicene creed throughout -- that is a good solution to what had been an ongoing discussion. The length seems appropriate. An intelligent reader coming with no knowledge of the RCC would gain a good brodd overview from reading this entry, and would be guided to appropriate places for more research. Of course there is much that is left out, but this seems to be a feature of summary style, and not something that should stand in the way of FA status. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - excellent prose; just one thing: "Because of this diversity, some variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs". Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I eliminated "some" - good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - well-written. Good explanation of a complex topic. One of the best documented articles I have seen in Wikipedia! Student7 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support This article has gone through a lot, and come out of it every time better and stronger. It is now the best it has ever been, and I think that it is even more deserving of my support vote than in past noms. From my point of view, it meets all of the criteria, which is amazing since it covers such a large subject. Props to Nancy and all of the other devoted editors who have brought this so far. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/question for Sandy' (It would be better if Sandy handles this): hey sandy can we move the bottom section of the prior version to here? Just everything after the part where you asked people to summarize their opposes, and then some folks replied. Just a thought. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A restart was necessary because the FAC was 330KB and opposes were becoming obscured and were being argued rather than being addressed. I'm hoping this will provide a new chance for nominators to address Opposes if they are restated. Opposers can copy forward their own relevant comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, much more likely, will give up and go away. If RAul cares, he can read my myriad comments in the archives. If I see that they're addressed, will state that. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my previous comments. There's room for improvement, particularly concerning the article's sources. However, it currently meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on a fresh read-through today. I did not find any prose problems worth complaining about. I'm still not of the opinion that the prose is "brilliant" but it is certainly professional and representative of the best work we will achieve on this subject. --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Just to be positive about good referencing, I'd like a cite at the end of the following paragraphs; first and last paragraphs in "Beliefs", last paragraph in "Ordained members and Holy Orders", last paragraph in "Lay members, Marriage" (but before "Members of religious orders"), and end of "Roman Empire". Also, in regards to the last paragraph of "Ordained members and Holy Orders", it says "Throughout history women have held prominent roles within the Church as abbesses, missionaries, and Doctors of the Church." The sentence feels a bit out of place, as much of the entire section is about men, and the last paragraph deals briefly about women in the church. I didn't read the whole article, so I'm wondering if that statement needs expanding, or if there is a place elsewhere that deals with women in the church. I'm not sure if the layout has been discussed, but is there a reason the history section is not first? I notice that many articles have the history section first. All in all, looks good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment, I am working on it today but I have to go out for a while at present. I responded to your comment about organization below Squash Racket's comment that follows here. NancyHeise (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK Hurricane, I have addressed your comments regarding references and had to make some changes in text to match some refs. Women in the church, yes, I included text in the Holy Orders to finish the para explaining that only men can be ordained and I have a para in History section under Vatican II and beyond explaining the existence of controversy over the subject and the Church's response. NancyHeise (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Probably a bit late with that, but I think it would help future stability of the article if we would make a comparison with the respective article in Britannica regarding structure and references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Hurricanehink and Squash Racket, a FAC reviewer responded to this same comment on the previous nomination page and I agree with it. [54] Also, this article was organized following the example of the FA Islam. "Ample precedent" exists on Wikipedia to support current organization. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I pointed to the structure of the Britannica article because it repeatedly proved to be insufficient to cite another Wikipedia FA in reaching concensus. I also mentioned the references of Britannica because I don't think anybody will question the reliability and neutrality of a reference if Britannica accepts it. Squash Racket (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might note, to give a full account of that exchange, that that was in response to my comment, and that I further commented here, as follows:
    Interesting. I'm not surprised. This is, of course, how Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias, in that its contributors are self-selecting, and so its content is generally written by fans and/or adherents. (Sometimes by detractors, but that's no better.) NB this does not necessarily mean that fans or adherents (or even detractors) cannot write good articles; but they face certain rather particular obstacles. Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting that history should be put before doctrine; but it is symptomatic that in fact the order is the other way around, in this article as in other similar ones on Wikipedia.
    So this is certainly still an open issue, as far as I'm concerned, though personally I'm not sure I would insist on the revision at this point, as it would obviously require major reorganization. On the other hand, there is a degree of oddity, as the "Origins" section is separated from "History." If putting doctrine before history (like other WP articles, but unlike Britannica) is symptomatic, that stranded bit of history is symptom of the symptom. Something needs to be done about it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Jbmurray's comment here suggesting the possibility of moving Origins section: This was brought up by Karanacs in the last peer review and I responded here [55] by placing a note on the main article talk page to find out if there was consensus for such a change. The resulting responses supported elimination of the full quote of the Creed but there was no consensus for reorganizing Origins. I would be in violation of Wikipedia policy if I were to make such a change after having sought consensus and not getting it. NancyHeise (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not suggested moving the Origins section. Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I have merely pointed to a problem. There are no doubt various possible solutions. Moving the entire section might be one; it's not necessarily the one that I would recommend, which is why I did not make that suggestion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. It seems to me that, if this protracted FAC process leads to the nomination passing, it will be in significant part due to the article editors' policy of wearing down critical reviewers and choosing to disdain their comments and upbraid their efforts in what is a shocking failure of good faith. See not only previous FACs, but also the series of comments first on my talk page, then on NancyHeise's, and also Karanacs's, and now again here. I do have other comments on this article, but am hardly encouraged to present them here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with this reviewers assessment of his comments. I felt he was provocative in his comments and went off topic as well as asking us to eliminate a top source that is representative of a significant point of view. I do not feel that this oppose is actionable and am not completely convinced that it is made in good faith. NancyHeise (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have to convince you of my good faith; you should be assuming it. Meanwhile, you continue to misrepresent my comments. Please stop. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jb, a lot of people think you misunderstood the use being made of Norman in the passage you objected to. He was being used to demonstrate ONE strand of opinion, not to present a consensus. Further remarks you made about Professor Norman were irrelevant and I believe unfounded. The main thrust of your other objections was vague and non-specific, and despite requests for clarifications and usable suggestions for improvement to deal with your concerns, we got only one solid suggestion for change, which was acted upon. Xandar (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an (over-)long discussion of that particular comment on my talk page. (This article's defenders seem to like bringing up issues on reviewers' talk pages.) I do there offer a solid suggestion, which was flatly rejected with the words "I see no problem with the article text as it stands." There is another series of comments on structure, and particularly on this article's weakest section, in my view, further down the talk page. --16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and my further comments on Norman are absolutely relevant when this member of the Peterhouse group is used as a source on liberation theology! Extraordinary stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You had apparently never heard of Norman until he came up here. As a historian whose early specialisation was the religious history of Ireland in the 19th century, also heavily intermixed with politics, and later the author of "Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere (1981)", he is very well placed to comment on Liberation theology, though he clearly has a more sceptical view of it than some enthusiastic writers. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I hadn't heard of Norman. However, I'm learning a little about him. And I note that in this paragraph he's the source for the following statement: "the Church considers [liberation theology] 'a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management.'" That goes beyond being "more sceptical"; it is extremely tendentious, and yet it is being presented as fact. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, those interested may note that rather than use this clearly tendentious quotation, I preferred to quote what the Latin American bishops thought they were about. This is just in case anyone still thinks that I'm against quoting Catholics, for goodness sake. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ach, and it's been added back in, with the rather surprising summary that this was "adding the Church's point of view. Thus tendentiousness is added to tendentiousness, and NPOV flies out of the window. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, the section on the Latin American church was very poor. (NB also the article is riddled with typos and grammatical errors.) No doubt the poverty of its courage is owing in part to its continued reliance on our friend Norman. I've added more information, better sources--simply what I have to hand, however--a "citation needed" tag for a rather dubious assertion, as well as removing Norman's tendentious editorializing. More work still required, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator comment FAC reviewer Jbmurray, the only oppose vote on this page, has rewritten the paragraph on Liberation Theology, eliminating our referenced and consensus(ed) work that is being voted upon right now - he has replaced it with a version that none of us has discussed or peer reviewed or agreed upon. I think that this change at this point in the FAC process is unhelpful to the FAC process and I ask for guidance on how to deal with this at this point. Should I withdraw the nomination? NancyHeise (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous version of the paragraph was inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. I encourage reviewers to judge for themselves if they think the relevant section has been improved or not. Frankly, the entire article requires such revision. I only have the sources to hand to work on this paragraph. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I don't know of any article that has made it through FAC without any changes. It is not uncommon for reviewers to fix issues themselves, especially early in the nomination process (and, since this nom was restarted, this is early in the process). The alternative is for the reviewer to leave a comment on this page and ask the nominator to fix the issue (either way, ideally, the issue is fixed). If there are particular issues with the changes he has made, you might take those up on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed with Karanacs here. Good faith discussion is the best way to proceed here - everyone involved is clearly here to improve the article and ensure the FA process proceeds correctly and reaches the right outcome - i.e. the promotion of the article in its best possible state. Sometimes consensus can unfortunately lead to inferior decisions being made, not through any fault of the contributors, but just because of whoever (or whichever viewpoints) were represented at the time it was formed. Especially on controversial topics, consensus is useful in establishing scope but not always on content - I know of articles which jump from glorifying to bashing the subject quite randomly in an attempt to satisfy NPOV which everybody is equally unhappy with. Sometimes it's necessary to go back to core principles (NPOV/UNDUE, V, RS, OR/SYN, etc) to get it right - especially important when we want to say an article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Orderinchaos 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am restoring the paragraph to its consensus'd version that has been peer reviewed and gone through two FACs. If FAC reviewer Jb murray would like to place comments on this page under his Oppose vote, I would be happy to address them. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a bad idea. Jbmurray is making good faith edits that appear to be improving the prose and sourcing. You don't have the right to revert his changes based only on the fact that you want the article to be the same as when the nomination started. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Unless there is something wrong with jbmurray's edits, then you should not revert his content. His comments are fully referenced, and he has as much right as any editor to fix issues he sees in the page. Saying that you will not accept his edits but will make any changes yourself is a little close to violating WP:OWN. Again, I recommend that if you see any issues with his edits, bring them up on the RCC talk page and decide from there what to keep and what (if any) to remove. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he was wrong to eliminate our fully referenced material that had consensus to be brought to FAC. His edits were not mere copyediting but a whole rewrite that is inappropriate at this stage of voting. NancyHeise (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. It is not uncommon for entire parts of an article to be rewritten or reworded while its at FAC. And we should always assume good faith. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ha. OK. Well, more reasons to oppose. (I had figured I might as well do something to improve the article while I was at it. I take it you'll also want to remove three reliable sources I added to the bibliography?) Anyhow, as I say, the paragraph in the state that NancyHeise seems to want it is grossly inaccurate, NPOV, poorly sourced, and flawed by typos. Rather than go through all the errors, it's probably easiest just to compare the two versions:

    A. In the 1960's, a growing sympathy for working-class movements in Latin American cities gave birth to liberation theology. Chiefly promoted by Gustavo Gutiérrez, this new movement used a radical interpretation of the Gospel to redefine the mission of the Church. It's purpose was meant to achieve revolutionary political change to improve the lot of the poor.[308] Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI susequently denounced the movement as "dangerous" and the Church considers it "a return to the pre-modern notion of establishing a Christian society through the coercive machinery of political management".[308] The movement is still alive in Latin America today although somewhat diminished in popularity.[309]
    B. In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Latin American Church gave birth to liberation theology, and Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, became one of the movement's better-known scholars. Following a meeting of Latin American bishops in Medellín, Colombia, in 1968, to adopt the principles of Vatican II, the new movement was increasingly influential in re-interpreting the Gospel in radical ways that redefined the Church's mission. In 1979 the bishops' conference, in Puebla, Mexico, officially declared the Latin American Church's "preferential option for the poor".[308] The following year, the Salvadoran Archbishop Óscar Romero became the most famous contemporary martyr to state violence, when he was murdered while saying mass in San Salvador.[309] Despite opposition from Pope John Paul II and the Vatican, and the silencing of theologians such as the Brazilian Leonardo Boff in 1985,[310] the movement is still alive in Latin America today. although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in many parts of the continent.[311]

    I was still working on this when NancyHeise reverted. NB my suspicion is that similar flaws litter the rest of the article. I could only really do anything with the one paragraph where I had reliable sources here to hand. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think the new edits are fatal, but they should really have been discussed. I have gone through them to trim, and correct some grammar and copyedit errors. But I will be rechecking the facts a bit later, and may amend, if necessary.Xandar (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the new edits aren't "fatal." They're a marked improvement. But I appreciated Xandar's copy-editing, though I was also still working on it at the time. The only real issue I had with his or her changes, I raised on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to respectfully ask FAC reviewer Jbmurray to not rewrite whole sections of the article as he did with the Liberation Theology section just now. I am trying to answer other reviewers comments who have followed a peaceful procedure of posting any comments in bullet point format on this FAC page so I can address them as nominator. If Jbmurray has a problem with the Liberation Theology paragraph, it might help if he could point out these problems in bullet point - as other FAC reviewers are doing and have done throughout the FAC processes in the past. I am one nominator dealing with many FAC reviewers and I politely ask for your kind consideration in this matter. I would also like to not be accused of WP:OWN as Karanacs has just done. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you have it in bullet points:
    • inaccurate
    • NPOV
    • poorly sourced
    • flawed by typos
    I really had no desire to make a fuss about this paragraph on the FAC. I thought my improvements were entirely obvious and uncontroversial. But if you want to make a fuss, go ahead. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why reviewers often help address their own concerns, so that the burden of making changes does not fall solely on the nominator. jbmurray has the right to make edits to the article, period. (and I did not say that you violated WP:OWN, just that your comments were close to the line) Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My position has been vastly overruled. The page has been restored to JBmurray's version. OK, but I ask that the ref's that he has just installed be put in proper format, they are inconsistent with the rest of the article and have statements in front of them. NancyHeise (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jbmurray is using the footnotes in a slightly different way (as a bit of a see also as well as a citation), and I believe it is acceptable to have this mixed in with the other references. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thanks Karanacs. I think I now understand what NH sees as the problem. Obviously, I didn't want to put undue weight on this paragraph, and tried to be concise as possible. One way to be concise as well as informative, and to increase the number of reliable sources to which the reader can refer, is to use the footnotes more discursively. If NH wants to strip the notes of the two (very) reliable sources I added, she's welcome to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) *Egads. The paragraph has been restored to a version that I wrote with Xander's help in copy-editing, following pretty closely the structure that already existed. meanwhile, I'm not sure what's meant by the fact that the references "have statements in front of them." Is that what we call quotations? Seriously I'm puzzled. Anyhow, you're welcome to go in, of course, and fix any problems you see. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I appreciate your edits and the other reviewers help in resolving the matter. I am OK with the refs format if all the FAC reviewers are OK and it seems they are. I added the church's point of view that had been deleted which I think is necessary to make the article NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The church's point of view was already represented in that paragraph. I've left a note on the article talk page for clarification on exactly who is being quoted in the restored text; let's have the rest of the discussion on this paragraph there, please, so this FAC doesn't follow the last one in readability terms. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) As far as I can see, you added Edward Norman's point of view, which I find remarkably tendentious, and not NPOV at all. That paragraph already, in fact, has the Church's point of view, in so far as it has the famous phrase that came out of the Puebla conference of Latin American bishops. Of course, this is complex. If you want to add the Vatican's point of view (which seems fair enough), can I suggest you seek out a direct quotation? Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Liberation theology was always controversial within the Church, and the words from Norman, which may well be a quote or paraphrase from a Vatican statement, seem an unexceptional statement of the hostile view, however much you may dislike it. Here, as elsewhere, you seem to have made up your mind as to what Catholics ought to think or believe and react with rhetorical violence to any statement contradicting these views. In this connection, it might be worth mentioning the ban on clergy holding political office, introduced as a response to the Liberation theology movement, and the Berrigans etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware that Liberation theology is and was controversial within the Church. This indeed is the point I am making when saying that Norman's quotation does not represent the Church. It represents, as you say, at the very least "the hostile view." I have no opinions on what Catholics ought to believe or think. I have not the foggiest idea where you are getting that from. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jbmurray, I dont hope to win your support for the article since you have claimed that it is in need of a rewrite but both of us have made changes to the liberation theology paragraph and I think we may be in agreement now. All comments are fully referenced and include your changes as well as mine. I believe all points of view are covered here. NancyHeise (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a couple of tweaks for accuracy, in line with some discussion on the talk page, but I can live with that paragraph now (even with Norman!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I did was a brief copy-edit to smooth the prose a little. I didn't say I approved of what was in the new addition. I said that I was going to check references and see whether what was added was balanced and relevant. We can't just chuck out relevant referenced material, but we have to see whether it is appropriately balanced and weighted. As a general rule though, please don't add major new strands of material to the article at this time without some consultation on the Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've noted one more Latin America-related concern on the talk page. There are another couple of sentences that are really wrong, and I note that it's our friend Norman who's the source again. I don't know whether this is a misinterpretation of Norman, or whether the error (or perhaps, very bizarre bias in seeming to claim that there were Marxist regimes in Latin America from 1860 on) is Norman's own. Anyhow, this is something else that really has to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dealt with on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no; please don't misrepresent me, Johnbod. As per the long discussion here, I find it hard to believe that Johnbod has much interest in improving this article, or indeed reading it with much attention. And given the hoo-ha that arose when I tried to fix another paragraph, I hardly feel encouraged to go out of the way to help myself any more, I'm afraid. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This talk page comment has been resolved by adding a word to the text, please see talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been dealt with, and was not "really wrong" in the first place. It is clear from jbmurray's comments on the talk page that he was wholly unaware of the secularising legislation of 1859 on under La Reforma, so fortunately this is not an area where vastly complicated historical developments need to be summarized in a phrase able to keep everyone happy. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • Current refs 30, 40, 86, 89, 94-99, 112 are missing access dates.
      • Current ref 125 is broken.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wackymacs, I've taken a look at all of those citations without access dates. These are all references to actual Bible quotes, the link leads the reader to a page that offers them their choice of Bibles from which to read the actual quote, both Protestant and Catholic versions and leads them to the actual quote if they click on a certain Bible. These references are treated differently than the others and are cited using the formula used by the FA Islam when quoting the Quaran. I have asked for advice from another editor to find out if I am supposed to change these into a cite web format but that would require me to make the choice of Bible used for the reader which would eliminate the option for reader to choose which Bible. Please let me know if you have more knowledge of treatment of this special reference, I wanted it to be the best it could be and I felt the present format was the most NPOV way of offering the information. NancyHeise (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NancyHeise, my understanding about accessdates is that the point is that webpages can go down or offline, or be changed at any point. You put in an accessdate to signify that at that point, at least, you can verify that the information was there, and that it said what you are claiming it did. Thus any reference to a website of any sort (regardless of its content) should include an accessdate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These refs use the {{bibleverse}} template. If the website goes offline, the template will be changed to something else; anything using the template will stay up to date. If the refs were based on a specific translation, it might be different. Although {{bibleverse}} is a template, I would consider it much the same as the built-in support for PMID 12345678 or RFC 123, which don't need access dates. Gimmetrow 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that Gimmetrow. I'll just leave them as is then. NancyHeise (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the broken link. Today's date is acceptable for accessdates? Squash Racket (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accessed it today, then that's the date!;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Sigh, this is getting boring indeed. Tony just said about resistance towards critical reviewers, and here it is again (see Malleus' comment above). Tony's concern about prose quality are definitely valid. My concern about missing access dates has still not been addressed as well - all online refs need access dates, no matter what they might be. Personally I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which comment of mine have you decided to take offence to? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're talking about bible references. In John 1:1 the reference is John 1:1, not the website. The website functions as a convenience link. Prose is definitely an issue, but opposing over accessdates on this point is improper. Gimmetrow 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right...but it's a still a web page. And if that page went down or the site died, then there's no access date to confirm if it was ever accessible? WP:CITE states: "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." - I am nitpicking, and it is not stated in the FA criteria, but it's still important that we stay in accordance to policy and style guidelines. SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is usually the one who points out citation errors, so you might want to ask for their opinion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm inclined to agree with Gimmetrow on this: the source is John 1:1, which anyone can find any number of ways; the website is only a convenience link, and not at all essential to locating the source. John 1:1 is enough for other editors to identify the information; this is similar to a PMID, which is only a convenience link. If others disagree, I suggest continuing the discussion at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Although from reading above, I see there is a wrinkle in comparing it to a PMID: which translation is being used in direct quotes does present an issue, so this may not be as cut and dried as a PMID link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am willing to change the format of the Biblerefs if all of you FAC reviewers will come to a decision on which Bible I should be using and which format. Right now, I can do nothing. I think it would create a POV problem to change what presently exists just so you can have and accessdate which seems to be such a minor and disposable thing for this issue which has precedent on the FA Islam to support the current presentation. NancyHeise (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since there is ample precedent for current format in the FA Islam and both Gimmetrow and Sandy have expressed support for current format, I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please read carefully; that is an oversimplification of what I said (and the Oppose isn't based only on accessdates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I supposed to do to act on this oppose if Gimmetrow and precedent of FA Islam support current format and you have not made a decision either way? NancyHeise (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (You allready voted to oppose on June 3 above--please don't vote twice. I will leave your further objections intact. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) - Yes, the prose has improved. But this clearly isn't ready by any measure. Things are being rushed, and mistakes are naturally being made because we're all human. A topic as sensitive as "Roman Catholic Church" needs months of work spending on it. The number of comments on this page shows us this is not ready. A FAC which is ready, or near-ready, always has very few comments on it. This one is quite the opposite, as the longest FAC I've ever been involved in. The wikidrama caused by Xandar and NancyHeise is not productive, and neither are personal threats to Tony who is just trying to help. I recommend a withdraw, and then consulting the help of those who have expressed opposes based on POV/clarity issues - It is better to take your time than to rush. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your oppose seems to have been largely concerned with wikilinking bible verses. If you have any other remaining specific matters to raise, please do so.
    Regarding your more general comments, the article has been worked on by a team of editors for over six months. It is at least the equal of most FA articles for prose, and on POV is comparable with other encyclopedia treatments including Britannica. In fact compared with such treatments it goes further in presenting critical views of the church. Of course for some people the article will never be ready for FA. The number of comments on the page is not a good guide for the state of the article if many of those comments are vague or pushing a certain POV. Simply because there are a number of persistent people who either post vague unadressable comments and refuse to supply specifics, or demand that certain POVs dominate the article without providing proof to back them up, does not mean the article is at fault. I think we have dealt with all of those who have brouht up specific POV and clarity issues, there is no need for withdrawal for that. (And as far as "wikidrama" is concerned, anyone reading this page and the talk page for this page will see that nancy and I are not the souce of that, but false and misplaced attacks from one of the objectors.)Xandar (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectly actionable—I am referring to what other editors have already stated in regards to prose, clarity and POV (There is little point in me repeating what others have already said, correct?) Actually, the citation issues I raised earlier are no longer the issue. As already stated, if this was really ready, there would not be the amount of opposes and comments that there are. Furthermore, yes, a lot of work has been put into the article. What I am referring to is how much time has been taken to address the issues raised during this restarted FAC nomination. Indeed, the proper procedure to undertake would be to withdraw this nomination to ensure accurate edits are made to address all issues without rush and haste, which have mostly been caused by the amount of wikidrama. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we cannot make accurate edits to points that are not raised precisely and specifically. An oppose that refers to other unspecified comments bu other editors that may or may not be specific, or may or may not have been settled is just too vague to be actionable. This is YOUR objection. Please specify what exactly your objection consists of, preferably quoting the specific sentences and paras and the problem you allude to with each. If you have such objections, this is your opportunity to present them. If not, the objection is too vague to be actionable in its own right. Xandar (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider Wackymacs oppose actionable and the prose has been extensively improved by Ceoil, myself, and others. Prose is a point of personal taste. Some people are going to disagree (a minority on this FAC) but that should not prevent FA. NancyHeise (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have every right to oppose per other comments made on the page. In addition, "brilliant" prose is a requirement according to the FA criteria, and as such is a reason for opposing. According to [56], approx. 3,000 people read the Roman Catholic Church article every day - why give them a half-baked cake instead of the real deal? If you withdraw this nomination and come back in a month or two, it'll be greatly improved and truly ready. I notice neither of you have denied the fact that the number of comments and opposes show that this is not yet ready for FA status. I am also tired that, no matter what I say, both of you (Nancy and Xandar) come back to fight again - you do the same to everyone who opposes at this FAC. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the 4th FAC this article has been through. I'm afraid "come back in a few months and it'll pass", does not seem to signify. The point is that you appear to have no specific objection to raise about the article at this time. You refer to "other" unspecified objections. However the fact that some other people have objected (for whatever reason) in no way affects YOUR objection - unless you are saying that all the remaining objections amount to a single objection from a group. In fact many of these remaining other objections are vague, unspecified and so cannot be acted upon. Therefore, returning to your objection - not anyone else's - if you think that there are aspects of prose that are so seriously amiss that they need to be corrected to reach FA status, please follow FAc procedure and list them here so that they can be addressed. The editors are not mind-readers. If you cannot or will not provide this necessary information, we are forced to consider that your oppose non-actionable. Xandar (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no limit to how many times an article can go through this process. Here's some examples from the lead paragraphs of how you could polish the prose to meet criteria 1a for "brilliant" prose:
    • "It is made up consists of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and 22 Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world." - Please avoid unnecessary wordiness.
    saving two letters/spaces, but using a Latinate word instead of simpler Anglo-Saxon. Personally I don't see this as an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why use three words instead of one, exactly? One word is better than three, my friend. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always; this articles is of necessity heavily loaded with Latinate vocabulary, and where simpler Anglo-Saxon terms can be used, they should be, which is in any case a basic principle of English style, unless you are Alexander Haig. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still see no reason of using "is made up" instead of "consists", sorry. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer is made up of for the reasons Johnbod states, Saxon-based words are easier to understand at a basic level. Unless the space saving is large, most writers would advise sticking with simpler language. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the lead seems to say "the Church", but then suddenly it changes to "Catholic Church" in this sentence: "From at least the 4th century the Catholic Church has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." - Is there a reason for this that I am missing? This is nitpicking, but there should technically be a comma after "4th century".
    We can change this if it helps Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the 11th century, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western, Catholic Church split," - The current wording is confusing, I assume you mean: "In the 11th century, the Eastern and Western Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church split," unless I am wrong?
    Well, yes, you are. There is no Western Orthodox Church in this sense (Dang, that was supposed to be a redlink - however the subject of the article is a group of churches dating back only to 1864). Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I do not understand what the sentence is saying. Why is there a comma between Western and Catholic Church? Western what, exactly? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Western Catholic Church. Catholics in the Western Roman Empire, Orthodox in the Eastern Roman Empire. Maybe this should be spelled out, or helped with these links. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some sort of further explanation/clarification would help the reader understand it, yes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording here was set in response to a recent objection. It's a tricky problem since the Western and Eastern Churches wouldn't have distinguished each other as Orthodox and Catholic at this time. Today we refer to them as Catholic and Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Church now refers to itself as such. The Catholic church does not refer to itself as the Western Catholic Church, hence the use of western as descriptive of the split, and its separation with a comma. In view of space considerations in the lead, the best clarification might be to place a comma before the word Eastern, too. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nitpicking, but unnecessary words should be avoided, so: "...largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy" - why not "...largely over papal primacy disagreements" instead?
    Ouch, no, terrible! And much less clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, exactly? Read it out loud - it is fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Analysis of grammar is not my forte, but this is certainly ungrammatical; essentially you are trying to use a noun (primacy) as an adjective. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right on this point actually, now that I look at it again. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ..."but acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of Christian communities separated from itself to bring people to salvation."
    best left, imho. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of that in the sentence adds nothing, and if you read it out loud, removing it makes sense. — Wackymacs (talk ~edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the word "that" would make the sentence very confusing. It would read, "..but acknowledges the Holy Spirit..." which would convey the false meaning, "..but recognizes the presence of the Holy Spirit..." a completely different meaning to that intended. Most readers would have to re-read the sentence to arrive at the correct meaning. Using the word "that" simply and easily avoids any confusion by transferring the force of "acknowledges" forward onto the verb-cluster. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Modern challenges facing the Church include the rise of secularism and opposition to its pro-life stance on abortion, contraception and euthanasia.[28]" - You might want to clarify 'modern', just to be on the safe side...I assume you're talking about 21st century when you say 'modern'.
    No, certainly the 20th for all those, and "the rise of secularism" goes back much further. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the article should clarify by stating the century, or perhaps a mention of decades (as that's what the rest of the lead does). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I think people understand what "modern" means. It is a very useful word. It would be too unwieldy to say "in the 20th and 21st centuries," or "from the 1960s to the 2000s" Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only gone through the lead, but the rest of the article contains similar things. I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We obviously have rather different ideas as to what constitutes "brilliant prose". Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Wackymacs list here - I am in agreement with Johnbod on all points. Johnbod is another FAC reviewer for this article who voted to support its advancement to FA. He is not an editor of the RCC article in the sense that Xandar and I are - I make this distinction so his support vote is counted as valid. Wackymacs points here, if followed, would not result in article improvement but factual inaccuracies. I appreciate his comments but we can not follow his recommendations. NancyHeise (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More resistance from Nancy, interesting. See the Talk page, this is uncooperative. Exactly why is it not actionable to consult the help of external copyeditors (at least two, this is such a large article)? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wackymacs, most of the suggestions you have made are 1) minor. and 2) Not improvements at all, as editors have noted above. Not agreeing with all your suggestions, especially when many are misguided, is not being "uncooperative," it is simply entering into a constructive engagement, which is the purpose of this process. A number of editors have worked on this article, and are still doing so. But I certainly do not feel that you have presented any evidence of major problems with the prose. And the items you have pointed to above are certainly no credible evidence for a failure of FA, or that the article needs a complete copyedit by "someone else". The suggestions above will be dealt with, where they are improvements, and we are quite open to any further suggestions you may have for improving sections of the prose. Xandar (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wackymacs, please reread WP:FACR. The article's prose does not need to be "brilliant," only "engaging...and professional." If "brilliant" were a requirement, that clause would read: "its [the article's] prose is engaging, brilliant, and of a professional standard;" i.e. a serial conjunction. "Even brilliant" is being used as an Intensive in this case, not as an element of the conjunction. I admit that the wording in WP:FACR is poor and I will recomend a change on its talk page to reflect this. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) Comment/Question Do Opposes and Supports from the immediately prior archived version still stand? If not, is someone gonna notify all those !voters of the restart? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, in a restart comments from the archived version are not considered (we're really starting over). Generally, the nominator notifies all previous reviewers, but anyone can do that, as long as they notify both supporters and opposers and use a neutral message. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is WP:AWB spam socially acceptable? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, Support as before. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I've followed all the previous FACs on this as well as the extensive talk discussions and the multiple other by-ways this has nom lead to. But I never had the courage to speak up. I have to say I find the article impressive on a number of criteria, not least that it gives a balanced overview for non experts. I consider it engaging, informative, and unbiased, and overall a fine resource. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - per previous nomination. Extensive research and discussion has clearly paid off here, as evident in the excellent prose. Good job. Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am totally unsure what the procedure here is. I have written pages and pages in the previous nom expressing my concerns about the quality of sourcing, the selection of data from those sources, provided specific examples of those problems, and so on. Those remain unaddressed. Am I supposed to repeat it all, and possibly engage in the same discussion over again? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A restart functions the same as an entirely new FAC nomination. Any objections that you still hold and would like to see addressed should be restated here. The hope is that this doesn't come down to the same arguments as before, or at least that we can more succinctly discuss the issues as they relate to WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well. If the same issues are raised, and met with the same obduracy that occurred in the previous two noms, to expect that it won't come down to the same arguments is perhaps unrealistic. Or perhaps not, as it will lead to reviewer exhaustion. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments.
      • In the opening paragraph of the lead, both "Western" and "Latin Rite" link to the article Latin Rite. That seems unnecessary. — Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
        Yes, I agree, I eliminated the Western one since the actual link is to "Latin Rite". NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link http://www.jknirp.com/miss2.htm gets a "404 - Not Found" message.
        I repaired it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not link to One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (or to Four Marks of the Church, where it redirects to) when that phrase is mentioned in the lead and the main body of the text?
        Linked. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What translation is being used for the Bible quotes?
        I have not chosen the Bible quotes, they are linked to a page where reader may make the choice of Bible from which to read the quote and are in the same format without access dates as on the FA Islam which we have used as a guide. If I add access dates as a previous FAC reviewer on this page asks of me, I am afraid that I will then have to choose which Bible which will lead to POV wars - are you in favor of the current method or would you rather see me make a choice of Bible and use the cite web citation format so I can put access dates? Please elaborate on what you would rather see. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, now I see that Gimmetrow has answered my question regarding this, we do not put in cite web format, we leave them as they are so the reader will be able to choose the Bible. NancyHeise (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not talking about the refs, though, I'm talking about the quotes actually used in the article itself. Of the many translations available on the page the refs link to, which one is actually used in the article? —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would guess it's the New American Bible.[57] Gimmetrow 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Words like "baptism" and "penance" shouldn't be capitalized. I fixed a few, but there are more.
      • Perhaps a link to Saint Dismas on the words "good thief" at the end of the section "Final judgment and afterlife"?
        I added a wikilink but since that is a quote, I can't put the wikilink inside of a quote so I placed it after it. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't put wikilinks inside quotes? —Angr 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a particularly silly recommendation in the MoS that I for one regularly ignore. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a guideline to that effect, but it's not absolute even as a guideline. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the sentence "Although it was superseded by the vernacular as the primary form of the Mass, it was never forbidden after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council;" it isn't immediately clear that "it" refers back to the Tridentine Mass, rather than one of the other nouns in the previous sentence.
        Ok, reworded making this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Protestants if they freely ask for them." What about the other way round? Are there circumstances under which Catholics may receive the Eucharist from a Protestant minister (or at least a validly ordained non-RC priest in Apostolic Succession, like an Anglican, Old Catholic, etc.)?
        This produces a whole can of worms, which we can't really go into in the article. Catholics are not allowed to receive protestant communion, and for this purpose Anglicans count as Protestants since their orders were declared invalid for various reasons. Catholics are allowed to take Orthodox communion, but I don't think the Orthodox officially allow it, except in extremis. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand the article can't go into great detail on the issue, but since it brings up the issue of non-Catholics receiving Catholic Communion, it should really at least briefly summarize the issue of Catholics receiving non-Catholic Communion. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't that covered by "intercommunion with the Eastern Orthodox ... is possible"? Relevant rule is canon 844 §2, which in case of "necessity" (for example, danger of death) and "it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister", a Catholic may receive "penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid". Gimmetrow 07:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added text to cover this issue with reference to Catechism para 1400. Good comment Angr, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Christmas follows, beginning on the night of 24 December, Christmas Eve, and ending with the feast of the baptism of Jesus on 13 January." This contradicts Baptism of the Lord (which should be linked to), which says the feast was fixed on 13 January before Vatican II, but now is on whatever day between 7 January and 13 January inclusive is a Sunday. The sentence is also unsourced, and contradicts what I was always taught (in an Episcopal church, to be sure, but I thought we shared this with Catholics), namely that Christmas ends at Epiphany, but that the Christmas greenery may remain up in the church until the feast of the Presentation on 2 February.
        Christmas for Catholics ends on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord per my Nihil Obstat source and I refd the entire paragraph for you too. I eliminated the date of January 13 since my source did not give an actual date and I wikilinked Baptism of the Lord. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Epiphany is included under the season of christmas in Catholic Churches, even though the traditional "12 days" of Christmas end on Epiphany. So the season of Christmas ends on the 13th january, after Epiphany week. However the old tradition of keeping christmas decorations up until Candlemas, 2nd of February, persists in part of Europe. Xandar (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also unsourced is "Lent is the 40–day period of purification and penance that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday" which again contradicts what I learned, namely that Lent ends on Holy Saturday (the 40 days are the weekdays and Saturdays from Ash Wednesday to Holy Saturday).
        Referenced. Actually, the entire paragraph comes from the source refd at the end of the paragraph, I wasn't originally sure if I had to put a ref at the end of each sentence or not. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I didn't see the ref at the end of the paragraph. Sorry about that! Indeed, if the whole paragraph comes from the same source it's not necessary to ref every single sentence. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grouping "Lay members, Marriage" under a single heading seems a little odd. Marriage should be lower case, too.
    We arent going to change this grouping because it is consistent with the structure in the rest of the Beleifs section where we discuss the relevant sacrament in the section that precipitates its use. Capitalization issue has been discussed at length and was resolved in favor of capping when used as proper noun. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Some parts of Europe, Ireland and the United States have experienced..." - Ireland is in Europe.
        Good point, eliminated mention of Ireland. NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Among those who have been excommunicated or incurred excommunication..." - what's the difference between being excommunicated and incurring excommunication?
        The first sentence of that same paragraph explains that a person may excommunicate themselves or be excommunicated. Incurring excommunication is when you excommunicate yourself. Would you like some more explanation added to the sentence? NancyHeise (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, please. It still seems, at least grammatically, that "incurring excommunication" would be a cover term for both cases, i.e. you have incurred excommunication regardless of whether you did it yourself or someone did it to you. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying now, yes, you're correct, and I changed wording in the text to reflect your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All for now, maybe more comments later. —Angr 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments Angr, I am not sure about your question regarding Catholics receiving communion from other churches, I'll have to do a little research to answer that one. Also, I am not sure about capitalization of sacraments. We have had a fair amount of MoS gurus go through the page and I think it was decided that they should be capped. I will do some research on that too or ask DanK to come give us some input there. We are also awaiting a decision from the MoS folks on whether to capitalize "Church" throughout the article when it referred to the RCC as opposed to being used in a generic way. Wikipedia policy was vague on that and the Mos people were hashing it out for us. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) states "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation." This seems fairly open to interpretation as to whether it includes the sacraments. My instinct would be to capitalize Church, Marriage, Eucharist, etc. when used as proper nouns just as you would capitalize Bible or God in the context of Christianity. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a while since I left school, so my understanding of English grammar may possibly be out of date. Is it not the case that proper nouns are capitalised, whereas improper nouns are not? Does it not therefore seem consistent that "Marriage", when used as a proper noun referring to name of one of the sacraments, ought to be capitalised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 23:33, June 2, 2008
    I could agree with capitalization in phrases like "the Sacrament of Marriage" and "the Sacrament of Baptism", but not every time marriage or baptism is mentioned alone. —Angr 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of WP:CIVIL. These vitriolic, sarcastic comments from both sides are not helping anyone. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 23:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic discussion moved to talk page SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent) Comment: I must confess that his debate may have passed me by. I had no problems Opposing the earlier versions. In many respects, the current version seems to skirt just barely under the WIAFA requirements, in my opinion. As I said before, I think any problems with the writing could be cleaned up. Major problems have been addressed. You might think, then, that "a little bit acceptable is still acceptable". Perhaps there's no such thing as being a little bit FA-worthy, like there's no such things as being a little bit pregnant. Well, the one fear I have stems from others' concerns that the article presents Catholicism through the worldview of Catholics. Unfortunately, you could take everything I know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church and fit it in a thimble, with room left over for three caraway seeds and the sympathy of a steely-eyed deletionist. I feel unable to Oppose and unable to Support. Will think further. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, I find the article exceptionally well referenced, informative, and it sets a good example for all other religion articles to follow. The amount of effort that has gone in to pleasing such a diverse range of editors is akin to the task of Sisyphus. Religious topics seem to bring a higher degree of scrutiny, but that also makes for better articles. Also, perfection is impossible on Wikipedia; articles change by the minute. This is an exemplary article. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose—1a. And I'm disappointed to see a resistant approach by the nominator towards critical reviewers. Please read the instructions. The "Support" immediately above does not, to me, reflect critical scrutiny, and the fact of continuous and open editing has nothing to do with our task here. Some of those one-word "Supports" don't hold much water, either; nor do the extravagent yet empty one-liners such as—

    "Awesome article, beautifully written, meets all the criteria of an excellent article and everything we want in a featured article. Let's make this happen."

    More like intra-club support, given the Latin in the user's signature.

    I looked at just one section, "Origin and mission", which—right at the top—you'd expect to have been trawled over to the point of shine; but shine it doesn't, so I really wonder whether the drive-bys are based on any more than a quick glance.

    • "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning." What is the comma doing there? — Tony1 05:21, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
    Thank you for pointing out that stray comma, it was left over from answering another FAC reviewers comment to remove a section of the sentence that described Edward Norman' credentials as a respected historian.NancyHeise (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scholars such as Edward Norman, agree that the Church was founded by Jesus and believe the historical record reveals that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from the beginning.[14] Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make such precision difficult to confirm." Um ... where's this precision that may be hard to confirm?
    This is now reworded and specified with help from other editors, thanks guys. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He dismisses a letter from Pope Clement I (c. 95) that other historians cite as evidence of a presiding cleric,...". What's your angle here? That evdence from a presiding cleric is unreliable? Unclear.
    Please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Pope Benedict XVI summarized ..." and then "He states". Which tense is it to be?
    • "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world." Run that causal logic past me again.
    • "corporal"; my dictionary suggests that "corporeal" is more appropriate in this context.

    Now, given that these issues occur in just one small part of a very large article, the best thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and come back when the article has had time to brew: several months, not several weeks, I'd say, for proper NPOV consideration. TONY (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    < Personal commentary unrelated to FAC or WIAFA removed to talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These "issues" are merely your opinions. Your opinions are certainly interesting, but they do not carry the weight of law as you seem to believe. My opinion is that it would be better to let this restarted FAC take its course, hopefully with reviewers taking a more positive stance in fixing the odd misplaced comma or two and focusing instead on whether or not this article meets the FA criteria. Not the imaginary FA criteria for articles about controversial topics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you expand on that, please? The snark is entertaining, but not precisely loaded with clarity. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comma use needs cleaning up, that's for sure. Gimmetrow 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony. you produced a few points which you have quibbles with, largely minor, however, you also appear, without good reason, to be failing to assume good faith among other editors, and in fact make unwarranted allegations against them. You also insist on making unhelpful blanket accusation of POV, without providing any specifics to discuss or be dealt with. And you repeat the desire that "someone else" (unnamed) rewrite the article, and that preferably it "go away" for a period of months (or years?) The article has been through several complete copyedits at different hands, and has also been up before the league of Copyeditors. However in an article which is large, of interest to many people, edited by many hands, and is being tweaked up to 50 times a day to respond to FAC comments and to revert vandalism, you are always going to come up with points of imperfection. With rspect to your actionable objections, which, to avoid breaking up your post, I have numbered for convenience:
    1. Comma. Already dealt with by Gimmetrow.
    2. I have (subsequent to Gimmetrow) further clarified this point.
    3. Clarified
    4. He can do both since one statement is written and therefore continuing. But these sentences have been made consistent.
    5. The logic is quite simple. Pope Benedict expresses the centrality of charity. Church social programmes logically follow.
    6. A matter of preference. Agree with Gimmetrow. Corporal means bodily. Corporeal is more old-fashioned, slightly less likely to be understood.
    (No. 6: OK TONY (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    If you have any further specific actionable points, please bring them forward. If they're important enough to prevent FA status, they should be easy to identify. Xandar (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RESPONSE: No, you're totally misconstruing the function of my examples: they're random examples of why the whole text falls below our requirement of "professional"-standard prose. Characterising them as "quibbles", "largely minor", and "merely [my] opinions" is an old trick here that we just don't buy. (BTW, everything that drops from my lips is my opinion.) You'd be the first to complain if a film contained little editing glitches; professional-standard writing does not have micro-errors for the reader to trip over; here, they occur throughout the article, and I'm not copy-editing it in its entirety for you—it's your nomination, not mine.

    In this small window, some of the examples covered logic and clarity, which are by no means "minor". The logic of "He states that these duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.[9] The Church therefore administers social programs throughout the world" is still beyond me, despite your insistence. Duties that presuppose each other? Huh? And such presupposition and inseparability logically lead to the Church's administration of social programs throughout the world? What's the causal connection? Your response read in some implicit connection you came up with, but it needs to be explicit.

    And finally, the barrage of personal abuse I've received over my review is unacceptable. I've been labelled as seeming to believe that my opinions carry the weight of law; and over the page, of having a "poor manner of speaking to people", of being "very mean and disrespectful", and there's the reference to "the sniffy attitude of those like you who reject our contributions in total after months of collaboration and consensus building".

    Well, this sniffy, mean, disrespectful rewiever is moving to "Strong oppose": this article simply has too many problems. TONY (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not consider this an actionable oppose. Tony has not considered that Xandar has addressed his concerns since this posting. I am fine with Xandars changes to the text to remove any possible appearance of POV that were recently done in response to another reviewers comments. Extensive attention has been paid to the POV comments including additions of new text and rewordings. We have followed Tony's recommendations for writing an FA. We have responded to FAC comments positively as evidenced by the edit history. Tony's comments here are indicative of his offense at my efforts to help him see how his review comments offended all the other supporters of the page. Perhaps I should have politely asked him to reread the rules under WP:Civil instead of calling him disrespecful and sniffy, I apologize, I do request his apology to the many supporters of the page one of whom I know is an editor of a journal and possibly an academic, who has an email address from a prominent US university. He too performed a thorough edit of the article before posting his support - twice. I have qualifications too which I do not choose to post on my user page - its too puffy. I just thought that my obvious brilliance would be apparent without having to post my credentials. I guess I have not impressed the superior Tony. NancyHeise (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my 200 KB of concerns in the previous noms that are still un-addressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A brief summary of outstanding issues is needed for this to be an actionable oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Written in a non-neutral style, facts not selected per their importance in the field of study; poor sourcing, relies on the fact-selection and details from parochial sources, or theologians writing on history; specific objections to the Reformation section outlined two FACs ago, and to the absurd writing of the Latin American section ("some people") outlined in the last FAC. I am taking this off my watchlist now, per jbmurray's comments elsewhere on this page. A restart was patently un-necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know how to act upon this oppose, there is no mention of which source is unacceptable or how it fails to meet WP:RS or WP:Reliable source examples. Which sources does he consider parochial? The Bokenkotter book, written by a priest and university professor has been a standard text in University classrooms for decades. The other priest author, Vidmar, does not have any citations that are cited only to himself but serves as a double or triple to other authors whose books are written by non-priests, considered to be critics and/or published by university presses. Are there any factual inaccuracies? Have we omitted a notable event or criticism? Regarding non-neutral style, I have just eliminated mention of the 5000 priests who were killed in Nazi death camps because another reviewer felt this was POV. There is no mention in the article about the laws and discrimination of Catholics in the US for many decades and other similar issues explained in depth by editor Xandar here [58] in response to Karanacs comments. I think we have been very NPOV. While I complied with the request to remove mention of the 5000 priest killed by Nazis (and many more imprisoned), I don't see how reader is helped to know about the RCC when we fail to mention facts like these for (POV reasons) but I am trying to find common ground with reviewers.NancyHeise (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will respond to only one of the above arguments; most of them, other than the last couple, I have already discussed elsewhere. Indeed, I have twice made the point that I am about to make again: that the narratives of history are formed by which "facts" are left in and which taken out; that points cited to Vidmar are also backed up by alternative sources does not change the fact that the history section broadly follows Vidmar's outline, and thus we are left with a non-neutral narrative. The action required to correct this is to revise the section and the choice of "facts" as well as the implied weightage of those facts after looking closely at the structure of other articles or historical surveys of the church. Normally I would have done this myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please specify which notable facts of history have been omitted from the article otherwise I do not consider this an actionable oppose.NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been done at length in the last FAC. No action was taken. Claiming it is not actionable just because I haven't repeated them is a little absurd. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your objections are not actionable if you cannot specify them and back them up. Your claims at the last FAC that the catholic church somehow instituted slavery were not backed up by any facts despite repeated requests for you to do so. Your claims of a "consensus opinion" on this matter which did not need any facts to back it up were proven erroneous, and you withdrew from the discussion. Ample proof was given from a multitude of sources that Catholic priests and bishops were indeed the main defenders of indigenous rights. You ignored this. In spite of this you were offered a sentence reflecting your point of view in the section - as what it is - a point of view. You refused this, and walked away, wanting your opinion to be the view of the article. That is not acceptable when it is contrary to the validated facts. Xandar (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're extensively specified in the archives, and outlined above. The fact that you choose to misrepresent one of them grossly by claiming that I said "the catholic church instituted slavery" is precisely why going through the whole rigmarole again is pointless. The Latin American Church benefited from forced labor, I presented dozens of unimpeachable references stating that it did so, and that it provided local justification and theological support for it at various times, that it was considered extremely problematic. Instead, that large section of the history of the Latin American church is dismissed with a focus on largely theoretical papal bulls and a claim that the near-universal statement that the Church had this record in reliable sources is merely an "opinion", but bulls are "facts", so the second must be prioritised, and the first reduced to a statement that "some scholars disagree with these obvious facts" or the like. This displays not only basic ignorance of historiography, and what constitutes a "fact" in history, but is the sort of attitude that is endemic throughout the history section. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Relata's desire to include something about the Church supporting slavery in the article text. The facts do not support Relata's argument. I researched this subject previously and answered Relata in depth on the previous nom page but I will do it again here. The Catholic Church official position is stated in the article text via wikilinked papal bulls. There were some bad priests here and there who did not obey those pronouncements but their actions were not sanctioned by the Church. Just as we have omitted mention of them, we have NPOV omitted mention of the great number of saints who worked to free and care for the slaves. Slavery is mentioned with appropriate wikilinks to the papal bulls and to the Laws of Burgos affair - the most notable events. Your position, Relata, is that you want to single out the Catholic Church as a particular bad guy on the slavery issue. Maybe you dont know that per my sources, slavery was an institution all over the world in practically every place except Christian Europe. My Edward Norman book goes into the horrors of Muslim slavery when they ruled parts of Spain (page 67). I have a book called "Bird Woman Speaks" about Sacajawea that describes in detail the North American Indian's practice of killing another tribes adults and taking the children as slaves (she was a slave, forced against her will eventually to be the wife (sex slave) of Charboneu). Slavery was also an institution among the Indians of central and Latin America as well as Africa before the Europeans got there. My Justo Gonzalez book describes how the Catholic Church in Brazil operated independently of the rest of the Catholic Church and that some missionaries "used slave labor to generate the income necessary to support their mission , schools, and other activities." This same book later describes how Methodists, Baptists, and mainly Presbyterians moved to Brazil from the US so they could keep their slaves - Gonzalez then states that the southern branches of these Churches were sympathetic to these slave holders and provided them with material and spiritual support. (p 199-200). Earlier in the book, (p152) he describes how slaves in Cuba were required to learn "the principles of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion" as required by the code of 1842. He then goes on to tell that this was a code enacted upon the slaves by the crown in an attempt to regulate the relationship between master and slave. In defiance, the Bishop sent Franciscan monks to educate the slaves because he was concerned about the high number of suicides - the Queen ruled against the bishop and left the education of slaves in the hands of slaveholders. Everything here shows that slavery was a fact of life supported by the government and often fought by the Church. Your arguments now and previously were dismissed because they do not improve the article but insert POV when the fact is that slavery was everywhere and the only voice for a long time raised against it was the Church. The controversy that some people think the Church did not do enough to end slavery is also a referenced fact in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relata, I don't think I misrepresnted your arguments at all. On the issue of the Indians, it was clear that even the books you quoted admitted that the Church was their only defender. You then fell back on the issue of slavery. And here, one of the quotes you made was : "The State and the Church were essentially inseparable from each other in establishing the institution of African slavery in Portugal and its overseas colonies." Another was: "The Catholic Church was complicit in this system, either by justifying it in religious terms or through its own inquisitorial violence and extraction of revenues." However when we asked for verifiable facts to back up these startling assertions, you could provide none. In fact the one concrete figure you produced, Antonio Vieria, whose sermon, it was alleged, helped to create, "a general climate of agreement in favour of slavery." in fact virtually condemned slaveholders to perdition. You did produce some opinions from a number of academics which were condemnatory of the Church, but still no facts to back up these opinions. You argued that these opinions were somehow the "academic consensus", and should be the basis of the article. However it was demonstrated that numerous academics hold a contrary view - and one backed up by facts, such as papal pronouncements and priests identified or executed for assisting slave revolts. Articles on the church like the Britannica do not carry your view either. In view of this the most we could offer was to place the opinions you identified in the article as a school of opinion. You refused this, wanting your views to dominate. I am afraid we could not agree to this in violation of balance, accuracy and WP policies. Xandar (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some content still focuses on the Western perspective. "Lent is the 40–day period of purification..." This section is identified as the Latin rite calendar, but still, how is it 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday? Might it be better to just say "Lent is a period of preparation for Easter", which would cover both Eastern and Western practices? Also, "The couple desiring marriage are themselves the ministers of the sacrament" is a Western view. It would also be nice to write a conclusion for the article. Gimmetrow 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made changes to reflect your comment here - no conclusion though per following comment by Xandar. NancyHeise (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An article conclusion would be very problematic. It's a big article about an ongoing institution. It would either be very bland and say "The church goes on into an incident-filled future..." or it would become a source of arguments about POV. Is it positive, negative etc? The article is long enough, and i don't see a useful purpose being served. Xandar (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. The article is: well written; comprehensive; factually accurate (emphatically per WP:V and WP:RS); neutral (per extensive talk page slug-fests); stable; has a strong structure, lead, and consistent citations; contains many appropriate images. It is lengthy, but this is justifiable due to its 2000 year history and social importance. These are all of the criteia in WP:FACR. My only quibble is the article title, which has been hashed out again and again--apparently, I'm 'wrong' that it's actually the Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church, but what's an expert's knowledge worth? Lwnf360 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: be forewarned that there will be hundreds if not thousands of similar comments from users that the article title and first sentance are inacurate when this becomes a FA. Suggest either correcting, or putting a note at the top of the talk page saying that this has been extensivly discussed, and the current version is a comprimise. Lwnf360 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support. Yes, I agree with you on the name but per Wikipedia policy WP:NC, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Based on that policy, the article was named "Roman Catholic Church" with the redirect for "Catholic Church" coming to this page as well as offering the reader the fact that the Catholic Church officially calls itself the "Catholic Church". NancyHeise (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the History section has 4993 words "readable prose size". The article History of the Roman Catholic Church has 850 words "readable prose size," and is essentially a mammoth time-line. I have been trying to look at this article with fresh eyes. I had an epiphany, but unfortunately it was a deeply discouraging one. After the previous FAC, I mentioned to Nancy that I was almost sure the "next FAC" (i.e., this one) would pass. I was looking at the organization of the article at that time, and projecting the amount of time until the prose could be brought up to speed. I now wonder if it needs major restructuring. i wonder if the History section should be farmed out to History of the Roman Catholic Church, the time-line from History of the Roman Catholic Church farmed out to Timeline of the Roman Catholic Church, and much material from Role of Catholic Church in Civilization (that was moved out of this article because it was too long!!) moved back. It is depressing. I also wonder... shouldn't South and central America get more verbiage? And I like the suggestion of a conclusion as per Gimmetrow, too... I am also seeing the prose as being more flawed than I had earlier thought (see the demographics section) . Ling.Nut (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lingnut, some more for you to consider - Your restructuring would completely change the entire article which has been built by review and consensus for the past five months. You can't just all of a sudden decide on your own that the entire article gets tossed and a new one replaced. I too like the idea of a conclusion and I will perhaps offer one on my talk page later asking for comments and consensus to add it. NancyHeise (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment to FAC reviewers - Wackymacs and others have made some diparaging comments about "resistance" to reviewers comments by editors. I believe they are confusing editors of the RCC page (who have not voted on this FAC because we have substantially contributed to the page) and other FAC reviewers who are answering their comments. Just to clarify something here, Malleus Fatuorum and Johnbod are not editors of the RCC page but FAC reviewers who have cast support votes on this page and who have been extremely helpful to the editors in expressing our difficulties faced in answering many of the FAC reviewers comments that are outside of the FAC criteria. Please try to have more respect for your fellow FAC reviewers who are doing everything they can to help get this top page for Wikiproject Catholicism to FA. I personally appreciate their help very much and I dont think their comments have been anything but proper to the conversation. NancyHeise (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now is not the time for a major restructure of the article, causing massive instability. As per the Britannica article, details of which have been posted below, History makes up a significant, and necessary part of both treatments. Even if the material were transferred, this article would still need a smaller History section, and deciding what went in that and at what weight would be horrendous. (Witness the six months of discussion here and on the Talk pages at RCC). the current length of the History section has been determined, not by the editors so much as by the need to deal with certain subjects in sufficient detail to present necessary viewpoints, and to balance events by importance and Due Weight considerations. Indeed, the History of the Church Article COULD be rewritten in prose style, but that is a mammoth undertaking and would need more detail than we currently have in the RCC article. I ams ure someone could take the current RCC text and expand on it, but that is another (quite large) project. When that is done might be the time to start thinking whether history content in the main article could be trimmed. Xandar (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: NancyHeise left a message on my talk page concerning the restart; many thanks. On 30 May, NancyHeise responded to Ling.Nut and added other citations to text that were cited only to Vidmar. I had asked for replacement than just additions, but what was done is definitely a step in the right direction. It would be better if the text were supported on the solid sources alone. The facts that I stated concerning the book’s reliability still stand. There are potential pitfalls with this source: as I mentioned, one reason is that an erroneous statement could be supported. More importantly, another reason is the source could be used to subtly push a POV which violates criterion 1d. The latter reason was mentioned by Ling.Nut and Refero. So in summary, WIAFA concerns: 1c and 1d, Action: at least add solid sources to the text that cite only Vidmar, which may require some modification of the text. Some more comments and questions: — RelHistBuff 11:52, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below

    • The final paragraph of the "Modern era" section concerns the Church’s relationship with the Jews during World War II, a rather controversial subject, therefore it should stand on a bedrock of scholarship. Unfortunately, only a part is cited to solid scholars. The clause "because even though no Church teachings promote the killing of Jews" (cited to a NYT article) should be removed. The clause may be truthful, but I couldn't find that statement in the source.
    I eliminated the clause and left the rest of the sentence. NancyHeise (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mention of prominent members of the Jewish community and the use of their quotes is simply sourced to a book of quotations. This makes it appear that cherry-picking was done which might bring out claims of WP:OR. The sentence should be supported by a solid source or removed.
    I added Bokenkotter as a source and provided the quote to support the current text. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is a statement about "prominent Jews" (we are not told who made this statement) and the appearance of the cherry-picking of quotes. Bokenkotter’s text said that it was David G. Dalin who made the observation. He said four persons "would likely have been shocked" and he gave only quotes made by Einstein and Herzog. To correctly paraphrase Bokenkotter’s text, it should say something like "An American rabbi, David G. Dalin, states that Einstein and Herzog praised the actions of Pius...". The cite to the quotations book is not needed, otherwise it is cherry-picking quotes thus violating neutrality. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two final sentences in the paragraph (only cited to Vidmar), appear as if they were statements from an apologist; quoting a single Israeli consul making a unsupported claim may not be a direct example of a POV, but it is a POV by proxy. The previous clause quoting Dalin (cited to Bokenkotter) is sufficient. The sentence giving the number of priests killed by the Nazis is unrelated to Pius' and the Church's relations with the Jews and just appears defensive. The two sentences should be dropped as what is left in the paragraph is enough.
    While I disagree that I can't use Vidmar, especially when the preceeding sentence supports the next one, I have eliminated these last two sentences in compromise with you. NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the subject of Mary I, who were the "Catholic spiritual advisor and others" mentioned?
    Mary I was married to a Spanish Catholic who asked his chaplain to preach against the burnings, I was only able to find this fact in Vidmar and one other source but it was not a university press or a university professor so I did not use it as a back up. I eliminated the phrase "Catholic spiritual advisor" and replaced with "Spanish ambassador" as supported by the quote by Haigh.NancyHeise (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the subject of the Huguenots, ending a paragraph with the Edict of Nantes is misleading giving the impression that France became a tolerant nation. Surely, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and its rather devastating after effects should be mentioned as well?
    After looking into this extensively through all my sources and online, I dont think that it deserves mention since my scholarly sources do not go into it, probably because it was not an action of the Catholic Church but a secular ruler. If you don't mind, I would like for the text to not stray too far off topic, there are a number of tangents we could follow in all areas of history but we have to have some kind of limit for size reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Edict of Nantes was also emitted by a secular ruler. So the Revocation could also be included as well. Ending the paragraph like that would seriously misrepresent the history of the Church in France. The history of the religious decisions of secular rulers (e.g., Charles V of the HRE, Henry VIII, Mary I, and Elizabeth I of England, and Henry IV and Louis XIV of France) are tied to the history of the Church at that time. Adding a sentence on Louis XIV and the Revocation and its impact completes the story leaving France as a largely Catholic nation. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have inserted text with wikilink to Revocation of Edict of Nantes but it is in the French Revolution area listed as a reason for the anticlericalism that preceeded the French Revolution. Since the article is about the Roman Catholic Church, not France or the Huguenots, I think this is the best presentation. Readers who want to know what the Revocation did can find it through the link provided and this treatment is consistent throughout with other issues. NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said previously, I find this seriously misleading and I am concerned about 1d. The paragraph ends by mentioning the Edict of Nantes that declares tolerance in France. Then later in the article, it is mentioned that the persecution of priests developed after the Revocation of the Edict. This leaves a rather obvious lacuna in the history of the Church in France. The actual Revocation and its effects which were to either force the conversion of the Huguenots to Catholicism or to expel them appears as an attempt to hide some uncomfortable facts. A sentence on the Revocation and the effects on the Huguenots should be added at the end of the paragraph. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We have provided the relevant facts for the history of the Church, we are not writing the history of all of Europe and we dont have the space to do so. The Church did not sanction the Revocation or its effects on the Huguenots. We are trying very hard not to confuse the actions of secular rulers with the actions of the Church. I think there is room to mention what you are asking for and I have posted on the talk page for suggestions and invited one editor to come and contribute. I posted your concerns on the talk page too. For purposes of FA nomination, this article does not omit any important fact or controversy in Catholic Church history including the Revocation of Edict of Nantes. I have made changes in the text to try to resolve your concerns and I continue to try via my postings on the talk page. I do not feel that your oppose is any more actionable as there are no FAC criteria being violated. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree. I have not asked for a history of all of Europe to be written. I am asking for adherence to criterion 1d. Currently, the article mention a Catholic ruler who allowed for some toleration of a minority (Henry and the Edict) and secular attacks on Catholic clerics (after the Revocation). And yet there is no mention of the Revocation itself, i.e. the period in between, about a Catholic ruler (Louis XIV) who forced conversions to the Catholic faith and forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of a minority leaving France almost wholly Catholic. This is an integral part of the history of the Church. Despite the danger of reusing a metaphor, I submit that this is "cherry-picking" bits of history in order to portray the Church and its supporting rulers in a positive light and dropping other bits that are inconvenient using the excuse that the actions were done by a "secular ruler". Both Henry and Louis XIV were secular rulers. Mentioning only one secular ruler but not the other is not only a violation of NPOV, it is a refusal to give the complete picture, thus violating comprehensiveness. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are ample scholarly sources to back up the WWII material in the article. Since this is about the Church and the Nazis, I think reference to numbers of priests killed is relevant. I will look up further references. Xandar (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure there are sources to back it up. I was just stating that it is out-of-place in the context of Pius and the Jews. It looks like it was put there to defend the Church against charges of anti-Semitism, but in fact they are separate issues. The number would be fine in another paragraph on the Nazis interaction with the Church. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC criteria 1(c) requires the text to be "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"
    To meet this criteria, we used an equal balance of both apologist and critic sources in the text. Our main sources are from Edward Norman and Eamon Duffy who are introduced in the article in the Origins and Mission section in a way that helps the reader to understand that there are different scholarly viewpoints on Catholic Church history. Duffy and other authors who take the critical viewpoint are more than equally represented in the text than those like Norman who represent the apologist viewpoint. Sensitive areas of the article like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, and Sexual Abuse were created using both critic and apologist sources and quotations from all of these sources were included to reader could see all the various viewpoints for themselves. The book RelHistBuf does not like, The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages by John Vidmar(2005) Paulist Press, is one of our apologist sources. It meets WP:RS criteria and qualifies as a top source per WP:Reliable source examples. Elimination of this book would leave a huge imbalance in the article balance of both points of view. Further, every Vidmar citation in the article text except for one point no one cares about is a double to another reference that no one has a problem with, in most cases the other ref has a quote included so you can see that the sentence is not "built" around Vidmar. Although wikipedia policies allow me to have some citations in the article text referenced only to Vidmar, I have conceeded to FAC reviewers comments and doubled all of his references. Vidmar's book was peer reviewed by critical historian Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review which has been published since 1915, there is another peer review by a professor of Theology (theology departments teach Church history) at Graduate Theological Union, Berkley, and another on Googlebooks. None of these reveiws state that the book has any factual errors or radical POV and all of them recommend the book at the end of the review. Thus, there is no Wikipedia policy violated in using Vidmar and I have gone beyond the mere policies to satisfy RelHistBuf but I think it would violate policy completely to remove use of this book. In addition, there is neither any FAC criteria violated unless I do remove him. I will be answering all of RelHistBuf's other comments shortly just underneath his bulletpoints and I very much appreciate the fine way he has framed his comments and review here. I think his is a perfect example of polite opposition and organized review. Thanks RelHistBuf. NancyHeise (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but, yes, I remain in the opposition. I, like many of our other colleagues here on Wiki, would really like to see this article reach FA, but do not feel that it has quite satisfied WIAFA. Concerning your points, I have to question your definition of the split of apologist and critical sources. I get the impression that you are setting your own "goalpost" of what is acceptable or not. I have pointed out the reasons why the source is not reliable (the author's background, the publisher, the mistakes, the review) and they have not been refuted. Your criterion that a review has to state that it has factual errors or a radical POV in order to be rejected is an arbitrary one. The review speaks for itself: Bokenkotter disagrees with several points in the book and he calls the style "breezy". If there are no other scholarly reviews of the book, then that in itself is equally damning as the book is not even considered decent enough to show up on the journal review radar. However, as long there are other cites along with Vidmar, then 1c appears to be satisfied. I will start looking more in detail concerning WIAFA criterion 1d. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have answered all of RelHistBuf's concerns point by point making concessions to his desires except to remove use of Vidmar which I am not required to do per any Wikipedia policy as he meets specified requirements of WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you again for leaving a note on my talk page. I am sorry, but not all of my points were addressed. Concerning the sources, I repeat, the artificial division of "apologist" and "critical" sources is an imaginary creation and simply moves a "goalpost" so as to justify the use of a very poor quality source which I have shown is not reliable (1c violation). I also opposed due to 1d. I have found neutrality problems as mentioned above. But these are just examples; I am afraid that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. Other reviewers (e.g., Awadewit and jbmurray) have already noted other POV problems, thus confirming my suspicions. The oppose is clearly actionable as I have given the criterion violated, the reasons why (none of which have been refuted), and the suggested possible solutions. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rel HisBuff The specific concerns that you raised have been addressed. On Vidmar, you may disagree with the use of his book, but it breaks no FA rules, and his his use is backed with citations from other scholars. editors have net over backward to deal with your "neutrality concerns", but now you say these were "just examples", yet refuse to state WHICH other passages you have concerns about. If you cannot specify precisely what you are continuing to claim are POV concerns, then your oppose cannot be actionable. Editors cannot mind-read your concerns, and refusing to specify them or to engage in the process, makes them impossible to address. Therefore unless you do specify your precise concerns in an addressable manner, your continued oppose must be seen as non-actionable. 92.40.196.30 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One neutrality concern (1d), I "specified precisely", the Edict being included and the Revocation of the Edict being excluded, has not been addressed. I disagree with your claim that I refused to specify them. There is no need to "mind-read"; I repeat again, all my statements are actionable as I stated the criteria violated and suggested potential solutions. On the issue of Pius and the Jews, I suggested a formulation using a paraphrase of Bokenkotter without sourcing to a book of quotations which appears as cherry-picking (1d). Note also that on the article talk page, Qp10qp suggested a formulation to correct an error on the statement that Pope Clement VIII supported King Henry IV's edict when in fact Clement was dismayed by it (in my opinion, another 1d concern). Concerning Vidmar, your doubling of cites is a step in the right direction and partially solves 1c. But this point is not a matter of personal disagreement as you claim; the source is poor quality and biased. I gave the reasons why it is a poor source in detail (credentials with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology, works at a small Catholic college that does not do Ph.D level research, he is a member of the Paulists and published by the Paulists hence it is effectively self-published by a missionary organisation, gives a Catholic POV, errors in the book, one weak review with certain criticisms found in a Catholic journal). It is the use of that source that may contribute to the NPOV problems (1d). --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RelHistBuff's oppose is unreasonable for these reasons:
    • Edict of Nantes is completely covered the third paragraph of Late Medieval and Renaissance where the sentence states that it was supported by Pope Clement III - a fact. Editor Qp10qp wanted to add text that said the Pope was dismayed by it but the Duffy quote says that he agreed with it after a "long hesitation" - it is very POV to assume that he was dismayed - perhaps he was putting the matter to prayer and after coming to know God's will in the matter, supported it. It is not unusual for a Catholic person to not know exactly the correct thing to do at the momment but to wait on a decision after putting the matter up to God in prayer. It is offensive to Catholics and very POV to then assume that a pope's hesitation over a big decision constitutes "dismay". Duffy is our most respected source in the article and his quote does not support use of the word "dismay".
    The "perhaps" says it all. Qp10qp provided a source that supported the use of "dismay". Duffy does not say that the pope "supported" the Edict. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revocation of Edict of Nantes is covered in first paragraph of Enlightenment section. This is the actual sentence " In 1685 King Louis XIV of France issued the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, ending a century-long experiment in religious toleration. However, the religious conflicts of the Reformation era had provoked a backlash against Christianity. " Three editors have agreed to this placement as we have gone through the article making prose corrections. It was placed there by myself and edited by Ceoil and Xandar. It exists in its most logical place in the article text at a point that is discussing the buildup to the French Revolution. The Revocation was part of that buildup. RelHistBuf's opposition to the article because of no mention of Revocation of Edict of Nantes is made in error.
    The change was made by Xandar yesterday (see [59]), I assume to address my comment, but no mention was made of it here until now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RelHistBuf wanted me to eliminate a source contributed by another editor that is a book of quotes stating that it appears as if we were cherry picking those quotes. I supplemented the source with Bokenkotter who named those same quoted people and more and I added the actual quote from Bokenkotter in the reference to prove there was no cherry picking as he has improperly alleged. I do not see how the article should be denied FA because we have two sources instead of one supporting a controversial section. We want more not less sources in areas like that.
    • RelHistBuf opposes because he wants me to eliminate use of the book "The Catholic Church Through the Ages" by John Vidmar whose book is peer reviewed by Thomas Bokenkotter in the academic journal Catholic Historical Review. Bokenkotter calls the book "breezy" and points out some contentious statements made by Vidmar on issues not even covered by our article text. He never states the book is incorrect or radical and ends the review by recommending it to the reader. All cites to the Vidmar book serve as doubles to another reference and his book provides a valuable asset to the page by giving reader the perspective of a Catholic apologist in sensitive areas like Inquisitions, Crusades, Reformation, etc. where we included refs and quotes from a variety of authors from various perspectives. RelHistBuf's request to eliminate Vidmar is unreasonable and is not based on any Wikipedia policy and would make the article less informative and eliminate one of the sources used to satisfy FAC criteria 1c " accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge".
    • For these reasons, I do not consider RelHistBuf's an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No wonder people just give up commenting. A poor quality source is continually defended by wikilawyering. Wikipedia has no chance of improving with this kind of attitude. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Edict of Nantes, I think Qp10p's references established that the Pope publicly supported the Edict, but privately was "dismayed" - or something very similar. The current text is not in "error", as Carlaude dogmatically puts it, but would be improved by the insertion of, for example, "reluctantly" at the relevant point. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But does Duffy support the assertion that the pope "supported" the Edict? --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to fail FA over the use of one word, I do not have a problem with its insertion but I do not see how "a long hesitation" translates absolutely into "dismayed" or "relucatantly" when we are not in a position to know why he hesitated. It seems to be more POV and incorrect to make that assumption rather than to just leave the text as is - a plain factual statement minus any speculation over why he took his time. NancyHeise (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added "hesitantly accepted" and removed "supported" from the Edict of Nantes sentence. The new words directly reflect Duffy's message in his quote that I provided on the talk page discussion over this issue. NancyHeise (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - someone asked me to compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica entry (Roman Catholicism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition). The EB entry is at "Roman Catholicism", is 121 pages long, and has the following structure:
    Structure of Encyclopedia Britannica article on Roman Catholicism
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Introduction
    • History of Roman Catholicism
      • The emergence of Catholic Christianity
        • The emergence of Roman Catholicism
          • Internal factors
          • External factors
          • The early medieval papacy
      • The church of the early Middle Ages
        • The concept of Christendom
        • A period of decadence
        • Popular Christianity 1000
      • The church of the High Middle Ages
        • Gregorian Reform
        • The reign of Gregory VII
        • The Investiture Controversy: Gregory VII to Calixtus II
        • The Crusades
        • The papacy at its height: the 12th and 13th centuries
        • The renaissance of the 12th century
        • The apostolic life
        • Religious orders: canons and monks
        • The mendicant orders
        • The rise of heresy
        • Religious life in the 13th century
        • The golden age of Scholasticism
        • The persecuting society
      • From the late Middle Ages to the Reformation
        • The “Babylonian Captivity”
        • Late medieval reform: the Great Schism and conciliarism
        • Jan Hus
        • Efforts to heal the East-West Schism
        • Roman Catholicism on the eve of the Reformation
        • The decline of Scholastic theology
        • Expressions of spirituality and folk piety
        • Roman Catholicism and Renaissance humanism
        • Roman Catholicism and the emergence of national consciousness
    • The age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation
      • Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation
        • The Roman Catholic Reformation
          • The Council of Trent
          • New religious orders
      • The Counter-Reformation
      • Post-Reformation conditions
      • Developments in France
        • The Gallican problem
        • Jansenism
        • Quietism
      • Controversies involving the Jesuits
        • The Chinese rites controversy
        • Suppression of the Jesuits
      • Religious life in the 17th and 18th centuries
    • The church in the modern period
      • Catholicism in Revolutionary France
      • Napoleon I and the restoration
      • Pius IX
      • Leo XIII
      • The period of the World Wars
      • The Second Vatican Council
      • Aftermath of the council
    • Roman Catholicism outside Europe
      • The New World: Spanish and Portuguese empires
        • Colonial period
        • After independence
        • Spanish and French missions in North America
      • Roman Catholicism in the United States and Canada
        • United States
        • Canada
      • Roman Catholicism in Africa and Asia
        • Missions in Africa
        • Missions in Asia
    • Structure of the church
      • Doctrinal basis
        • The nature of the church
        • Apostolic succession
      • The papacy
        • The papal office
        • Ancient and medieval views of papal authority
        • Early-modern and modern views of papal authority
        • Historical conceptions of the relationship of the papacy to the world
        • Contemporary teaching on papal authority
      • The offices of the clergy
        • The Roman Curia and the College of Cardinals
        • The college of bishops
        • Ecumenical councils
        • The priesthood
      • Religious communities
        • Hermits and monks
        • Mendicant friars and clerks regular
        • Nuns and brothers
      • The laity
      • Canon law
    • Beliefs and practices
      • Faith
        • Concepts of faith
        • Preambles and motivation of faith
        • Heresy
      • Revelation
        • The concept of revelation
        • The content of revelation
      • Tradition and Scripture
        • The magisterium
        • The concept of teaching authority
        • Organs of teaching authority
        • Object and response
      • Major dogmas and doctrines
      • Sacraments
        • General characteristics
        • Baptism
        • Confirmation
        • The Eucharist
        • Reconciliation
        • Anointing of the sick
        • Marriage
        • Holy orders
      • Liturgy
        • The mass
        • The divine office
        • The liturgical year
      • Paraliturgical devotions
        • Eucharistic devotions
        • Cult of the saints
        • Mysticism
      • The order of the mass
        • The introductory rites
        • The liturgy of the Word
        • The liturgy of the Eucharist
        • The communion rite
        • The concluding rite
      • The role of the church in society
        • Missions
        • Education
        • Charitable activities
        • Church and state relations
        • Economic views and practice
        • The family
    • The church since Vatican II
    • Additional Reading
      • General Works
        • History
        • Belief and practice
      • The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages
      • Reformation and Counter-Reformation
      • Roman Catholicism in modern times
      • The papacy

    References are lengthy:

    References used for the EB article on Roman Catholicism
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • History:
      • Large-scale works are Hubert Jedin and John Patrick Dolan (eds.), History of the Church, 10 vol. (1986–89). John McManners (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (1990, reissued 2001), is useful. Roland H. Bainton, The Horizon History of Christianity (1964, reissued as Christianity, 2000), is a well-written, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive introduction to Western Christianity through the centuries and includes references to modern Catholicism worldwide.
    • Belief and practice:
      • Reference works include Robert C. Broderick (ed.), The Catholic Encyclopedia, rev. and updated ed. (1987); Thomas Carson and Joann Cerrito (eds.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vol. (2003), which treats all phases of Roman Catholicism; Karl Rahner et al. (eds.), Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 vol. (1968–70), which deals with Catholic doctrine and theological thought; and F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1997), with informative articles on Roman Catholic subjects and helpful bibliographies.
      • An excellent brief compendium of doctrine is A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults, trans. by Kevin Smyth (1967, reissued 1982; originally published in Dutch, 1966). Also valuable is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later elected as Pope Benedict XVI) and Christopher Schönborn (one of the contributors to the church's new catechism), Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). Roman Catholic theology of the church is discussed by Hans Küng, The Church (1967, reissued 1976; originally published in German, 1967); and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, trans. by Adrian Walker (1996; originally published in German, 1991).
      • The contemporary Roman Catholic Church is surveyed by John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church (1969, reissued 1971). A balanced and comprehensive introduction is Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, completely rev. and updated (1994). See also Barrie Ruth Straus, The Catholic Church (1987, reissued 1992). Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vol. (1971–91), opens with the apostolic Fathers and closes with the Second Vatican Council. Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vol. (2003), is a comprehensive collection of statements of faith and includes a volume of commentary on the creeds. Rosemary Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin (eds.), Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (1979, reissued 1998), is a step toward redressing the imbalance in most scholarship. An important starting point for developments in Roman Catholic theology after the Second Vatican Council is Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, trans. by Edward Quinn (1976, reissued 1984; originally published in German, 1974). On developments in Roman Catholic feminist theology, see Mary Jo Weaver, New Catholic Women: A Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Religious Authority (1985, reissued 1995).
    • The Latin church from antiquity to the late Middle Ages
      • Perceptive introductions to the medieval church are Bernard Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West (1986); and R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (1970, reprinted 1990). A useful survey of the history of the early church is Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, AD 200–1000, 2nd ed. (2003). Important studies of the church in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages are Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (1983); R.A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (1998); Richard E. Sullivan, Christian Missionary Activity in the Early Middle Ages (1994); and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Frankish Church (1983). Étienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955, reissued 1980), is a masterly summary with a full bibliography. Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. (2000), looks at the theology of the late Middle Ages in its entirety, with special emphasis on nominalism. C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism: Forms of Religious Life in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (2001); and C.H. Lawrence, The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Society (1994), are accessible surveys of the medieval religious orders. The profound changes in spirituality and church organization that occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries are studied in Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (1988, reissued 1991); Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform (1998); Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (2002); Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (1993); and Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (1982).
      • Henry Charles Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages: Its Organization and Operation (1954, reissued 1993), remains the essential, but sectarian, introduction to the topic. Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (1981); and Edward Peters, Inquisition (1988), offer a more balanced view; and Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, 2nd ed. (1997, reissued 2000), is the best introduction to the institution in Spain. The history of medieval heresy is best examined in Malcom Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 3rd ed. (2002); and R.I. Moore, The Origins of European Dissent (1977, reissued 1994).
      • A useful introduction to the Crusades is Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades (1999). Francis Oakley, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (1979, reissued 1985); and Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (1980), cover the late Middle Ages with sound judgment. W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (1955, reissued 1980), is a good introduction to late medieval English developments; and Lawrence G. Duggan, Bishop and Chapter: The Governance of the Bishopric of Speyer to 1552 (1978), an important study of the institutional church in Germany.
    • Reformation and Counter-Reformation:
      • The period is surveyed thoroughly in two reference works: Thomas A. Brady, Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy (eds.), Handbook of European History, 1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vol. (1994–96); and Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vol. (1996). An important introduction is G.R. Elton (ed.), The Reformation, 1520–1559, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (1990) of The New Cambridge Modern History, 14 vol. (1957–77, reissued 1975–99). Other useful introductions to the period are John Bossy, Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (1985); Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (1991); Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (1986, reissued 1992); and Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation, 1517–1559 (1985).
      • Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation (1964), is an investigation of Luther's thought; and Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (1950, reissued 1995), remains the best introduction to Luther's life. Developments in England are considered in Eamon duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580 (1992). George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. (2000), is a synoptic presentation of the “left wing” of the Reformation. Reform in the Roman Catholic Church is treated best in Robert Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700 (1999); Michael A. Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (1999); and R. Po-chia Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal 1540–1770 (1998).
    • Roman Catholicism in modern times:
      • An extensive and valuable study is Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age: A History of Christianity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 5 vol. (1958–62, reissued 1973); vol. 1, 3, and 5 concentrate on Roman Catholic themes. E.E.Y. Hales, The Catholic Church in the Modern World: A Survey from the French Revolution to the Present, new rev. ed. (1960), concentrates on Europe and America. Two works that make aspects of the American Catholic experience readily available to readers are John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, 2nd ed. rev. (1969); and Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present (1985, reissued 2001), an essential study. Stephen Neill, Colonialism and Christian Missions (1966), and A History of Christian Missions, 2nd ed. rev. by Owen Chadwick (1986, reissued 1990), provide brief and generally fair comments on Catholic ventures. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, trans. and ed. by Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, rev. ed. (2001; originally published in Spanish, 1972), is a provocative introduction to Roman Catholicism in the developing world. Another essential study is Anthony Gill, Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State in Latin America (1998). Adrian Hastings, The Church in Africa, 1450–1950 (1994), is a valuable introduction.
      • Lester R. Kurtz, The Politics of Heresy: The Modernist Crisis in Roman Catholicism (1986), provides an introduction to the debate over Modernism. Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, new rev. ed. (1996), is a useful collection of documents from the council; and Adrian Hastings (ed.), Modern Catholicism: Vatican II and After (1991), is a valuable consideration of the postconciliar Roman Catholic Church.
    • The papacy:
      • Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. (2002), is a comprehensive and lively study of the papacy. An excellent brief introduction to papal history up to the Reformation is Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy (1968, reissued 1979). Essential studies for the development of medieval papal claims are W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3rd ed. (1970); and Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (1972, reissued 1988). Other valuable studies of the medieval papacy are Peter Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages (1971, reissued 1996); Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (1989); Guillaume Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378 , trans. by Janet Love (1963; originally published in French, 9th ed. 1949); and Francis Oakley, Council over Pope? Towards a Provisional Ecclesiology (1969).
      • Good studies of the papacy from the Renaissance to modern times include John A.F. Thomson, Popes and Princes, 1417–1517: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (1980); A.D. Wright, The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent to the French Revolution, 1564–1789 (2000); Owen Chadwick, The Popes and European Revolution (1981); and Frank J. Coppa, The Modern Papacy Since 1789 (1998). Edward Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council, 1869–1870: Based on Bishop Ullathorne's Letters, ed. by Christopher Butler (1930, reissued 1962), is a history of the First Vatican Council. Walter M. Abbott (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II (1966, reissued 1989), is an introduction to the achievement of the Second Vatican Council. Garry Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (2000), is a controversial and highly critical commentary on the modern papacy.
      • Works on the papacy from theological perspectives include Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy (eds.), Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (1974), an ecumenical dialogue; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Church in the New Testament (1965, reissued 1974; originally published in German, 1961), which presents the results of 20th-century Roman Catholic biblical scholarship. Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann (eds.), Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (1973, reissued 2002), considers the biblical problems in the Petrine question. Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, The Episcopate and the Primacy, trans. by Kenneth Barker (1962; originally published in German, 1961), is an analysis of the pope-bishop relationship; and Hans Küng, Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry, new expanded ed. (1994; originally published in German, 1970), and Structures of the Church, trans. by Salvator Attanasio (1964, reissued 1982; originally published in German, 1962), are basic to an understanding of contemporary “liberal” Roman Catholic thinking on the papacy. Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, trans. by Edwin A. Quain (1966, reprinted 1979; originally published in French, 1964); and John Meyendorff et al., The Primacy of Peter, 2nd ed. (1973, reissued 1992; originally published in French, 1960), are useful studies of Eastern Orthodox views on papal primacy.

    Hope that's useful. If someone wants a copy of the article, drop me an email. Neıl 龱 13:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Interesting. But you must remember the EB article is far larger than ours, and has the advantage in terms that you can flip to whichever section you want by turning the page, rather than reading through long stretches of text as you tend to on a one-page article. That's why History, being the longest section, but not necessarily the one people will want to read first, has been placed where it is. Xandar (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I have not read this article since its last FAC and I hoped to be able to support it this time around. In the meantime, actually, I read several books on church history to be able to better comment on the article. However, I find that I am not able to support the article, most unfortunately. I know that a lot of work has gone into it, but I feel that the article fails 1b, 1c, and 1d. — Awadewit 15:00, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below

    • The "History" section has a slight Catholic POV. I know that the editors have worked very hard to avoid this, so I am sure this is unintentional. However, the way some of the sentences are constructed and perhaps even the choice of sources have resulted in a Catholic POV. For example, the editors have made a good effort to begin several sentences "the Catholic Church believes...", however it is not clear where this distinction stops in a paragraph - what is believed only by the Catholic Church and what is not? The waters become muddied. Also, the omission of particular details creates a feeling that the section is a Catholic view of history. Let me give some examples of what I mean:
    • In the 16th century, partly in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation. - A reflection of this problem occurs in the lead, actually. Considering that the Counter-Reformation also includes events such as the Spanish Inquisition, I feel that this sentence is a bit of a whitewash.
    • No. Spanish Inquisition began a good 60 years before the counter-reformation, and was no part of that process. It is dealt with in the High Middle Ages section Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the Spanish Inquisition page itself delineates, part of it had to do with with Counter-Reformation, since it lasted for hundreds of years. Anyway, this individual example is not really the point. The more important point is that the Counter-Reformation itself is misrepresented in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Spanish Inquisition was created by a secular King and was an arm of a secular government. If we have omitted the Spanish Inquisition from the text, I would consider your comment but the fact is that we have quite a lot of text on the inquisitions with many refs with quotes from many different sources to support the text. While we have certainly not covered every detail of history in our short summary of the 2000 year history of the Church, I know we have not omitted any main facts. I think that your insistence on requiring more commentary will not help the aritcle's summary style. The text provides a vast number of wikilinks including Spanish Inquisition and Counter Reformation that will help reader to discover all the missing facts we had to exclude for size considerations. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reread my objection. I only used the Spanish Inquisition as an example. My main objection is to the misrepresentation of the Counter-Reformation in the lead. It is represented as an innocuous "reform" - it was not. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many important reforms came out of the Counter reformation that are discussed in the article text. These are referenced to scholary sources. It appears to me that the scholars would disagree with you that this was "innocuos". NancyHeise (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that many important reforms came out of the Counter-reformation, but so did some unpleasant events. That the lead only represents the positives is what makes the statement POV. It is uncontroversial statement that the Counter-Reformation produced some positives and negatives and that will appear in all of your sources. There is no reliable source that says the entire Counter-Reformation was all roses. There is no need to debate this. The sentence needs to be fixed. I have now explained this several times and I see no reason to explain it yet again. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IF the Spanish Inquisition were a doing of the Catholic Church and not a secular ruler we might be able to include this fact. The pope protested to the King about its abuses, this was not sanctioned by the Church and you need to provide some sources to back up your statements since we have ours already referenced in the text. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You allege that the article "misrepresents" the Counter-reformation, and that the CR was not innocuous. Yet apart from the misplaced mention of the Spanish Inquisition, you have come up with no evidence for this. As already stated the Spanish Inquisition was not a part of the counter-reformation process. It existed in Spanish territory, but was already past its peak by the time the counter-reformation got going. You will find that most church histories consider the counter-reformation to have been based on a reform of church practice, a renewal of liturgy, stronger action against abuses, and the formation of new better-educated preaching orders. Yes, there were wars and other events in this period, but they have largely been mentioned under the reformation section. Xandar (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the objection. You are not responding to it at all. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Catholic Church considers Pentecost to be its moment of origin because this was the day when the apostles first emerged from hiding to publicly preach the message of Jesus after his death - This is mixing theology with history. This belief was already stated in the "Origins" section, anyway, and this theological belief, which is not endorsed by historians, does not need to be included in a "History" section.
    Another FAC reviewer endorsed the current text as an important lead and suggested that it was a necessary duplication. I am in agreement with that presentation. Reader needs to know what the Church considers to be its own historical beginning and Wikipedia policy requires us to present all significant viewpoints in the article text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the reader needs to know the Catholic Church's version of its history - I have already suggested a way that could be done. However, the reader also needs to know that historians do not necessarily endorse all of the parts of the Church's official history. Right now, the mix of official Church history and scholarly history is confusing - including a theological belief such as Pentecost in the "History" section is particularly confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia policy requires us to present all viewpoints. The history section is not exempt from this requirement. The Catholic viewpoint is a significant point of view that needs to be included in order to satisfy written policy. I would be in violation of this rule if I were to submit to your request. NancyHeise (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you would not. I am asking that the Catholic POV be distinguished from other points of view so that readers are not confused. I am not asking you to eliminate the Catholic POV at all. I have already suggested one way in which to do this: create a section explaining the Church's own history of itself. The article already has the start of such a section: "Origins and mission". Expanding this a bit and removing the theology from the "History" section would be a perfectly satisfactory resolution to this problem. I feel no need to repeat myself on this point any further. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence itself tells the reader that it is the Catholic POV, there isnt any more qualification required. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have now specifically reinforced the elements that are based on Church Tradition and/or scripture in the Roman Empire Section. That is quite sufficient for any reader to have no serious chance of possible confusion. For reasons of coherence this information needs to be there, at least in overview form at the beginning of the Church History section, and secular historians did not start keeping records about the Church until much later. In addition Pentecost, as used here is a day when a particular important event is said to have occurred. It is not being used here, or defined in a theological manner. If the day this happened had beeen Caesar's birthday it would have been just the same.Xandar (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Pentecost is a church holiday which cannot be demonstrated in historical records (it is a mystical event), this is an excellent example of the article's slight Catholic POV. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the first century onward, the Church of Rome was respected as a doctrinal authority because the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there - This is a Catholic view of history. The book Lost Christianities by the religious scholar Bart Ehrman, for example, explains that Rome was not the center of orthodoxy until the fourth century and that the orthodox actually developed this story about Rome being the center, emphasizing the role of Peter, in retrospect to solidify their authority. In fact, he even goes into detail regarding the academic reliability of various explanations of the emergence of orthodox Christianity, carefully explaining what academics support and what they do not. It is a very useful and accessible book.
    • Ehrman's view is just that - a view - and a rather extreme one. I'm sure you will find a satisfactory discussion of opposing views in the Origins and Mission section at the head of the article. This sentence in History, could be tweaked, however. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ehrman's view is not an extreme view. One reason I took so long to comment on this FAC was because I was reading books so that I could be fully informed. If you would like a full bibliography backing up this position, I can certainly provide you with one. I simply offered what I thought was the most accessible book on the subject. Moreover, just because the article explains the various views in one place does not mean it is off the hook in others. This suggests some reorganization needs to take place - if one section is NPOV and one place is POV to avoid repetition, perhaps some revision can be done, as you suggest.Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text specifically does not say that the Church of Rome was the center of authority but that it was respected as a doctrinal authority because... and it is refd to three scholars, two falling into the critic categories and the refs have the actual quotes to support the text. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is exactly is that Rome was not the center of doctrinal authority. I also see that two of these references are to some of the sources that are in dispute. If you want, I can provide you with even more sources documenting the position I have outlined here. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources are in dispute. All meet top standards for Wikipedia policy and that has already been proven. If I have a third source as well, why even bring this up, it is a referenced fact. The text does not say that the Church was the doctrinal authority, it says it was respected as one. The refs even have quotes. NancyHeise (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For added measure, I referenced these sentences to Bokenkotter's book and provide the quote. Bokenkotter's book is a standard fare used in University classrooms for decades. Apparently representative of a majority view. One of the other books is the National Geographic Society compiled work of over 10 University professors, "Geography of Religion", also representative of a majority view and the other reference is to Vidmar, representative of the Catholic view. I have enough scholarly works and opinions to prove that the text is factual. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the sources are in dispute by other editors - I've read the FAC. I am going out of town tomorrow, but when I return I will place a bibliography, quotations, etc. on the article's talk page to demonstrate just how mainstream this view is. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been resolved. No person on this FAC, even though they have tried, has been able to prove that any of my sources violate WP:RS or not representative of the top sources described in WP:Reliable source examples. Please provide any bad reviews of my sources before you make such a false accusation please. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, the article doesn't say that early Rome was THE doctrinal authority, but A doctrinal authority. I would say that this is beyond dispute. Apart from the attested Roman origin of the letters of Paul and possibly Peter, there was unchallenged belief in the time (ref: Irenaeus and others) that they had led the Church from there, and left their seal of doctrinal purity there. There is the letter of (Pope) Clement of 85 AD, already referred to in the text in which he sorts out problems in the Corinthian church, and early and most renowned Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr were based in Rome. Mainstream histories such as Collins and Duffy all acknowledge the position of Rome. Any claim that there was no centrality at Rome before the 4th century is well beyond the mainstream, and seems to edge into Dan Brown territory. Xandar (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't accuse me of relying on fictional sources when I have already provided you with a reliable source. Moreover, the overall tone of the paragraph is that Rome is where doctrinal authority emerged - quickly and because of Peter. The paragraph does not explain the sects and were stamped out. The problem here is also the tone and what is left out - the omissions. This is another good example of the slightly Catholic POV of the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, the Roman Church retained the practice of meeting in ecumenical councils to ensure that any doctrinal differences were quickly resolved - This is a Catholic view of history - see again Lost Christianities which delineates the debates between these competing forms. It explains how some forms of Christianity were labeled "heresies", such as Gnosticism, and deliberately stamped out by an eventual victor, what we label the "proto-orthodox". This now seems inevitable, but it was not at the time. None of this would be considered "resolving doctrinal differences" - it was basically sect against sect.
    • I have clarified this point in the article. It wasn't meant to indicate councils were held with Gnostics etc. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to misunderstand my point. I am pointing out that there was no established church in the way the article now suggests. It now says "within the Church itself", but histories of Christianity argue that there was no centralized, established church before the fourth or fifth century, so such a statement cannot be made. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a very radical POV comment. All of my sources, including the ones considered critics do not hold the view offered by Awadewit here. There was a Roman Church, with a pope, beginning with either ST. Peter, according to Norman or someone earlier than Anicetus in the year 150 per Duffy. Oxford History of Christianity states:"Towards the latter part of the first century, Rome's presiding cleric named Clement wrote on behalf of his church to remonstrate with the Corinthian Christians ... Clement apologized not for intervening but for not having acted sooner. Moreover, during the second century the Roman community's leadership was evident in its generous alms to poorer churches. About 165 they erected monuments to their martyred apostles ... Roman bishops were already conscious of being custodians of the authentic tradition or true interpretation of the apostolic writings. In the conflict with Gnosticism Rome played a decisive role, and likewise in the deep division in Asia Minor created by the claims of the Montanist prophets to be the organs of the Holy Spirit's direct utterances." page 36. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wasn't it more that there was a (pretty loosely) centralized, established church in this period, but it contained a wider range of doctrinal views, and every so often one group or another split off? I do agree with Awa that the Pentecost bit, and maybe the whoole first two paras, may be better in "Origins", starting the history at a period when there is more material for historians to work with. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no scholarly source justification to remove the early history of the Catholic Church from the history section and present it as if it were a POV separate from the main body of historians whose books support the article text. Why do we have to comment on the whole of Christianity in the Roman Catholic Church article? We have right now, the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the history section, just because it overlaps with other Christian sects (which are mentioned) does not mean we have to eliminate that section of history from its logical position in the article. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nancy, I gave you a scholarly source for this view - Ehrman. He explains how orthodoxy did not really coalesce until the fourth century. If you want, I can give you many more sources explaining this view. This is actually a very widely held view among religious studies scholars. I realize that it is not a widely held view among Catholic theologians or Catholic historians, however. I suggested one solution to this problem - a short section on the Catholic Church's view of its history, but Johnbod's solution is another good one. That would not solve the POV problems in the rest of the "History" section, but it would be a good start. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If orthodoxy did not coalesce until the fourth century does that mean that we remove the early history of the Church? The early history of the Church does not cease to exist just because the Church evolved over time and this fact is apparent in all of my sources. Ehrman is not suggesting that the Church did not exist prior to the 4th century and we have Duffy telling us that there were popes at least as far back as the year 150, National Geographic Society puts it at St. Peter. Peter was writing his letters from the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, as this article is named, has a history before the 4th century and we would be factually incorrect to exclude that from our article. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a straw man, actually. I'm very dubious that most "Catholic theologians or Catholic historians" would take general issue with a view that "orthodoxy did not really coalesce until the fourth century" - or maybe they would like it a lttle earlier. There's no doubt many big issues were still open for widely ranging views. This is what the quote from the article immediately below is talkling about, surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a lot of confusion is creeping in here. Of course there was no "established church" before the 4th century. Christianity was not legalised, and was often under bitter persecution. These are not conditions in which an established church develops. However the sources are quite clear that there was a Christian Church at this time that was organised, considered itself one spiritual body, was organised under bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and insisted on doctrinal orthodoxy in line with the scriptural writings and apostolic tradition. The fact that things like the Nicene Creed were not formall adopted until later does not mean that the Church was not secure in its teaching before this point. This church even called itself the Catholic Church. The article says that there were competing brands of Christianity at this time, and I can't really see any justification for adding much more. Yes there were gnostics, marcionites, and all sorts of other groups, but they were outside the official catholic church, and the church shunned interaction with them. Most of its writings at the time were to preserve orthodoxy from attacks by these groups. So the idea that there was amish-mash of widely differing beliefs within the Church, is a false one, even though it has been popularised by the likes of Dan brown. heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism could rise out of the Church, when individuals were influenced by outside groups, but actuion was always taken against them. The Arian controversy is already mentioned with respect to the Nicene creed. perhaps a sentence could be added to that, but I don't think much more is needed on these topics. Xandar (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awadewit says she is going to provide us with quotes from actual historians who agree with her statements but I think she is going to be left dry on that. We can't change the text to suit her desires when it goes against the top WP:Reliable source examples we have referencing the content right now. NancyHeise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. This is from Christianity Through the Centuries. by Earle E Cairns. 1996..
    p112. During the period between 100 and 313, the church was forced to give consideration to how it could best meet the external persecution from the Roman state and the internal problem of heretical teaching and consequent schism. It sought to close its ranks by the development of a canon of the New Testament, which gave it an authoritative Book for faith and practice; by the creation of a creed, which gace it an authoritative statement of belief; and by obedience to the monarchical bishops, among whom the Roman bishop took a place of leadership. The last gave it a bond of unity in the constitution of the church. Polemicists wrote books in controversy with heretics. Around 170 the church was calling itself the "catholic" or universal, church, a term first used by Ignatius in his Epistle to Smyrna (chap. 8). Xandar (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first few centuries of its existence, the Church defined and formed its teachings and traditions into a systematic whole under the influence of theological apologists such as Pope Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Augustine of Hippo. - In my opinion, this is tilted towards a Catholic view, because it implies that the doctrine developed at this time was "systematic" when really it was a response to all of the various versions of Christianity at the time. Some of the doctrinal additions at the time don't make much sense in combination with each other. See Ehrman's discussion of the development of the Nicene Creed in chapter 9 of Lost Christianities, for example.
    • Hmmm. I'd have to look further into this. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that this is tilted towards the Catholic view, our text is referenced to peer reviewed scholarly sources from scholars of all viewpoints. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not just about referencing, Nancy - it is about how it is written. Please read my objection carefully. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not write something that is not in my references. Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits us from inserting opinion unless it is framed as opinion and requires facts. We have referenced facts in the article. All particulary sensitive sections have references to a variety of critic or apologist or neutral sources with quotes so reader can make the decision for themselves. NancyHeise (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is about "systemic" - a choice of wording here. Again, I would find it surprising if your reliable sources actually argued that the doctrine developed at this time was coherent. That would make the sources very questionable, actually, as it is abundantly clear that the doctrine is anything but a coherent system. Again, when I will return, I will add quotations, etc. to the talk page demonstrating this. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what the objection is to "systematic", since doctrine did develop towards a systematic whole. The main issues were the precise nature of Christ and the Incarnation, and the purest sources of teaching authority. The Church fathers built on the established teachings and were very systematic. In fact they have been accused of being slaves to Greek philosophy! But how would you prefer the sentence to read? Xandar (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not systematic - they do not go together as a coherent whole. It is frustrating that you are not reading the sources I provide that demonstrate this. You prefer to argue. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matters grew still worse with the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. The Church was outlawed, all monasteries destroyed, 30,000 priests were exiled and hundreds more were killed.[278] When Pope Pius VI took sides against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy. The pope was imprisoned by French troops the following year and died after six weeks of captivity. After a change of heart, Napoleon then re-established the Catholic Church in France with the signing of the Concordat of 1801.[279] All over Europe, the end of the Napoleonic wars signaled by the Congress of Vienna, brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy following the depredations of the previous era - This is also a rather one-sided perspective of the French Revolution. It does not acknowledge that any of the complaints against the clergy at the time might have had merit. In fact, it doesn't explain why any of this violence took place. See Sutherland's France 1789-1815, for a good one-volume history of the French Revolution on this point. There is a helpful index, which will guide you to the relevant sections on the "clergy".
    • There may have been complaints against the clergy, but I'm not sure such complaints are any justification for what happened. Compare Russian revolution, or complaints against Jews prior to pogroms. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the reader cannot decide for themselves - you do not offer the people's perspective. In fact, the reader does not even understand why these acts took place. Right now, it just seems like random violence, but it was not - there were reasons for it. Whether or not you feel those reasons justify it is irrelevant - we should explain those reasons to the reader. The reader needs to know why people in eighteenth-century France thought it was accepted to exile and kill priests, etc. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is like asking the Holocaust article to go into detail why the Nazi's wanted to kill them, it is assuming that some crime was being committed by the population of people who are being killed. In the Holocaust it was Jews, in the French Revolution it was priests. I think it is POV to insist that whoever is being wiped out at the time must have done something to deserve it in the first place. NancyHeise (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Holocaust article should (and does) explain very briefly the reasons why different things happened. That does not mean the victims are at fault and that the Germans are right. NPOV means includes the facts; the fact is that in France people thought XXX and used that for their justification for exiling or killing priests. The article is not meant to derive a conclusion on whether or not they were correct in thinking those thoughts or doing those deeds. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence with wikilinks to lead into the French Revolution. Sources say that the cause of the French Revolution is a disputed point among historians, we have French Revolution wikilinked where the cause is discussed in detail. NancyHeise (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not talking about the causes of the French Revolution. We are talking about one aspect of the French Revolution - the clerical controversy. Only one side of that controversy has been presented. Returning to the Nazi analogy, I would be shocked, actually, if the Holocaust article did not explain why the Nazis killed the Jews - if the article did not explain Anti-Semitism, White Supremacy, etc. Readers deserve to know what reasons the French people gave for killing and exiling their priests. In no way does this justify what they did, however. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I added more info to the section to address your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this could be explained more clearly, but this is much better. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One way of solving this POV problem, I think, would be to have a section dedicated to the story the Catholic Church tells about its own origin and history - just a few paragraphs. This can include the information about Jesus, Peter, etc. However, the "History" section should be much more NPOV. I worry that we are going to have to "Histories of the church" sections on many different pages, such as Reformation, Lutheran Church, etc. that all present the history of the Christian church from a particular point of view and they will all sound different. This will be confusing to readers. All of these histories should sound similar - they should not sound Lutheran on one page and Catholic on another page, for example. That is why I would suggest dedicating one section to the Church's view of its own history.

    • I think this would risk fictionalising the church take on its history, and factualising opposition viewpoints. Best, I think, to try to do the best with scholarly material as it exists. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that historians do in fact say that the Church's view is unhistorical. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history section is created using peer reviewed scholarly sources that support the article text with sensitive areas and other areas showing quotes from scholars of all viewpoints. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the bigger question is whether the sources currently used represent the overall opinion of historians in the appropriate balance. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else linked this, I just saw it when I made an edit to French Revolution in response to comment above. NancyHeise (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also concerned that the article presents Catholic belief as a unified whole with very few or no dissenters. Catholic beliefs are interpreted different by liberal theologians, conservative theologians, different orders of monks, different national churches, etc. It is hard to see what those debates are here (there is one brief discussion of liberation theology, but that is about all). This choice could also be viewed as POV - the Catholic Church wants its followers to believe that it has a unified set of doctrines, when in fact those doctrines are not uniformly followed. A section dedicated to "Disputes over Catholic theology" or some such could help remedy this. I understand that it would be hard to sprinkle them through the entire article at this point.
    • This is a point. However there are not so many differences as some may think. Womens ordination has been mentioned, and Liberation Theology. There are Liberal views and Traditionalist views, which perhaps also deserve a brief mention. Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brief is all I think can be done, anyway. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have mentioned in the Demographics section the fact that the number of practicing Catholics is not reliably known. Disputes over Catholic Theology are already discussed throughout the history section in a manner suggested by Jimbo Wales. Women's ordination, birth control, liberation theology and all the past disputes over Catholic theology like Arianism are talked about and wikilinked for the reader who wants to know more. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are all very brief mentions and these are not the current, core disputes in Catholic theology. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awadewit, what current core dispute in Catholic Theology exists that we have not mentioned? NancyHeise (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can name two right off the bat: Christology and reproductive ethics. Both have resulted in not only intense internal but also external debate. They have been covered by both Catholic and non-Catholic media due to their results. The publication of several near-heretical books by Catholic theologians on Christology caused quite a stir a while back when the authors were investigated, for example, and the set of choices the Catholic Church has made regarding contraception has had a huge impact on its aid programs in Africa, particularly with regards to AIDS, and the way other countries and groups interact with those programs. Both of these topics are quite controversial and are very visible - for obvious reasons. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reproduction and use of condoms is covered in the History section under Vatican II and we provide the fact that it is something the Church is criticized about especially in the instance of AIDS. Christology is not notable, no Church documents have changed, no wars, no mass exodus of Catholics over the issue. There are other things that people disagree with the Church about - throughout history - we mention the notable ones, others are covered in the article on Roman Catholic theology which is listed as a link in See Also section. Also throughout history, we mention the notable dissenting theologians whose works are notable, meaning they resulted in some significant event or change in Church doctrine. All notable facts are included. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, I was referring to a much wider discussion of reproductive issues - condoms are only one part of it. This section of the article is underdeveloped. Moreover, Christology has seen debate amongst theologians of the Church. I specifically gave an example of a larger political issue and a more specific theological issue. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your examples are covered in proper detail except Christology which is not a notable issue. Liberation Theology is notable because there has been quite a lot of bloodshed and politics surrounding this. Christology is an issue only discussed among some academics and ordinary Catholics do not even know what it is. If you can not name a notable issue that I have omitted, then I can't answer your question. NancyHeise (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a short section to cover Liberal and traditionalist dissenters in the postVaticanII section. Other dissenting topics are, as Nancy says, not notable enough for coverage in a broad article such as this. A book here and there on Christology is of little note even to a church like the Anglicans or the Baptists, and the issue of Christology is touched upon in the mention of Kung. Xandar (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that the most important theological disputes of the Catholic Church are all political, actually, and that is the focus of these dissents. That is why it is clear to me there are gaps in the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is very little in the article on the Catholic Church's missions. This is a large and very significant section of the Church. I mentioned this problem in the last FAC. Brief mentions of charities do not explain the huge networks of schools, hospitals, etc. that the Catholic church builds and runs throughout the world. The article focuses too much on doctrine and history at this point. It does not really explain what the Church does.
    • Would take a lot of space, is my first thought. esecond is that this might be considered puffing of the Church. What do others think? Xandar (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it is one of the main missions of the Church, I think it is crucial to discuss. If done correctly, it is not puffing. Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does not omit the fact that the church has schools hospitals etc now or throughout history, this fact is throughout the article. I did some research after the last FAC and considered a section on the current work of the church throughout the world, possibly even listing all of the hospitals, schools, and missions but even after an extensive search, I could not find all that data in one place, I would have had to compile it myself via going to each country in the world's bishop's conference data and we are not allowed to do that on Wikipedia. What could be done is to have a separate wikipedia page on that subject that could link to this page when it is completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would anticipate that an entire page could be written on this topic and then summarized in this article. However, that does not mean that currently the article does an adequate job of covering this topic. It mentions but does not explain the Catholic Church's charity missions - one of its core functions as an institution. This a very serious omission. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to suggest ways to fix the issues I have raised, so I hope these were helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I could not support at this time. I actually spent several days thinking about this oppose. I can see how hard this FAC has been and I wanted to make sure that I was opposing for very substantial reasons. These are not issues that I believe I could easily fix myself or that I believe could be fixed in a day. I believe that some thoughtful and careful revision needs to take place and some additions need to be made before the article should become an FA. However, I have no doubt that these changes can eventually be made. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have done my best to outline what I feel are the major problems with this article - its slight Catholic POV (of which I gave examples, but there are many more, some of which have been pointed out by other editors), and its omissions. I am leaving town for a few days. When I return, I will do my best to add helpful quotations and resources to the article's talk page. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)\][reply]
    Awadewit makes statements about Roman Catholic Church history that are not accurate. She needs to provide some refs and quotes to back up her assertions because we can not comply with several of her wishes here on the simple basis as they are incorrect. She does not point out any factual inaccuracies in the article text and can not provide any notable events we have omitted. She has called our presentation of history POV but does not provide any sources or quotes to reflect some other version. The source she did provide never states that the Roman Church did not exist before the 4th century, that is completely opposed to all historical evidence. It has often happened when dealing with Karanacs and Awadewit that I have been asked to add more info in a certain section to supposedly reveal some very bad side of the Church, yet when I have gone about my research to comply with their wishes, I find that the compendium of historical evidence in my top sources does not match their hoped for version. It is impossible for me to build a history except on the facts, as much as I have tried to make them happy, especially Karanacs through literally hundreds of her comments beginning in January. NancyHeise (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My statements are correct. I have provided sources - that you have not checked them to verify my statements is the problem. These sources actually do agree with historical evidence. When I return from my trip, I will place all of the relevant quotations on the article's talk page. I have pointed out many POV problems with the article. I have been very patient in this FAC, but my patience is wearing thin at this point. I actually did a lot of research before commenting on this FAC to make sure that every statement I made at this FAC would be correct. What this research revealed to me was that the editors themselves have only scratched the surface of the research available - they are using very few sources and select sources at that. This has been pointed out numerous times in this FAC and the previous FAC. Anyone who doubts these statements is free to investigate this at the article's talk page in about a week's time, after I return from my trip and spend the hours it takes to type up all of the necessary references and quotations. Awadewit (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on the references issue at this point: Anyone who looks at the list of citations in the article, will see just how many different authorities there are here. Because some people have tried to make a fuss at some books actually written by catholic scholars being used, doesn't mean these books are poor sources. And no-one has pointed out any errors or falsities in the subject matter used. If you have other information. okay, but it has to be judged like the rest. Xandar (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took you up on your offer to look at the list of citations, and I have to say I am unimpressed. Aside from the books, most of the sourcing is to official Vatican sources or otherwise presenting a Catholic opinion (which is fine, to a degree). I don't have the expertise to evaluate the books that are used, but I'll note that they are cited almost exclusively for the History section, and that four or five books predominate to a large degree. I'm not saying I agree with Awadewit's concerns, as I don't really have the knowledge to understand them, but looking through the citations does not convince me his arguments are invalid. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awadewit's comments have all been addressed. We have made changes to text where appropriate, provided valid reasons where we could not. I do not consider this an actionable oppose.NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been asked on my talk page whether my objection still stands and indeed it does. Nancy, "inacationable opposes" are those unrelated to the FAC criteria - all of my objections are related to the FAC critera. An "inactionable oppose" is something like "add an infobox", which is unrelated to the FAC criteria. It is now up to the FAC directors whether or not the oppose is sufficient. Let me explain why I am still opposing. 1) I gave examples of why the "History" section of the article has a slightly Catholic POV. Rather than try to fix these problems, the editors disputed the examples endlessly on the FAC page. Some of the problems I have pointed out have still not been fixed because the editors have either not understood my objections or for some other reason. Moreover, I did not list every example of POV. I listed the kinds of problems inherent in the page based on the periods I am most familiar with. Other editors, such as RelHistBuff, Jbmurray, and Durova, have listed the same kinds of problems from periods they are most familiar with. 2) I have described omissions from the article. Again, the editors have disputed the omissions rather than try to fix them. I would like to emphasize once again that I did not make this opposition lightly and I only did so after reading more books (I apologize I have not been able to add my sources to the talk page yet, but I will when I return from my trip - at this point I will have to rest on my reputation as a good researcher). I know that this article was difficult to write and to research, but I do not believe that it is FA quality yet. Awadewit (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out that it was not only editors responsible for the article who disputed your objections here (not all of them in my case, but several, not all commented on). If all the suggestions by those you mention above had been followed, I for one would be likely switch my position to strong oppose until balance had been restored. Likewise for Mike's objections below (is it?). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you have written here, Johnbod. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear enough to me - not all suggestions of objectors (generally)) would improve articles, and there are many here that would not. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make it clear which you feel would improve the article and which would not - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to Awadewit's objections, which need clarifying:
    1. Many statements not prefaced with The Church believes: ADDRESSED in text rewording.
    2. The Spanish Inquisition was an essential part of the Countereformation: Point of view REFUTED. Major Historians and the britannica do not take this view.
    3. The counter-reformation was not an innocuous reform - Again the majority of history sources including EB present it as mainly a reform process. Your view appears to be a small minority one at best.
    4. The Church's view of its origin should be placed in a separate section from Church History. We could not agree, since this is not the method used by most historians and would be POV by implying the Church position on its origin is not historical. However we adopted the solution at 5 below.
    5. It is hard to tell which part of early history is Church tradition and which is historically verified. ADDRESSED. History section specifically changed to specify which events are church tradition and which are verified history.
    6. pentecost is a mystical event, it should not be mentioned in History section. EXPLAINED that Pentecost is used as a day when an important Church event happened. It would be unreasonable not to mention it.
    7. Objected to position of article that Rome became a doctrinal centre from early centuries. COULD NOT ACCEPT this objection as it is not proven. Most mainstream historians accept this position along with the Encyclopedia Britannica. The only support adduced for the position of the objector was a book from Bart Ehrman, a POV fringe historian who has written books connected with Da Vinci Code. His position is minority and cannot be the one of the article. alternative views are already mentioned in the Origins section, and the history section already states that competing forms of Christianity existed. That is enough.
    8. Not enough information on reasons for French revolution attack on Church. ADDRESSED. Further background added.
    9. Too little mention of alternative Catholic views. ADRESSED sections on Traditionalists, Liberals added as well as Liberation Theology section expanded as per other review. And, as stated there are mentions of AIDS, Arianism, Womens ordination and other controversies throughout the article.
    Basically the editors have attempted to address all comments from Awadewit. Some we could not accede to since they would mean changing the article to reflect a small minority POV in the face of the consensus of academic opinion. Xandar (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am adding this to the end of the FAC; this is unrelated to Awadewit's comments directly before this post. After several talk page and article talk page reminders throughout these FACs, I am formally and directly requesting that personalization of this FAC cease. I will remove further personal commentary, not directly related to the WP:FAC instructions or WP:WIAFA to the talk page. If someone simply must comment on an editor and not the content, pls do so elsewhere, or preferably, not at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Oppose. I've been reading and rereading the article, and the comments that others have offered about the article, since this was restarted to evaluate whether I am indeed holding this to a higher standard than other articles I review. I think that if I am, it is simply because I am much more familiar with the content in this article (at least the history) than other articles I review and can thus more easily see some potential issues. This is definitely a good article, and it has improved dramatially in the last few weeks. However, to fully meet the featured article criteria, I still think it needs more work. Following are a few suggestions (some are new, because I tried to read some of the sections I hadn't previously counted on). I think the easiest way to get over that last little hump would be to invite experts in some of these historical areas to help identify issues that they see in how things have been summarized to ensure that it is fully accurate and NPOV; identifying these on-wiki experts and getting them to help, though, could be difficult.
      • Is there any information on the true demographics of the church? Perhaps percentages by gender or age? It might also be useful to have a few sentences about the way the demographics of the church have changed over time; very broadly, this could mention any changes since countries stopped mandating Catholicism as the national religion (I think in much of Latin America this happened in the 20th century?), and especially demographic changes over the last 50 - 100 years. — Karanacs 18:00, 3 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
    • No percentages on gender or age but I added text reflecting what the worldwide population was in 1970, the earliest figures anyone has on that. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe the splits of bishops by continent would be easier to find, and give an idea? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But she's not asking us for that and we already summarize that where Church growth is occuring in demographics section. NancyHeise (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A table with that information (RC population by continent or bishops by continent) might be really useful in the demographics section. I just did a Google Scholar search on demographics and Roman Catholic Church. Did you know that there is a journal called Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion? It is not one I am familiar with, but I wonder if it would have demographic info? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have searched for Catholic Church statistical info and that info has to be compiled which constitutes original research per Wikipedia policies. I answered a FAC comment of Awadewit's that a separate article could be made on Church missionary work which could also include this information that could then be linked to this article. I do not think that our failure to add this info right now should prevent the article from becoming FA.
    What about this link? This gives the percentage of Catholics by continent.[60] Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It gives figures for 2004. I think that is too old. I plan to do the separate article discussed with Awadewit and I believe I will have that info after intense future research. I dont think this has to fail FAC because it does not have this specific info, this article is a summary. NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the article has a European/American focus.(Please note that the links provided are not sources I'm recommending you use, just a starting point so you can see what I am talking about)
        • There is only minimal mention in the article of the Church in Africa. As this is now one of the fastest-growing places for the church, it seems as if this merits a bit more discussion. From what I understand of the continent's history, Catholic churches were established in Africa very early, then languished, then a renewed missionary period in the late 15th century, then locals adapted the religion to look nothing like Catholicism, and missionaries started over in the early 17th century.
    • This is answered after the next comment below. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm answering here for clarity. The African church gets three mentions, in passing, and in conjunction with other areas of the world. These are those pieces: membership is growing, particularly in Africa and Asia, The apostles traveled to various areas in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome forming the first Christian communities, Through the late 15th and early 16th centuries European missionaries and explorers spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. That's it. I would expect the fastest-growing area of the world in terms of Catholic population to have more coverage than that. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I have added a paragraph in Modern Era because that is when the Church really took off. I included the reasons for this effect which are really the only notable mentions needed for this effect. It explains for reader why the Church in Africa grew so quickly. NancyHeise (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, it might be worth mentioning in the paragraph on more modern challenges the more specific challenges of the church in Africa. This would include witchcraft[61] and the fact that many of the church practices that Europeans/North Americans take for granted are not practiced as regularly there.[62]
    • Yes, without going into too much detail, the article text mentions the establishement of the Church in Africa in the Roman Empire section of History. Then article text mentions the missionary efforts going into Africa in the 15th century. The article text also includes mention of Africa in the demographics where it is noted that it is an area of population growth for the Church. I think this is sufficient mention of Africa. I just finished reading a biography on Michael Tansi, an African priest and there is much about the witchcraft problems that the priests had to deal with in helping the converts leave behind old superstitions - but this is a quality that is not limited to African converts. All missionary efforts had to deal with the indiginous practices of the people they converted. We dont go into this kind of detail in the aritcle and I disagree that we need to do so. NancyHeise (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are current issues facing the church, though, and I think they ought to be covered. Perhaps the article could place it in the context of missionary efforts as a whole, but as it is a current issue facing an area that is rapidly increasing in Catholic population, it is important to mention. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that the article needs mention of this - it is not a notable historical fact, it is a pastoral concern for missionaries that has existed not just in our time but in all ages of the Church. Mentioning it would single out Africans which would present a POV problem. We have added a whole paragraph per your comments here and that is enough.NancyHeise (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article mentions the different rites and that they do have different liturgical practices. It does not mention any examples of how the rites differ, which would be useful to someone like me who isn't sure. It also isn't clear from the article whether any of the practices listed in the article are specific to the Latin Rite or not. This maybe ought to be more clear.
    • The article Beleifs section introducing reader to these different rites says this "Different liturgical traditions or rites exist throughout the worldwide Church that reflect "particular expressions characterized by the culture".[49] These are the Latin rite (most commonly used), the Byzantine rite, the Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. Because of this diversity, variations exist in the liturgical practices of administering the sacraments within the different rites yet all hold the same beliefs.[49]". This text makes clear that the Latin rite is the most commonly used and provides Wikilinks to the other rites for the reader who wants to know more. In addition, the article text explaining the sacraments mentions specifically when a certain rite differs from the one being discussed. The section on the Mass tells reader that it is describing the Latin rite and tell them the Mass in Eastern Church's is called Divine Liturgy providing the wikilink for the reader who wants to know more. I disagree that more description of each of the rites will improve the article. We have omitted no relevant or significant facts. Also, this is English Wikipedia, in the English speaking world, the almost completely universal rite used is the Latin rite. NancyHeise (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still felt like I didn't quite understand what the differences were, and since I am unfamiliar with the other rites I'm not sure how to fix this. Perhaps someone else has a suggestion? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The other rites (more appropriately, other churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff) constitute about 2% of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it deserves a brief sub-section in the Organization and Membership section, with a hat trick to the main article (Eastern Catholic Churches) and a one or two paragraph summary. More than that would be overkill for this article. Majoreditor (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are already mentioned in the Beliefs section and wikilinked. All a reader has to do is click on the wikilink to know more and I dont think more mention is necessary. It is already mentioned in the Lead, Beliefs opening paragraph, certain areas in the different Beliefs sections and again in History. NancyHeise (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is the same for all rites unless specifically identified in the article text. Places where differences in rites is discussed are: third para in Beliefs opening para, last sentence of Holy Spirit and Confirmation,second para of Eucharist with a wikilink after explanation (Because there are numerous rites and many differences in the liturgy for the Eucharist I do not advise addressing this in the article because it would be too lengthy, best to let the reader click on the wikilink and see the different rites). NancyHeise (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not happy with this sentence The five solas were one attempt to express these differences.. Perhaps if we switch it from passive to active voice this would help? Which organization attemped to codify these differences and when? Something like, "During the Protestant Reformation in XXXX, so-and-so wrote the five solas to attempt to express the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism." That would give more context and help the sentence fit in place better.
      • In reading over the article as a result of some of jbmurray's concerns, I found that I was interpreting some of the stuff in the article potentially differently than was intended. For example, there are quotations sprinkled through the article. I assumed that most of those were quotes from Church publications that were then quoted in the source used, but in one sentence with two quotations, one was quoting Cardinal Ratzinger and the other was quoting the author of the book. The article needs to be able to differentiate who is being quote, and I don't think it is 100% there yet.
    • I can't answer this comment unless you have a particular error in the text you want to point out. I have already gone through all quotes in the entire article, it took me two days, checking to match each citation and quotes. NancyHeise (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I don't have the sources, I have no idea what these quotations are actually quoting. Would it be easier if I left a list of quotations on the article talk page? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please make a list and I'll go through them all, I dont think there are very many anyway. NancyHeise (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotations have been checked. NancyHeise (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to reiterate (but not argue over) statements I've made previously that I think the history section is subtly pro-Catholic POV. Using a critic's source for 50% of the citations and a pro-Catholic source for 50% of the citations absolutely does not mean the article is NPOV. It depends on how much information is taken from each source, and whether the information is appropriately balanced with opposing viewpoints on that particular issue. (relata has also brought this up.) I'd prefer that the article use neutral sources so we don't have to worry about pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic (surely there are historians who present no opinion one way or the other??). As an example, I feel that undue space is given to persecutions of Catholics while persecutions by Catholics are glossed over. Furthermore, this article's coverage of the missions is definitely pro-Catholic. When I've brought this up before, I was told that the coverage is this way because it was not officially Church policy to persecute non-Catholics or to cause bad things to happen in the missions. In my belief, though, if this was widespread practice, regardless of whether an official policy was issues, it should have mention here.
    • (ec) "apologist" and "critical", which I thought already something of a false dichotomy for the likes of Norman, Duffy and Le Goff, is now turning into "pro-Catholic" and "anti-Catholic", which is certainly excessive, though not in the case of Vidmar, who is unapologetically apologist. Critics of the balance have not done too well on citing some individual cases here in the past (or the passages have been changed), though Awa has another go just above. I don't say the balance is perfect, but this is the history of the RC Church, not the effect of the Church on the world, which would be a rather different topic. Which persecutions by Catholics do you think are glossed over? Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Johnbod -what persecutions that the Church sanctioned are not mentioned in the article text? This article is about the Church, not what Catholics have done throughout history. That is off topic material. NancyHeise (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding use of our sources, Wikipedia policy requires us to consider all significant viewpoints, the Catholic viewpoint of history is a significant viewpoint and the three sources to Vidmar, Norman and Woods provide us with that specific viewpoint. All other sources can not be classified in that category and some specifically fall into the critic category, also a significant point of view. These views become apparent in certain sensitive sections of the aritcle that NPOV considerations required us to provide refs to all viewpoints with added quotes so reader could see for themselves what various theologians have to say about the issue. While an equal 30% of sources are considered critic and 30% are considered apologist, the rest of the 40% do not fall into either category. I think what makes this article particulary FA is the high quality and varity of the particular sources used. NancyHeise (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not that x% of the sources are of this type of source, it is how the sources are used and whether the percentage of information from each viewpoint is appropriately balanced. If only a few scholars put forth an explanation, and the vast majority of other scholars have differing interpretations, the vast majority should get the vast majority of the text, even if the minority espouse the RCC viewpoint. It does not mean the minority viewpoint gets equal weight with the majority. (I am not saying that this is necessarily the case in this issue, just trying to make the point clear.) As an example, just look at the difference in phrasing between the persecutions of Henry VIII (which were politicialy motivated and not due to religion) and Elizabeth I (again, primarily politically motivated) compared to that of Mary I. If we are not to include acts that were not officially sanctioned by the Vatican, perhaps we should not include things that affected Catholics but did not strike directly at the Vatican? Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel this particular strand of criticism is misconceived. Firstly, getting a completely "neutral" source about history, especially on a subject like this is virtually impossible. All historians have their viewpoints and favoured theories. That is why a range of sources is best. Secondly, you have produced no evidence that persecutions of others by the Catholic Church are glossed over in the article, or treated differently from the persecutions mounted against Catholics. I would actually say that the way the English reformation section is written bends over backwards to accommodate and portray the Protestant view. For example the article possibly over-emphasizes the political nature of Henry's transformation of the Church, and only records the death of Thomas More. The article does not mention the hanging, disembowelling and quarterings of monks, priests and abbots, the massacres of English Catholics following the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Prayer Book Rebellion, and other attempts by them to follow their old faith, or the massacres undertaken in Ireland. And that is only a fraction of what is not mentioned in the article on the Catholic side. Producing a balanced account does not mean listing all the misdeeds that ever took place. As another example, at the last FAC, someone stated that we should cover the Spanish Civil War. We didn't, but if we had, we could list literally thousands of blameless priests, monks and nuns systematically murdered by Anarchist and Communist militias. Against my advice, nancy has also removed reference to the thousands of priests executed by the Nazis in WW2, which I would consider deserve mention as a counterbalance to allegations of Church collaboration. Xandar (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know of an authoritative source that determines which viewpoint is the majority view? My sources meet Wikipedia guidelines as top sources per WP:Reliable source examples, the authors are very respected and the book reviews are good. None are radical POV's that Wikipedia does not allow us to use, even though some FAC reviewers have searched for bad reviews, none have found any, only good reviews. NancyHeise (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying the persecutions of Henry and Elizabeth were not religiously motivated, but those of Mary were? I find that a very dubious proposition; most rulers, and much public opinion, at the time regarded religious dissent as a political matter, and it is barely meaningful to attempt a distinction. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, Johnbod's comment just above is not a response to my comment, he is responding to Karanacs. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not act on this comment. It does not specify any source that is unacceptable per WP:RS. Karanacs. Pro-Catholic, you mean apologist sources are three books out of a huge list. All Vidmar cites are doubled with Bokenkotter, a critic or Duffy, also a critic. There are now many more critic cites than apologist. My original analysis noted a 30% critic, 29% apologist split with the other 40% indeterminable as to critic or apologist viewpoint. That has now changed with excessive addition of citations to Duffy and Bokenkotter. NancyHeise (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This caption Early Christians were martyred as entertainment in the Colosseum in Rome, a short distance from Vatican City. Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1883. makes it seem as if Vatican City was already in existance at the time that Christians were killed in the Colosseum.
      • The vast majority of the images are right-aligned. Perhaps some of these could be left-aligned instead?
    • Moved 3; it's difficult with so many sub-headings, below which right alignment is needed. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, none of this ever came up at peer review or the last two FAC's but I'll try to answer each comment after some research, this may take me into tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry about that; I've been concentrating on different sections of the article each time I review. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Karanacs comments have all been addressed. We have made changes where appropriate, provided valid reasons where not. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Criterion 1D: neutrality. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to advocate one school of scholarly thought over another, yet this article does, and does so editorially and repeatedly. I'll quote one passage as an example:
    Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions. According to Edward Norman, this propaganda "identified the entire Catholic Church ... with [the] occasional excesses" wrought by secular rulers. While one percent of those tried in the inquisitions received death penalties, Norman states that in the 16th century "the Inquisitions were regarded as far more enlightened than secular courts", which did not grant more lenient sentences for those who repented their crimes.
    Twice, this discussion labels Protestant criticism of the inquisition as propaganda--using this highly pejorative term not as quote but as editorial assertion--then follows up with a quote and a paraphrase from a pro-Catholic scholar without any comparable attention to the criticism itself. In justice to the nominator, this is a difficult and nuanced area where--having familiarity with the subject myself--I agree that the inquisition was exaggerated in the Protestant world and exaggerations were used for propagandistic aims. Yet to make that element the central focus of a discussion on the inquisition itself results in a POV defense of Catholicism, by overlooking the actual abuses that did occur. The presentation's chronology is also confusing, even to a reader already grounded in the subject: this passage discusses late fifteenth and sixteenth century events in a section ostensibly dedicated to the High Middle Ages, then the following paragraph introduces the fourteenth century. Then the following section Late Medieval and Renaissance discusses the Protestant reformation without a hint of interplay between the Inqusition and the Protestants.
    With gratitude and respect toward the person who obviously put a lot of effort into bringing the page this far, there are deep structural issues that stand between the present version and featured article quality. I do not believe that the issues at hand are cosmetic or can be addressed within the time frame of an FAC. It would require considerable additional research to achieve scholarly balance, and would require basic reworking to achieve adequate chronological or thematic structure (it ought to have one or the other and presently has neither). The inquisition, for example, had its roots in the Albigensian Crusade of the high middle ages but existed in its most objectionable form during the Renaissance--which receives scant mention. Long as this oppose is, it focuses on one fraction of a single paragraph to give a representative illustration of comprehensive problems. This is a difficult and ambitious subject. I applaud the nominator for choosing an important topic and for bringing it this far. I also, unambiguously, urge the withdrawal of this FAC and advise obtaining a collaborator in bringing the page to the next level. Based upon the previous FAC and responses to comments at this one, it really appears that this editor has done all that he or she can alone. Assistance is needed, and I offer my best wishes for a successful bid on the next try. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. In our efforts to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement to provide all significant viewpoints, we used several sources to reference each of the sensitive areas of Church History like Inquisitions. If you will click on the actual references you will see that they all mention the issue of Protestant propaganda and these sources are not just Catholic, but others as well - the most respected scholars some might say - on the subject of Church history. Wikipedia requires us to have facts in the article and that is what has been presented. These are not opinions of Catholic history but actual events - we have not omitted notable controversies or criticisms. If I were to eliminate the statement from Edward Norman, I would be eliminating a substantial point of view. NancyHeise (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your comment and point of view. I understand there are many different structural ways that a person could present the information in this article. For over five months, we have labored over this article with many editors and reviewers through the GA process, two separate peer reviews and FAC's as well as pages and pages of talk page discussion to arrive at the present format and presentation. It is a reflection of much consensus building. I do not feel that I can change it based on the review of one person who has not been involved in the process until now. I appreciate your advice but I do not feel that I can act on this oppose for these reasons. NancyHeise (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what point of view you impute; I'm the editor who raised Joan of Arc to FA--certainly no anti-Catholic bias. I agree; since it appears you have reached the limit of your own abilities, and the article still falls short, a collaborator would be the best solution here. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this counts as an "I'm going to make a controversial comment and then announce that there is no possible solution or discussion," oppose. Particularly with frankly insulting remarks to one of the main editors who has spent literally hundreds of hours opf her time on this project. The suggestion that "someone else" (unnamed) redo the article before it can be worthy of FA is NOT an FA criterion. Your comments on the inquisition are misplaced, since you yourself admit that much propaganda has been poured out relevant to the inquisition. This IS a fact. As for time periods, you should realize that many historical events run across necessarily artificial time-divisions. Events are dealt with largely in the PRINCIPAL era of their origin or effect. The Inquisitions were largely medieval in origin. It would be risible to introduce sections labelled Inquisition in the 16th century, Inquisition in the 17th century etc. If you refuse to discuss ways of resolving your objections, or even to state them in an addressable manner, your objection is not actionable. Xandar (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that the Inquisition was principally Medieval is a popular myth. Its most active century was the sixteenth, it remained a potent force during the seventeenth, and it did not formally end until the eighteenth. If anything is risible it would be the uneven treatment that delves into its origins but fails to address either its peak or its conclusion, hence perpetuating the myth. I offered repeated and explicit thanks to the article's principal editor, yet that gets construed as insult. So I'll be more explicit: this article and its two FACs give the strong appearance of having been done by people who are hardworking and dedicated and who lack adequate grounding in the fundamentals of historiography. Others before me have attempted to articulate concerns about priority of sources and textual criticism, and the responses do not recognize what these concepts are or why they matter. How do I state that problem in an addressable manner? I identify it as criterion 1d, parse one brief example out of many in some depth, and suggest an additional collaborator--because really what this article must have is a contributor who distinguishes between theology and historical method. Without that it will probably remain more appropriate for the Catholic Encyclopedia than here. FA is not a thank-you for hard work; that is why we have barnstars. DurovaCharge! 14:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK everybody be nice please. I appreciate your comments Durova but the only discussion we need to be having here is which FAC criteria you think is not being met. Just because I am a person who does not want to fill my user page with my credentials does not mean that I fail to posess them. Please have a bit of faith in me. You have indicated that the article is not NPOV enough to meet to your satisfaction and I would like to correct that. Please tell me what you think should be removed and with what do we replace it? Do you have suggestions for appropriate texts? We faced textual criticism on this FAC because some people did not realize that all of our sources meet the top criteria required by WP:Reliable source examples. No one has been able to offer any wikipedia criteria failure nor any lack of or bad peer review of any of our sources. The authors are notable, respected, and highly recognizable authors representing the "representative" body of historical research on the Catholic Church. The actual text in the article identifying the height and duration of the inquisitions is here: "Abuses committed during the crusade caused Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars.[220][221] Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.[221][222] Over time, other inquisitions were launched by the Church or secular rulers to prosecute heretics, to respond to the threat of Moorish invasion or for political purposes.[223] The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by penance, fines, imprisonment, torture or execution by burning.[224][223] In the 14th century, King Philip IV of France created an inquisition for his suppression of the Knights Templar.[222] King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella formed an inquisition in 1480, originally to deal with distrusted ex-Jewish and ex-Muslim converts.[225] Over a 350-year period, the Spanish Inquisition executed between 3,000 and 4,000 people,[226] representing around two percent of those accused.[227" Can you identify for me any factual errors or omissions of notable fact? The following section containing Norman's quote is referenced to three different sources that verify the fact that this was eventually used as a propaganda against the Church, a notable fact we can not omit - agreed by a variety of scholars including John McManners Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity a book that is the consolidated work of 18 top university professors. If you would like to see another top source saying the same thing, please see [63]. This University of California Press book, by History professor Edward Peters, also uses the term Protestant Propaganda to describe the way the Inquisitions were reflected in English literature. It was very easy to find a multitude of sources saying the same thing by going to GoogleBooks and typing in Protestant Propaganda, Inquisition. So it appears to me that this is not some sort of POV but an important fact that had serious adverse repurcutions for the Catholic Church for centuries and is a notable fact. NancyHeise (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, Durova, that this is meant to be a positive and constructive process. Objections should be made order to point out what specific things need to be done to improve the article with a view to it attaining FA status. It is not a matter of picking one sentence out of its context and then saying in so many words: the entire article is rubbish, the writers know nothing and "someone better" needs to redo it. The article has gained GA status and has has a lot of very positive support at its various FACs, including support for dealing with a very large, controversial and complex subject in a clear and informative way. The editors are always ready to deal with specific problems raised and to consider wordings that will help to improve the article and satisfy objections. Passages on subjects like the Inquisition have already been through much refining, agreement and compromise over the past six months. Arriving at a very late stage in the process, you may not realize this. However please make raise specific problems you may find in the text and be prepared to discuss them with the editors with a view to finding solutions. Xandar (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the issue of "the Inquisition", strictly there was no such thing. There was a Medieval inquisition which was virtually defunct by the end of the 15th century. There was a Roman Inquisition, which was under the control of the Pope, but ran under the supervision of local rulers in other Italian states, and is considered by far the mildest of the Inquisitions. The other two, the Spanish and the Portuguese were run by their respective governments with no "interference" permitted from the Vatican. I'm not sure which inquisition you claim peaked at the time of the Counter-reformation, but unless you can provide some proof of the claim that the Inquisition was a major part of the Counter-reformation movement, we will have to stick with the academic sources that say differently. Xandar (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent) Please refrain from imputing motives or paraphrasing my statements; it does not reflect well on either of us. The four lines I selected as an example are a striking case of WP:UNDUE: a lengthy in-article rebuttal of a notable position whose parameters are available only via the footnotes. The Google test is a poor metric for the editorial use of propaganda. Some people in the world seriously contend that the World Trade Center never existed and 9/11 is American propaganda. I get 241 Google Books returns for "World Trade Center 9/11 propaganda".[64] Of course it would be difficult to find a reputable scholar who argues the latter, yet the salient points remain: historiography isn't about stacking up two piles of books and counting which is taller than the other. Even if the Google test were a reasonable metric here, it's a flawed assumption to suppose that all uses of propaganda refer to Protestant exaggerations rather than Catholic defenses; the latter also has propagandistic elements. WP:NPOV is about presenting all notable points of view according to the relative weight those views carry among leading experts, thus empowering the reader to reach his or her own conclusions. A thoughtful reader could reasonably infer from the present text that early Protestants were so sympathetic to Islam and Judaism that they employed propaganda in defense of those other religions, because if the Inquisition had nothing to do with the Counter-Reformation then it leaves unanswered what all those Protestants were complaining about. This is one of the starker examples and in several kilobytes of discussion I see no movement at all. A few other instances, briefly:

    • No mention of a Protestant viewpoint on whether Peter was the first pope.
    • Pope Alexander VI appears only in relation to the Inter caetera bull. The name Borgia and its significance would shed light on the Renaissance.
    • The coverage of the California mission system gives a low figure for the decline in the indigenous population and attributes it to disease, not mentioning other factors.

    Without intending any disrespect toward the Cathoic Church itself or toward the volunteers whose efforts have improved this article, these examples tend in a particular direction because the present text tends in the opposite direction. Explaining that one's sources are reputable scholars doesn't mean it's appropriate to promote an FAC that advocates one school of thought editorially. DurovaCharge! 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Durova has very eloquently expressed the same issues in the history section that I and several other opposing reviewers have been trying to point out for several FACs. I strongly endorse her description of the issues in the history section. Karanacs (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Karanacs was an editor for this article and it was she herself who provided us with the source and quote that was eventually used to build the paragraph in the California missions, the one you are claiming now is evidence of Catholic POV. I would like to ask that if you are stating we have a factual inaccuraccy in the text regarding the figure for the decline in the indigenous population, it would help us to bring this article to FA for you to maybe provide us with a source that you are certain says differently. Perhaps then we could include an estimated range with a sentence that states "historians differ as to the actual number of indians ...." I thank you for your directly addressed points regarding the protestant viewpoint on Peter and Pope Alexander, I will try to address those issues. To my knowledge though, I believe we have already addressed the Peter issue with our presentation of the different scholarly positions in the Origins and Missions section. We make this clear to reader that not everyone agrees that Peter was the first pope and I dont think anyone could accuse us of POV in that section regarding that issue. I think that maybe you havent read that section? Im not sure and I dont want to assume but it seems to me that a lot of text has been devoted just to the first pope issue already. NancyHeise (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did a bit of research and added a sentence to address your comment with "Because the simony and nepotism practiced in the Church of the 15th and early 16th centuries prevented any kind of papal reform, rich and powerful families like the Borgia's were able to control the papal office and seated their own worldly candidates like Alexander VI in (1492).[253] " The section contains several other sentences about this corruption so please read the whole section. I think this is what you wanted to see. Please let me know. Thanks, and that was a very good comment by the way. NancyHeise (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the attention. I may be a little slow in following up. This discussion has taken more time than I anticipated and I have a featured content drive of my own to work on--a photographic restoration. This kind of work is largely invisible because I pick up maybe a dozen edits onsite for the whole FPC, but spend so many days and hours in Photoshop that I dream in colloidon glass prints. Regards, DurovaCharge! 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, it seems from your comment about books on 9/11 that you doubt what I have said about the Protestant Propaganda. There are two scholarly sources in the article text supporting this fact and I just provided you with another example above to the Cambridge University Press source. I hope you understand that I can not eliminate these highly referenced facts, because they are notable and important in the history of the Catholic Church. Elimination would be against Wikipedia policy and would make the article POV. NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a few points here. 1. Durova. You haven't proved your point re the Inquisition being a major part of the Counter-reformation process. Most histories do not take this view. Just looking at Chadwick's "The Reformation", a quite authoritative treatment, I find 70 pages devoted to the Counter-reformation, of which just half a page refers in any way to inquisitions. That's the level of weight a major, unbiased historian gives it. 2. There is ample discussion of the origin of the papacy, which actually gives the "anti" view more space than the Catholic one. There is no additional requirement for a "Protestant" or even a Muslim viewpoint on Peter's status. 3. Nancy has put something in about Mr Borgia. 4. The mexican missions section was discussed at previous FAC and agreed. In fact I think it already goes past NPOV by implying that the missions were responsible for the large fall in the indian population when this occurred everywhere that Old World contact occurred, because of Indian susceptability to disease. It's probably unfair to connect this to the Church because the first contacts were friars rather than gold prospectors or cattlemen! But that is the agreed wording. Xandar (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, on the issue of your claim that the article is fatally unbalanced because the Inquisition is not mentioned again with respect to the Counter-Reformation. I have just looked at the Roman Catholicism article at Encyclopaedia Britannica. The article is many times larger than ours. It has ten times as much space on the Counter Reformation. However in that treatment, the Inquisition, and its alleged central role are not mentioned once. Unless you are alleging that Britannica is twisting history in aid of the Catholic Church, I think that is a pretty authoritative back-up for the article as it stands. Xandar (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to comments about the use of the term Protestant Propaganda with regard to the inquisitions, it is indeed common in respected histories. here is an additional example:
    Armstrong, The European Reformation, Heinemann, (2002), p103, quote: "Contrary to subsequent Protestant propaganda the procedure followed by the (Papal) Inquisition was careful and respectful with regard to legal rights. Clear proof was required, along with two witnesses, and rarely was torture used to extract confessions. Anonymous denunciations were illegal, while a defence lawyer was guaranteed for the suspect. Punishments were generally lenient and designed to bring the guilty party back into the fold. The public abjuration of protestantism before a congregation might suffice, for example." Xandar (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova's comments have been addressed in full including changes to the text as indicated above. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Others, like Eamon Duffy, caution that the insufficient number of clear written records surviving from the early years of Christianity make precision about the early status of Rome difficult." What does this sentence mean? Gimmetrow 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what happened to that paragraph, maybe it was a mistake - please see the paragraph again. NancyHeise (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose on copyediting and neutrality grounds. (Later note: Consider my oppose strong, for whatever that's worth. It's apparent that my concerns are being dismissed, and that no attempt has been made to even understand my points, much less respond to them reasonably)
    • "God the Father, original sin, and Baptism": It's usually bad form to begin a section (or even a paragraph most of the time) with a direct quote. The beginning should describe the subject of the section. — Tuf-Kat 01:12, 4 June 2008 — continues after insertion below
    Thank you for your comments. While I agree that there are numerous ways we could have presented this material, editors of the page, through consensus, decided upon the present format. The Nicene Creed is the central statement of Catholic belief so certain sections begin with a certain quote from the Creed that pertains to the section being discussed. This treatment was met with great approval from many reviewers, even some opposers on this page. The section title describes the contents being discussed in each section. The seven Church sacraments are discussed in each section of Beliefs that pertains to that specific sacrament - thus Baptism is in the same paragraph that describes original sin. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not acceptable to start with a quote from the Nicene Creed, then explain what the section is about and why that quote is important. For more, see below. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the arrangment of the sentences to comply with your comment here. The quote has been moved. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the Church, the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. - is an excellent example of why I have neutrality concerns. This takes a statement that the Church might well have said precisely, and attempts to satisfy NPOV by slapping a "According to the Church" at the beginning. The "Holy Spirit" should be defined in that paragraph, and something better than "reveals" is needed. The meaning of "God's truth" is not clear. (They are vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition. is another example: adding "is said" to does not make a sentence neutral) A more neutral wording might be something like "The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who is said to communicate God's will through a collection of sacred books, church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium". (I'm not sure if that's really an accurate rewording, but that's because the original isn't clear either. I don't see any reason to use the terms "Sacred Scripture" or "Sacred Tradition".
    Thank you. I added some wording to help the reader know who is the Holy Spirit, good comment. Holy Spirit is also wikilinked at the beginning of the Beliefs section. We have to use the phrases "According to the Church" etc in order to be able to concisely present Church belief. Size has been a consideration and it is not against Wikipedia policy or any violation of NPOV to frame these sentences as we have. Since all of this wording is in a section called Beliefs and we use "According to the Church" and "The Church believes" or " the Church teaches", etc, I doubt that anyone is going to think that we are presenting these items as facts rather than as Beliefs. Please see the FA Islam which incorporates similar language - I think it is just a factor of being able to explain a section without having to overqualify each sentence when it is clear from the heading alone that the section is not being presented as a statement of fact held by all people. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing my point. You can not take a sentence that presents the church's viewpoint, slap "According to the Church" on it and call it neutral. That is simply not a method of producing neutral prose. I'm not concerned about Islam and won't look at it now, as it's not relevant. It is possible to use phrases like "According to X" in a neutral manner, but you haven't done that in this article. Better prose (both better written and more neutral) would probably be smaller than the current length. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Nancy here. The section is about explaining the Church's beliefs. There is no other way to do it other than saying "The Church believes X" or some similar formulation. This is simply a section for exposition of the Church's core beliefs. It isn't a section for debating whether those beliefs are right or wrong. This is factual material. To add to every belief something like: "The church believes it is guided by the Holy Spirit, but some Protestants don't believe this, since they think the Holy Spirit doesn't guide churches, but only people as they read the Bible," is just impracticable and confusing. And where would you stop? Why should only Protestant views of catholic beliefs be presented? You'd have to add "and Muslims don't believe the Holy Spirit is divine; while atheists don't believe in a Holy Spirit, or anything much, at all..." We do not need to put next to every belief that someone else doesn't believe it as well. 92.40.93.200 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you're talking about. My suggested version of the sentence did not present any points of view besides the Church's. The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who is said to communicate God's will through a collection of sacred books, church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium Statements like vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition and the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth are effectively religious jargon, as if you're not already familiar with Christian theology, terminology and imagery, it doesn't make sense. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see that suggestion. It gets hard spotting everything in a long, changeable mass of text like this. I think, however, that your version tends toward POV in the other direction by being rather arch about things like the "collection of sacred books". (It sounds more like someone's Marilyn Monroe collection!) And saying that the Church's beliefs are "inspired by one of the manifestations of God" is still jargon, and doesn't explain that the church believes it is preserved from doctrinal error by the HS - which is extremely important to Catholicism. I think some religious jargon is unavoidable in an article like this, since (as with science or medicine) there are some concepts that ordinary language cannot properly convey. Feel free to suggest alternative wording for phrases that concern you, or provide a list of stuff you think is too impenetrable, and we'll take a look at it. Xandar (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like "The Church claims that its beliefs are inspired by one of the manifestations of God, the Holy Spirit, who communicates God's will inerrantly through a collection of sacred scripture (the Bible), church traditions and the body of official pronouncements known as the Magisterium". (I still don't like the repetition of "God" within just a few words, and I like infallibly better than inerrantly but I know the former word has special meaning in this article). Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording you suggest fails the test of precision. The Holy Spirit does not, according to catholics communicate God's will simply through sacred scripture. And the Magisterium is far more than a body of official pronouncements. However, i take your point about this section, and as I have said in response to your comment below, I will look into how this passage can be simplified and somewhat de-jargonized. Xandar (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is better, but I'm still not entirely satisfied on this point. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • to condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths. - should be "to condemn alternative interpretations...", as it otherwise implicitly accepts the Church's pov.
    But the beliefs section is supposed to explain the Church's pov and using this wording actually explains it. If it existed in any other section but Beliefs, I think your comment would be valid but not in this situation. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it's in the Beliefs section doesn't mean it can implicitly support the Church's position. You can explain Church viewpoints without imparting their truth to the reader. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have more of a point here. But replacing the phrase with "condemn alternative interpretations of scripture" would be inaccurate, since all alternative interpretations of scripture are not necessarily condemnable. However the sentence can be amended simply to something like "..to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false..." Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "alternative" is not exclusive (e.g. it doesn't imply that all possible alternatives are included), but anyway my first thought was "condemn particular interpretations of scripture", but I thought that would be rejected. I think "believed to be false" is wordier than necessary. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    the college of bishops acting in union with the pope to define truths or to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false - I can't support this wording, as it is longer than needed and begs the question "believed by whom?" Also, since they did both, it should be and instead of or right? Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment has been addressed by changes made in the text.NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The beliefs of other Christian denominations differ from those of Catholics in varying degrees - this sentence has little informational utility.
    The sentence right after this one explains what those differences are. We have to consider prose and not hit the reader with so many facts one right after the other without some nice transition. This sentence provides transition. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't matter. It's bad form to have sentences that don't really mean anything. You could replace "Christian demoninations" and "Catholics" with pretty much any combination of similar nouns, and it would be just as true, and just as meaningless. All people of every kind everywhere have beliefs that differ from each other in varying degrees. If a sentence doesn't itself communicate something useful, it's needless verbiage. If you mean for it to communicate something useful, it needs to be reworded. "Transition sentences" are not a part of proper formal writing, as high quality prose does not need them. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. The sentence has gone. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Church believes that this savior was Jesus, whom John the Baptist called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". - what does the John the Baptist quote add? What does the Nicene Creed quote afterward add?
    I changed the text a bit to make this clear. This comment is being written after the comments that follow so this comment has been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not clear why the quote, or those two sentences at all, are here. 1/8 of the paragraph that constitutes the entirety of this article's coverage of Jesus' theological importance is devoted to this quote - If it's really so important for some reason, it needs more elaboration on why. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all explanations about Church belief. The Nicene Creed, the central statement of Catholic faith, is sprinkled throughout in each area that explains that particular section of the Creed. This was a much liked arrangement agreed upon by many editors and reviewers in this and previous FACs and on our talk page.
    Since you presumably know the significance of those quotes, I'm sure you do see their value. My point is that the reader (who is presumably reading this article because he doesn't know much about it) has no way of understanding why these quotes are important. I think it's already been established that Catholics believe Jesus "takes away the sin of the world", so why give this particular quote about it, with no explanation of what this quote is intended to illustrate to the reader. I'm fine with giving all or a portion of the Nicene Creed in this article. But it's not proper to start a section with a quote, because that doesn't communicate to the reader what the section is about. Nobody will understand why the Nicene Creed is relevant until they read the subsequent sentence. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TufKat, the Nicene Creed quotes sprinkled throughout the Beleifs section was an arrangement that was agreed upon by many editors after a lot of back and forth discussion, in the last FAC, peer review and even into this FAC. We used to have the entire Nicene Creed quoted in a box in the opening paragraph in Beliefs. Its presentation first was central to helping reader understand what was being discussed in each of the sections that followed. That was not acceptable to many FAC reviewers so we compromised and eliminated the entire quote, mentioned its importance in the Beliefs opening para and sprinkled it throughout the sections that discuss each part of it. This arrangement met with wide acceptance among our reviewers - everybody loved it. I do not understand how, after all of this, you are asking me to do something that sounds like what we had before. Please understand that we sometimes can not please everyone and we have to go with what will please the most. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with nancy that the John the Baptist quote is quite necessary where it is. It provides a concise way of explaining that Jesus's role as saviour is to take away the sins of the world. The quote adds colour to the text, which a more prosaic eplanation of this point would not. I think this is a stylistic point. As far as the use of the Nicene Creed goes. The fact that the Creed is the core statement of Catholic belief has already been explained in the lead and again in the main body of text. Its use in this manner is the result of a consensus decision taken after a lengthy debate over the past two FACs on the article, so we do not want to breach that consensus. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked over the last two FACs, and I don't see any consensus, or discussion at all, that each section must begin with a quote from the Creed. I don't have any opinion on whether the Creed should be quoted at all, and I have only a vague idea of what the Creed is. It doesn't matter. Starting with a quote is always inappropriate because the first sentence explains what the topic is. Thus, the quote inherently replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view explanation of the section's scope with another source's explanation, and/or, the quote simply doesn't provide
    • I'm not sure about the sectioning. If you have a section entitled "Eucharist and liturgical year", it needs to begin by stating what a eucharist and liturgical year are, then probably go into why it's important and where it comes from. I don't think that section ever really explains what a liturgical year is.
    This has been moved, please see all the changes we have made in the text to comply with all of TufKat's comments. NancyHeise (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Liturgical year is the last paragraph in that section. Eucharist is the first part of the section. please see my explanation of sectio arrangement after your first comment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the last paragraph is about the liturgical year. I've read it a number of times now, and I still don't know what exactly a "liturgical year" is, but I see that there is a paragraph about it. And aside from some vague hand-waving about consensus among those editing this article, I don't see how you've responded to my concerns about sectioning. I haven't even told you what they are, and you've already dismissed them. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right, I improved the first two sentences to make that clear and I think this was a good comment, Im sorry I did not answer it right away, I have been very busy today. NancyHeise (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The centrality of the Nicene Creed is discussed in the opening para on Beliefs, its presentation in the subsequent paras is based on its importance and proper introduction to the subject matter. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your comments. I can not change the things you want me to change and I do not feel there is a need to especially when you are the only reviewer to bring this up in Beliefs. The consensus of opinion regarding wording supports present text if we consider the past five or more months of FAC reviews and Peer reviews and MoS edits. I am sorry I can not comply here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A better introduction to the Liturgical Year paragraph is under construction. Re Nicene Creed, see my note above. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tuf Kat, another editor, Xandar, is going through and addressing some of your comments here. I am fine with whatever he decides in this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the Nicene Creed is being quoted because it is itself worthy of special notice, not because it is informative. As a compromise, would you consider putting it in a box, such as using Template:Quotebox? (See Batman_(1989_film) for an example in action.)
    The most recent discussion of a related topic in the archives appears to be Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive_16, The talk in the previous FAC and the most recent talk archive is both about the presence of the Creed reproduced in full, apparently as the full content of the "Beliefs" section (maybe). In any case, I don't see any discussion on including quotes from the Creed at the beginning of each section. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotebox was actually used for the Creed up to the recent change. I actually preferred the quotebox, but the consensus of editors were against me on that. The decision to use the creed as the basis of the beliefs section won approval from reviewers. On sections, it might be more logical to include Liturgical Year with Liturgy of the Hours rather than Eucharist. But other than that, we do not want to start a major revamp of sections now. What do others think of the Liturgical year suggestion? Xandar (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding from the previous discussion was that the Creed was reproduced in full in one box, (maybe as the entirety of the beliefs section?) which is not what I'm proposing (each piece of the Creed in a box next to the section in question). In any case, my real suggestion is just to not start each section with a quote, and I still don't see where there's been any discussion at all on that point. Please point me to it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very happy with Xandars edits to respond to TufKats FAC comments. I think the article is improved because of these changes. Regarding the liturgical year going into Liturgy of the Hours - definitely it is fine with me and is not a major change. If you want to make the edit, Xandar go ahead. Regarding the Creed quote going back in - there is no way we can possibly even consider doing that - it has been thoroughly and almost heatedly discussed over and over in depth, the current version is the result of MUCH discussion and consensus - please see where consensus was asked for and reached both on the talk page (after the second peer review and during this FAC process) and on the first page of this third FAC process. We have three separate sections representing consensus for current presentation of the Nicene Creed - we would be in violation of this well documented agreement by deciding now to change it between just the three of us. Please, lets respect other editors opinions on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point me to the previous discussion on the matter. I see a lot of discussion on presenting the Nicene Creed in a single box, but I don't see any mention of why each section must begin with an out-of-context quote from the Creed. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tuf-Kat. I note that you have added a note to your "oppose", changing it to "strong oppose" and accused editors of not interacting with your comments. This, despite all of the clear attempts made by editors to discuss them above. Editors have been very reasonable in discussing all your points, and several changes have been made to the article in line with some of your comments. However your response is entirely negative. Discussion of an objection does NOT mean accepting all of an objector's ideas and notions without debate, especially when style and aricle-arrangement issues are involved. If changes you prefer have not been made, the reasons for this have been explained. We cannot ignore consensus decisions taken on matters under discussion long before you came to the article in order to accept one individual's views. The reasonableness of objectors and objections is a matter for consideration in this process, and I would therefore repeat that editors are here and willing to discuss genuine concerns, but there has to be give and take, and demands must be reasonable. Insisting on describing the bible as the "collection of sacred books", or speaking of the Church being "inspired by one of the manifestations of God" and similar round-about phrases, is unreasonable imo. I did ask you to bring any phrases forward you thought were too jargon-ridden, for consideration. So far you have not done this. If an objector refuses to take up the offers to participate in the FAC process, the validity of such an objection will come into question. Xandar (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have recently begun making serious attempts at meeting my objections (or at least, it seems that way, I don't have time to check now) - at the time I wrote that, Nancy had responded very cursorily to my comments, such as by dismissing my concerns about sectioning when I had only vaguely alluded to them, so she didn't even know what my concerns were. For the record, by nominating the article here, all prior consensus decisions are inherently reopened for discussion (they're never really closed, even outside of FAC, but especially not here) - the whole point of FAC is that reviewers are double-checking everything, and you can not dismiss objections just by invoking prior discussion. If you think the prior discussion is relevant, point directly to it and explain why and how.
    I've already pointing to two sentences I'm concerned about, and that I don't think you've changed (could be wrong). I did not insist on discussing the bible as a "collection of sacred books". I offered an alternative phrasing for one sentence that uses that phrase. In any case, I frankly don't know the best, neutral formulation. I don't mean to be rude, but it's not my job to come up with one.
    To clarify then, I'm objecting on the basis that this article uses Catholic terminology without sufficient context or clarification. This amounts to poor writing, breaches the manual of style and effectively presents the Church's views in a biased manner. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On use of Catholic terminology without sufficient context or clarification. To some extent the use of catholic terminology is unavoidable. This is the same with all articles that cover specialised subjects, faiths, sciences etc. See your own Featured article; Timeline of prehistoric Scotland, which unavoidably makes use of specialist terminology, with terms such as "neanderthal", "interglacial", and "pleistocene", unclarified in the run of text. So there does exist necessary flexibility with regard to this. However, I can recognize that in the subsection "Beliefs" there may be places where presentation and explanation can be improved, and I will have a look into the prospect of simplifying and clarifying the text over the coming 24 hours Xandar (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TufKat's comments have all been addressed including changes to the text as indicated above. I do not consider this an actionable oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "neanderthal" and "interglacial" are really too specialized, and they are, at least, much more easily defined and explained through linking than religious terminology. In any case, I think you've much improved the article. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose This article is very bias and one sided. I think there should be a criticism section. The actions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have been criticized by many secular thinkers. I think some criticism of the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the article. Masterpiece2000 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - :Thank you for your comment, per Jimbo Wales recommendation, we placed all criticism throughout the article instead of having it in a separate section called Criticism because he says these tend to become "troll nets". Which items in the text do you consider biased? Are there any factual inaccuracies that you can point out for us? Any ommissions of notable events? NancyHeise (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I will show you some examples. Masterpiece2000 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think the views of secular thinkers about the Roman Catholic Church should be included in the article? Masterpiece2000 04:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you propose? Please give us your ideas. NancyHeise (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not include the views of secular thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins? Dawkins is critical of Roman Catholic attitudes to family planning and population control. He states that leaders who forbid contraception, and "express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation" will get just such a method in the form of starvation. The article says nothing about the Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy. The article says nothing about Catholic Church's support for creationism. The article is one-sided. Masterpiece2000 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, I'm not sure of this at all. In particular, the RCC is far from explicitly supporting creationism. See theistic evolution, George Coyne and the main article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relata refero, the RCC may not explicitly support creationism, but, they do support creationism/ID. Make no mistake about it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The RCC does not support intelligent design in the way most people take the term to mean (God/gods directing the development of the world instead of letting natural selection run its course). The Church will of course say that God is the ultimate creator of the world. But in terms of how the species came to be as they are today, it absolutely does not oppose evolution by natural selection. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be going way off-topic. Dawkins etc. have a beef with all religion and any form of organized Christianity. Starting a discussion on rationalism versus religion and spirituality is not the purpose of this page. Maybe it might find a place under Christianity or rationalist versus deistic viewpoints, but it is not relevant to a specific article on the Roman Catholic Church.
    As for Galileo. It may deserve a mention, but it would need to be set in context of the many Catholics who were important scientists. Galileo is often used to argue thst the Church has been anti-science. But the affair was more complex than often presented, and was a pretty isolated event. Xandar (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to have Gallileo in the article but after going through talk page discussion and GA there was consensus (from both Catholic and non) to remove mention of him for many reasons including Xandar's stated above. There is an article discussing in detail the many different arguments against Church doctrine, see Roman Catholic theology. In this RCC article, we make mention of the fact of the criticism, and provide both Church response and wikilink for reader who wants to know more. In the case of Galileo, he is discussed in the wikilink to Inquisition which is listed in the article text where we discuss the issue. The Theology wikipage is listed in the See Also section. NancyHeise (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tough decision. I will make my final decision tomorrow. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relata refero, the RCC may not explicitly support creationism, but, they do support creationism/ID. Make no mistake about it. You have got to be kidding me. The RCC officially supports "creatianism" not "creationism". There is a difference you know. And the ID movement is basically a stalking horse for biblical literalism, which the RCC has categorically rejected for centuries. Except for one letter in the NYT that turned out to be ghostwritten by the Discovery Institute that was signed by a member of the RCC hierarchy, there has been no support for ID from the RCC and in fact several well-publicized articles and letters from others highly placed in the church explicitly rejecting ID. There are of course small lay organizations inside the church that unofficially lobby for creationism and ID and our article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church lists a few of these that I dug up (I am sure there are more, but I did not want to spend too much time on it). Where on earth are you getting this from?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Fill, are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't support creationism? You have got to be kidding me. I can show you several reports from several Humanist organisations that suggest that the Roman Catholic Church supports creationism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Fill, actually, you are right. The RCC officially supports creatianism not creationism. I did some research and I found that the RCC is not known for its support for creationism/ID. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly; there are thousands of Catholic schools in the UK and elsewhere and as far as I know none teach creationism or have any problem teaching evolutionary theory. Much to the surprise of Darwin, and the disgust of the rabidly anti-Catholic Thomas Huxley, even in the 19th century Catholic opposition to evolution was the dog that didn't bark. Nearly all the opposition came from evangelical Protestants like Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Of the various political categories in that debate, the Catholic Church officially (per Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) would probably best fit with theistic evolution. Gimmetrow 06:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I now see we have a rather patchy & indigestible Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, which however makes the main point that the Church (rather surprisingly perhaps) noticably never came out against evolution. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I did actually link it above... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it very hard to swallow the claim that over half of all Christians belong to the RCC.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that on the article talk page someone once said that this number counts all people who have been baptized Catholic; it does not take into consideration those who later leave the church. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you better get some sources for all this. The numbers I am familiar with are so far away from this as to be laughable.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are the United States Government CIA world factbook and Zenit News Agency, it is also in the book Saints and Sinners by Eamon Duffy and was recently mentioned in all worldwide news services when the Vatican announced the the religion Islam now has more members than the Roman Catholic Church. In our Demographics section we also have it referenced to this USA Today article [65]. It is not just compiled from Catholic Church baptismal records, it is confirmed through census' of various countries and compiled by research centers like the one used for the USA today article. NancyHeise (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nancy, is there any specific description in the sources of how those numbers are compiled? A brief mention of what exactly this is measuring might help address this concern. Karanacs (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Karanacs, the CIA world Factbook has its own very nice Wikipage that gives this info here The World Factbook and the Center for Applied Research is a function of Georgetown University. What do you think of having a sentence that just says "according to the [[[The World Factbook]] and the Center for Applied Research (ref) the Catholic population is...." The person who wants to know the off topic information of how the info was compiled can then click on the World Factbook site. NancyHeise (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On further consideration, this is really off topic for our article. All anyone has to do is click on the reference and see them. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The description of the relationship between the Western and Eastern Church(es) I find highly doubtful. I do not think the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be an Eastern Catholic Church, if that is what is being implied here; it was not clear to me.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is a separate entity, not in communion with the pope of Rome, they are led by a patriarch. I'll see if we can word this to make it clear, we dont want people to be confused - I guess the use of the word "Eastern" is confusing to some. NancyHeise (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that. But the article is not written very clearly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right, I made an edit to make this more clear. Thanks for your good comment. NancyHeise (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I fully understand that it's not my place to suggest any course of action to the nominators, but I will do so nevertheless. This was always going to be a difficult gig, for all sorts of reasons. Even though I still support the article's promotion, it's also clear that the attempts to bring everyone on-side have fractured the prose and the flow somewhat. I'm reluctantly of the opinion that a period of consolidation away from the glare of the FA spotlight may be what's needed now. Just my 2p worth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Flow is a relatively minor thing to address and adjust, I am reading through the article now. I will make any changes needed. No removal from FA spotlight is necessary. Thanks though, I appreciate all of your help through this FAC process very much. NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes have been made to the text per discussions with opposing reviewers (see article edit history). For comments that we are not able to address, we have posted our valid reasons why. As of this writing, all comments on this page have been addressed. NancyHeise (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the elephant in the corner is shouting Strong oppose. Try looking for another FAC that passed after a similar strong opposition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tuf-Kat's point has not been addressed, in my opinion. Quite a few terms are used vaguely. For instance: "They are vehicles through which God's grace is said to flow into all those who receive them with the proper disposition.[47] The Church encourages individuals to engage in adequate preparation before receiving certain sacraments.[48]" "Vehicles of grace" is not specific enough to explain what a sacrament is, and how it's different from, say, an icon or a relic. "Engage in adequate preparation" and "proper disposition" don't explain much, either. Gimmetrow 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See my latest response to Tuf-Kat. These matters are being looked into, but it will take up to a day to produce something. Xandar (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am answering TufKat's question regarding where the consensus for removal of the Creed was discussed. Please see the conversation that begins with the second comment from the top of this page here [66] and on the RCC talk page here [67], also in the second peer review as one of Karanacs comments that another editor agreed with her on here [68]. I responded to her comment by stating that I was going to put the discussion on the article talk page, which I did and there were several responses in favor of removing it. Xandar and I were intensly against removal of the Creed blockquote and argued against it to the exasperation of the others. We would be very happy to put the whole quote back in the block and remove the sprinkling of the Creed throughout. How can we do that after all this discussion that reveals so much consensus? If there is some higher authority who can make a final decision on this, we are willing to comply with TufKat's recommendation. NancyHeise (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not referring to the issue with the Creed, but to the use of religious language. "Proper disposition" is a codeword that means something to Catholics; if it's important to say it should be explained or linked. Alluding to some aspect of doctrine without a pointer to its meaning doesn't seem very informative. Gimmetrow 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really appreciate if you would help Xandar and I in our efforts to comply with this FAC comment and a list of the words in the text that we need to redefine would really help us. It is not necessary but it might help us understand what non-Catholics find confusing. NancyHeise (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also reworded the "proper disposition" item. NancyHeise (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [69] I guess it's my fault, but this is not what I'm getting at. I think some parts of the Beliefs section try to allude to too many things. If the sacraments are important, then it's a given there will be some preparation for them. I was thinking more about focus on the key points: "Sacraments are visible rites which Catholics see as providing God's grace ex opere operato, and are thus central to most individual Catholics' approach to God." Gimmetrow 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I used your version a little without removing my ability to still use the ref at the end of the sentence. Rereading your comment above again, are you suggesting we eliminate mention of "engage in adequate preparation" or do you think we should explain it? NancyHeise (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those discussions are relevant here. I suggested moving the Nicene Creed out of the first sentence of each section. The prior consensus is that the Nicene Creed should not be reproduced entirely, but there does not appear to be any consensus, or indeed discussion at all, that the quotes must be in the first sentence of each section. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TufKat, I have just gone through again and made changes to the areas of concern to you that I think will meet to your satisfaction. Xandar has also addressed a couple of points and Gimmetrow has been a tremendous help here as well. Please take another look at the particular areas of concern you have listed because we have made changes to each area you tagged in your comments. Thanks for your comments, I apologize if we were a little slow and reluctant to make changes, our fault. NancyHeise (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    <Commentary moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note from Nominator - The opposes on this page have been addressed in depth with many changes to the text and concessions to reviewers wishes. Some of those wishes were not conceeded based on valid reasons which were provided. At this point, I consider all of them unactionable. Things are pretty quiet around here now. NancyHeise (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Oppose The article is too unweildy, while I understand what it is attempting to cover, it is doing so in a slipshod manner, not giving enough attention to certain areas and dwelling too much on insignificant ones. (I guess I'm the only one appalled that excommunicants and heretics get more mention than Saints and Doctors of the Church, itself). None of the Post Vatican 2 Controversy is dealt with. There are NPOV issues with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae and no mention at all in the Eucharist section on how the modern Mass' translation of the Consecration is a corruption of the words of Christ. There is no mention how after Vatican 2, mass attendance by Catholics plummeted to abysmally low levels due to modernizing the Mass and watering down dogma. There is no mention of why Vatican 2 was needed or how it was a continuation of the First Vatican Council. There is scant mention of the Bureacracy within the Church, how Latin is the Official Language, or the Church's impact beyond the middle ages. There are also numerous sourcing problems and I fail to see how summary works are used to source such a rich and diverse topic. It's not like there are not sources critical of the Church out there. I say this as a practicing Catholic...who attends Mass several times a week and one who graduated from the Seminary. The article has made vast improvements, but it is not ready for Featured Status, yet. The prose is weak in most places; it needs more polish, to promote it in its current state would be a huge disservice to the Church, itself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • (I guess I'm the only one appalled that excommunicants and heretics get more mention than Saints and Doctors of the Church, itself).
    We can add Saints and Doctors, which ones do you suggest? NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis of Asissi, Thomas Aquinas, John of the Cross, and Theresa of Avilla for starters.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Added. Please see the section for Thomas Aquinas in first para of High Middle Ages and others in the Counter Reformation section of Late Medieval and Renaissance. NancyHeise (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the Post Vatican 2 Controversy is dealt with.
    Please see the history section under Vatican II and Beyond. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are NPOV issues with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae and no mention at all in the Eucharist section on how the modern Mass' translation of the Consecration is a corruption of the words of Christ.
    That is an issue that is dealt with under the wikilink Traditionalist in the Vatican II section of history. "corruption of the words of Christ", a Traditionalist POV, is not a notable controversy. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [70] I guess if someone is ignorant of Faith, Language, and Tradition they could make that point.
    That is your POV, per your source, "“Indeed,” the cardinal continued, “the formula ‘for all’ would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).” Nonetheless, while “for all” is, “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis,” Arinze said, “’for many’ is a faithful translation of ‘pro multis.’” " Mike, this argument is no not noteworthy to include in this summary article of the RCC. This is a quibble, not a war and I will argue with you based on what your own source says that the words used in the Mass are fine. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But still not the words in the Bible as said by Christ.
    • There is no mention how after Vatican 2, mass attendance by Catholics plummeted to abysmally low levels due to modernizing the Mass and watering down dogma.
    The Vatican II controversy discusses these issues in history section. I added more per your comments here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no mention of why Vatican 2 was needed or how it was a continuation of the First Vatican Council.
    Added. NancyHeise (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is scant mention of the Bureacracy within the Church, how Latin is the Official Language, or the Church's impact beyond the middle ages.
    All of this is already in the first para of Church organization and community including Latin as official language. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You lumped all of what you call "traditionalists" into one group? Not only is that factually inaccurate and misleading, it borders on slander and calumny.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike, I didn't lump them, we have a wikipage on them. The article provides the wikilink and the reader goes there to learn more. Would you like some sort of elaboraton on Traditionalists? NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an article that covers 2000 years of history and much else besides. Traditionalists and Liberals are given DUE WEIGHT in this summary account. There are wikilinks elsewhere for people interested in that aspect of Catholic controversy. I know these things are of greater importance to those involved, but there is not a way that we can cut something else out in order to detail various traditionalist and Liberal groups, man of which are very small. This is not the article to do that. Xandar (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are also numerous sourcing problems and I fail to see how summary works are used to source such a rich and diverse topic. It's not like there are not sources critical of the Church out there.
    What sources do you suggest are not OK? Are you saying we dont have critic sources? We do, Duffy and Bokenkotter are considered critics. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say this as a practicing Catholic...who attends Mass several times a week and one who graduated from the Seminary. The article has made vast improvements, but it is not ready for Featured Status, yet. It needs more polish, to promote it in its current state would be a huge disservice to the Church, itself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we can polish it right now with FAC comments. That is why we have brought it to FAC, to make a decent article. We thought we were there after our second peer review - we followed all protocol before bringing this up again. Mike, as a Traditionalist Catholic, you have a certain POV that you want to have presented in the article but that POV is already mentioned and I might add that it is an extremely minority POV. There are not a lot of Traditionalist Catholics, they are a schismatic group, a radical group with an agenda to push. We can't use the RCC article to do that. I will address your valid points. Thanks for offering them. NancyHeise (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I am not a schismatic and will not tolerate such personal attacks. I am not SSPV or SSPX or pushing any POV. Read your Bible and tell me in which Gospel Jesus said "For All" and not "For Many". Christ's words are retained in the Tridentine Rite, they are absent from the Novus Ordo, but you'll never include that in this article because of your blatant POV pushing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that while some of your points are valid, you're pushing a POV supporting the Tridentine Mass and the pre-Vatican II church. Please note WP:NPOV. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that when the subject is not even broached in the article? Where have I made any such POV edit pushing? Do you see what I mean?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, he's the only reviewer here with a POV?? Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what they say when they're open minded and I'm just a stupid jerk  :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your word choice lends itself to a POV, whether it was inadvertent or not. Again, you do have valid points, and yes, naturally we do all have a POV. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just noting that some may construe your complaint as a POV-push. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have answered all of Mikes comments making additions in the text per his very good commments. No offense is intended by my comments about Traditionalist groups that are schismatic. It is just a fact that this exists. I did not know to which group you belonged but I am happy it is not the schismatic one! Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, again. I don't know what you are talking about. The only "group" I belong to is in Communion with Rome. It is just called the Roman Catholic Church...what this article is about.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, many traditionalists are in groups. I have some sympathy with some traditionalist points. However this is not the article for arguments on the precise wording of the mass etc. On sourcing, there are not actually a huge number of over-all histories of the Catholic Church that cover the whole course of events in depth. You will find that even the Encyclopedia Britannica article uses some of the books that we use, including Duffy and the Oxford illustrated History, as sources. There is nothing wrong with these sources. Xandar (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is a mischaracterization. There are some "extremists" in certain "societies", but that's the exception and not the rule, it does not exclude personal attacks and slander by insinuating that because someone has a love for the Latin Mass that they are a schismatic. There are plenty of over-all histories of the Church. Richard Mc Brien's Catholicism comes to mind, but it was excluded from the article because the nominator did not like the author(a liberal Roman Catholic Priest). It may not have a Nihil Obstat, because it was never sanctioned by a Bishop, however it is used as a textbook in many seminaries.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing in the article to link Traditionalists and schismatics, although there are one or two fringe groups have broken away. The section on Tradionalist Catholics links to a detailed article on that subject. As for your suggested History text. if you read through this FAC page and the previous ones, you will find most of the reviewers who object to some of the books used a sosurces, are objecting to the use of books written by Catholics. To have a source such as Fr Mc Brien, which is used as a textbook in catholic seminaries would not help with this problem. Xandar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No those vile repugnant comments and innuendos were made by the nominator on this very talk page and a while back (maybe the first FAC) before I stopped trying to fix this article. The article contains a gross misrepresentation of the facts when it comes to that and to be honest, it's just laughable the way it is written. As for your other point...they seem to object to nonscholarly works(as do I). McBrien is a priest, true, but a very liberal one. Despite his personal views (he's everything "traditionalists" like me hate but the modern church embraces: pro women priests, pro married clergy, hold hands during the Our Father, altar girls, liturgical dancers, etc) his book is spot on dogmatically and even his harshest critics mention this. I think this type of author, one who has been critical of the church and criticized by the church is precisely the type of balance that is needed. I would never receive the sacraments from him or go to one of his Masses, but his book is 100% dead-nuts accurate with regard to history and dogma(but then again, even satan can quote scripture).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The book of which you speak is not a history, but rather very much a Theology work, viewing from a particular perspective. There is a brief historical section, but the work is certainly not suitable as a historical reference. Xandar (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: Further threats and abuse on my talk page concerning this nomination will be removed immediately. TONY (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further unwarranted allegations by yourself. There have been no threats and abuse on your talk page, merely a request that you apologise for your earlier allegations against editors and reviewers that have been proven to be false.Xandar (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could future reviewers and those still holding objections please look at Featured Article Candidate London on this page. There you will see an example, (one among many,) of the most useful way to make objections to an article. Most objections are itemized, are specific for clarity, are bulletpointed and refer to specific sentences or paragraphs complained about. Following this format will make objections easier to see, identify, quickly address and acknowledge. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I dislike the use of Church euphemism in the article. "...married persons are expected to be open to new life in their sexual relations"; "They usually live in community"; and the deferential "...led Pope John Paul II to issue two documents to explain Church teaching." I think it is crazy that defensive statements are present in the paragraph about sexual abuse of minors. The defensive statements about the Spanish Inquisition also are defensive and out of place. Tempshill (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how these sentences make the article Non-FA. But please bring forward your suggestions for amendments. On so-called "defensive" statements I'm afraid BOTH sides of an argument or debate have to be presented in Wikipedia articles. Not just one side. Xandar (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The church euphemisms you identify in your oppose are in sections describing Church belief, practices or community. These sections are stating the Church belief or teaching on particular issues. The wording in each of your cases pointed out here is factually correct. The statement "led Pope John Paul II..." is not deferential, it is a fact that is referenced to Bokenkotter and the actual Mulierus. Sexual abuse and Inquisitions provide all points of view as required by NPOV. NancyHeise (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The following three opposes are restatements of earlier opposes at the top of the page (they are not new opposes). I asked all opposes to please come back and strike their comments that we have addressed. These are their responses to that request. NancyHeise (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Continued Oppose. (Note, I have added "continued" oppose in response to repeated attempts to change my comments on this page, plus comments on my talk page of which I think rather poorly from one of this article's latest defenders: I've made my view about this clear here. It's sad that, just as the nominator was, in my view, doing rather better at working with reviewers, as I commented here, other supporters should rather undo her good work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)) I have been trying more or less to keep away from this FAC, and certainly from the article. Prompted (most appropriately) by NancyHeise to revisit it, I decided that I would take a paragraph almost at random--I say almost, because I decided I wouldn't take a paragraph from the "History" section, with which I know I have problems, and which I know has raised much controversy. I looked at the TOC, clicked on Church organizatoin and community, and found myself with the following:[reply]
    The spiritual head and leader of the Catholic Church on earth is the pope. He governs from Vatican City in Rome, a sovereign state of which he is also the Head of State.[125] He is elected by the College of Cardinals, composed of bishops or priests who have been granted special status by the pope to serve as his advisors.[126] The cardinals may select any male member of the Church to be pope, but that person must be ordained as a bishop before taking office. The Church community is governed according to the Code of Canon Law. The Roman Curia assists the pope in the administration of the Church. Although the official language of the Church is Latin, Italian is the working language.[127]
    There are numerous problems with the above.
    • The words "on earth" need to be explained. I presume the point is that the Church considers God (or Jesus?) to be its absolute head; but without that explanation, the insertion of "on earth" is confusing and distracting.
    I added some wording to clarify for you.
    • Vatican City or "the Vatican City"? (I may be wrong here, as elsewhere, of course.)
    Vatican City is correct. In Italian, they use "del" in front of Vatican but not so in English. NancyHeise (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third sentence is illogical, as it seems to suggest that the pope is elected by people whom he himself has already chosen.
    Added clarifying language, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the fourth sentence, "by the pope" is redundant." Probably so is "as a."
    eliminated, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply stating that "The Church community is governed according to the Code of Canon Law" is unhelpful without at least the briefest of explanations of what is meant. (I know that this is a long article and editors are undoubtedly loathe to add more content, but there are plenty of redundancies, as I've just suggested, and other opportunities for further concision.)
    Code of Canon Law is wikilinked for reader who wants to know more. For summary style considerations we have to limit what we decide to expand upon and make use of the many wikilinks available to us. Stating that a world community is governed by a certain law, providing a link to that law is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. there's not really very much you can say about Canon Law other than that it is a list of regulations, which already seems explicit in the words "Code of Law".Xandar (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a whole, the paragraph simply does not flow. Connectors are missing, and so for instance its last three sentences are short non sequiturs. At best, therefore, the prose is clunky.
    • The sources are not really appropriate. I would have thought that all the above could and should be sourced by statements from the Vatican itself, as they detail its internal organization and functioning. This is not an instance where third-party sources are needed or even especially desirable. And yet we have a BBC Country profile, a Catholic News Service article, and an NYT article. I'd have thought that if wanted to know (e.g.) how the pope is elected, I would look first for some Vatican statement on the matter.
    The Beliefs, prayer and worship and community sections are heavily referenced to self published sources like Code of Canon Law, Catechism and Vatican statements. Other references used are three third party books written by university professors whose books have Nihil obstat and Imprimatur declarations from the Church. Karanacs wanted to see some more third party sources so we have included newspapers as well. The references sourcing all of these sections meet WP:RS as top sources per WP:Reliable source examples. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The principle of citation is also rather random. I'm not necessarily one of those who demands a footnote after each paragraph, but here I can't see why some statements have notes (e.g. the issue of the Church's official language), but others (e.g. the role of Canon Law) don't. There's no consistency here.
    WP:Cite Does not require us to cite something that is an obvious and generally undisputed fact. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This paragraph is not egregiously bad. It could fairly easily be fixed. But I would want a paragraph chosen at random (indeed, chosen to avoid picking a very controversial paragraph) from a Featured Article to be much better.
    Overall, I continue to think that the POV in this article is problematic: at best, it is written in quotation marks; at worst, it reflects a very particular view of the Church, which is especially conservative, and which confuses the Church (as a global sociological phenomenon) with the way in which the Church officially sees itself.
    I can not act on this comment, it is too inspecific. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that there are problems with structure, and that the "Demographics" section is particularly weak, not least because it contains a misplaced sub-section on the technical criteria for membership.
    I disagree that the membership section is misplaced, it is a vital piece of information to help reader know what makes a person a member, part of the discussion on Demographics. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And all this is without even touching on the way in which this FAC has been conducted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - I am sorry for any imperfections in my ability to conduct an FAC. I appreciate the help of the helpful editors out there who have been working with me to meet all opposing reviewers demands. I appreciate your bullet point summary here, JB. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still opposing—However, it is not a legitimate part of the process to require reviewers to restate their opposition: that opposition remains as the default until it has been shown to have been resolved. The continual refrain from nominators that resolution has occurred is most unconvincing. In addition, I'd like to echo JBMurray's conclusion that the article is written from the narrow POV of a certain establishment part of the RCC. The treatment of certain issues contains subtle angles that many catholics and non-catholics would disagree with. Again, I must ask nominators here not to post aggressive statements on my talk page in response to this. They don't intimidate me; they're just a nuisance to have to deal with. And if you want to impugn my character or behaviour, please do it on the assigned page overleaf, not here. TONY (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)+[reply]
    Actionable opposes need to be capable of being addressed. Vague implications of "POV" even if posted by more than one editor, do not therefore qualify without specific indication of the sentences and paragraphs at fault, and what should in the view of the objector be done to correct the perceived fault. Some people seem to be forgetting that the purpose of this process is to help articles forward to FA status, not to be an excuse to try to apply a personal veto hrough unresolvable objections. The POV of the article is similar to that of Britannica and most other encyclopedia coverage. It may not take radical off-centre viewpoints, but that is not its purpose. Xandar (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Xandar. We have worked extensively to eliminate any POV. What we have left are bare notable facts. We can not act on opposes that do not specify anything in particular. Prose is a point of personal taste, a minority of FAC reviewers here have a problem with the prose even though it has been extensively reworked by experienced editors. This should not prevent FA. NancyHeise (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominator message to FA Director I posted a note on the talk pages of each opposing voter [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] asking them to please come see our responses to their comments, almost all of which have been answered by making changes to the article text. Afterward, Awadewit summarized her oppose by making statments that the editors of the article have not addressed all of her points, that we have a pro Catholic POV tone in the article and that other opposing editors share her view. Johnbod, another FA reviewer and article supporter (not an editor of this article) wrote this to respond to Awadewit:

    "Just to point out that it was not only editors responsible for the article who disputed your objections here (not all of them in my case, but several, not all commented on). If all the suggestions by those you mention above had been followed, I for one would be likely switch my position to strong oppose until balance had been restored. Likewise for Mike's objections below (is it?). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you have written here, Johnbod. Awadewit (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    It seems clear enough to me - not all suggestions of objectors (generally)) would improve articles, and there are many here that would not. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)"

    Further, Mike's oppose accuses us of not being Catholic enough in our POV. We editors have been constantly accused of POV violations of one sort or another even as we have constantly sought to eliminate any perception of POV. Gimmetrow was helpful with this. Tempshill states that he thinks its crazy that we have defensive statements in sexual abuse paragraph and inquisitions para. We are required by WP:NPOV to include these facts. We have dealt with many reviewers on this article, some have knowledge of RCC but many do not. All have contributed valuable comments and almost all have contributed comments that, if we were to act upon, would result in grave violations of Wikipedia policies or factual inaccuracies. We have not been breezing by everyone's comments, blithly ingnoring valuable perspective. We have had to distinguish between what would bring the article up and what would destroy it. When we have decided against incorporating someone's comments, we have then been accused of being unresponsive or combative. In addition, Tony's oppose just above, accuses us of posting personal threats on his talk page. Wackymacs makes the same accusation. Please see his talk page, we have not posted any such thing. NancyHeise (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never said any POV, much less yours, was not Catholic. Stop putting words in peoples' mouths. I said certain elements had POV issues. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike, I answered all your comments by adding text (except your instance on the words in Mass controversy which I gave a valid reason for not changing). You have not even seen my changes to cross off your comments. You crossed off Thomas Aquinas. I added a lot of text on saints to comply with your wish - remember you stated that you had a problem with an article that talked more about heretics than saints? Please see Late Medieval and Renaissance toward the bottom in the Counter Reformation section. All of the textual additions are pointed out to you in my answers to your comments. All you have to do is go to the article and see them. Also, I can not act on an oppose that states a POV issue but does not specify or identify an sentence that is POV. WP:FAC requires opposers to be specific. NancyHeise (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick rejoinder to your claim about one of my several objections: Tempshill states that he thinks its crazy that we have defensive statements in sexual abuse paragraph and inquisitions para. We are required by WP:NPOV to include these facts. This is a misreading of NPOV. In an article about a person accused of murder, it is not necessary under NPOV to point out that several hundred thousand other people have also been accused of murder. Stating that the Church was accused of X, found guilty of Y, and paid Z does not at all need to be balanced with any other statement. I must assume that the reason you have the statement in there is to defend the Church, not to satisfy NPOV. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're honestly trying to be NPOV, but from the general tone of the article, I doubt I'm wrong. Tempshill (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if you state precisely wording objected to, it helps a lot, rather than having editors have to guess or mind-read what your objection is. It appears now that your specific objection is the sentence relating to percentage sex-abusers in the Catholic Church and the percentage among US teachers. I happen to think the information sets the issues in context, and I do not see why you would object to readers having this referenced information. However there is certainly room for discussion on the wording.Xandar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the news reports about the Public School abuse, including the Washington Post article reference we used, made the comparison between the sex abuse in the schools and the Catholic Church. This is a notable fact that give significant context to the priest abuse scandal in the US, especially when the institutions dealt with it in exactly the same manner. It is NPOV to include the whole story. This is an important part of what makes this article particularly FA and is why it is a useful piece of information. NancyHeise (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I'd revisit the article. Spot-checked one small portion of text. Eeuuuw, didn't like this:
      • "Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick". Why the alphabet soup? See MOS on caps in titles. Why not the anointing, since "the" wouldn't be the first word of the title?
    "the" would be improper use. Catholics dont call the sacrament "the Anointing of the Sick" but "Anointing of the Sick" like "Baptism" is not called "the Baptism" but unlike "the Eucharist" which is used. Also, Anointing of the Sick is one of the seven church sacraments. MoS requires us to cap when referring to a proper noun, thus all the sacraments and the word Church, when referring to the Catholic Church are capped. We had quite an extensive discussion on this. We offered to lower case if MoS folks decided they wanted it the other way - we dont care. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Catholic social teaching is based on the word of Jesus ...". Bit of a stretch, that, when the word of the man has been filtered through linguistic, cultural, historical, and institutional veils, and not just thin veils. To use WP to assert that the hardest-line doctrines, such as the bans on abortion and homosexuality, hark back to what he said or thought, is on the extreme end of POV. I can't countenance an article on the RCC that seeks to make such universal, black-and-white statements that cannot be proven; this article needs to be carefully expressed in terms that are clearly not in-universe.
    Thank you for pointing that out, I added words of clarification and expanded a bit on what that social teaching is. The controversy over abortion is discussed in the history section under Vatican II. The Church does not ban homosexuality. It is considered adultery and the church does not distinguish between heterosexial adultery and homosexual adultery, it is all adultery in their eyes, equally sinful for homosexuals and heterosexuals, no discrimination there. I would like to add that before any other church organization was ordaining homosexual men, the Catholic Church opened its arms to them, especially in the US until the latest church crisis which is a great shame for the many homosexual men who never violated their vows and lived very holy lives. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Catholic social teaching ... commits Catholics to the welfare of others." Well, it may commit catholics to what it sees is the welfare of others—or to what some people in positions of power in the institution see as this. I certainly know that the sect of nuns up the road don't view it quite the way the Vatican does, and were roundly told by Rome to shut up and back off about four years ago WRT one particular issue; again, it's an in-universe statement masquerading as a universal truth. This is unacceptable in a WP article, which must minimise the risk that readers will dismiss it as conveying POV. At stake is the credibility of the whole project when it comes to ideological matters. TONY (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the nuns: yes, there is disagreement within the church and that is discussed in the history section under Vatican II, a manner of dealing with controversy expressly recommended by Jimbo Wales. Regarding Catholic social teaching, I changed the sentence to reflect your comment and expanded to include how the Church defines that teaching. Here's the new sentences: "Catholic social teaching is based on Church interpretation of the life and work of Jesus and commits Catholics to the welfare of others.[12] The seven main themes in this teaching are to encourage respect for human life and the dignity of each person, to strengthen and encourage the family unit, to encourage respect for the rights and responsibilities of each person, to care for the poor, to promote the rights and dignity of the worker, and to encourage the solidarity of all humans as one family.[12] " I dont think that WP is going to be considered a reliable encyclopedia if it prohibits all religion articles beliefs sections from actually stating those beliefs. Even Encyclopedia Brittanica has a section on beliefs. If we have to get shut out just because FAC reviewers have personal negative opinions about the religion, that will really make WP look ridiculous and unprofessional. The purpose of the article is to provide a definition of the church, it is not a blog or commentary. We provide the facts of what the church is, what it believes, who comprises the community, what their prayers and practices are and what they have done (history), all notable controversies are covered - completely scientific and professionally done. NancyHeise (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. This page purposely, frequently, and without apology calls the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church, which is totally POV and tantamount to calling the Roman Catholic Church the one & only church. Please fix this.--Carlaude (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. While other church organizations in the world call themselves "catholic", no other church organization in the world offically calls itself the "Catholic Church" except for the Catholic Church (which does not call itself the Roman Catholic Church except in discussions with other Christian denominations to be polite). The official name of Catholic Church is a referenced fact in the very first sentence. One of the refs gives a very good explanation of this situation. It would be factually incorrect and against Wikipedia policy for us to remove our referenced fact in response to this oppose. NancyHeise (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, Nancy, Carlaude has a point: you have to be very careful in avoid in-universe POV when using WP as a mouthpiece. one and only needs to be clearly marked as a dogmatic phrase that has a stylised reference point. I'm not at all convinced by your response to my two POV objections above, which were mere examples (taken at random) of a broad problem in the article. For instance, saying that such and such is "discussed elsewhere in the article" does not prevent the POV angle from coming across there and then, towards the top of the article. TONY (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ? The phrase "one and only" does not appear in the article; what is "a stylised reference point" anyway? I fail to see how using the name of an organization amounts to "in-universe POV when using WP as a mouthpiece". Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this alluding to the name Catholic Church, Use of the name the Church calls itself by, and has done for 1800 years, cannot really be POV. And of course all examples of alleged POV may be entered below... Xandar (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "one and only" does not appear in the article text. No action can be taken regarding that comment because it is a comment made in error. Tony, the Beliefs section makes clear to reader right away in the title that it is a Beliefs section, not a Universal Truth section as you seem to allege. Almost every single sentence in that Beliefs section begins with or includes the phrase "Catholics believe" or the "Church teaches.." or "The Catechism states...", etc. More than that would make the whole section ridiculous and unreadable. We can not assume that the reader is so unintelligent that they don't understand that these are a compilation of Catholic Church beliefs. You are asking us to do a severe "dumbing down" of the article to address what you call POV that is clearly not framed as POV but as the beliefs of this particular church. I made the change you suggested to the sentence you identified. I am willing to make any more changes that are reasonable. Our criticisms are addressed in exactly the manner suggested by Jimbo Wales, if you have a better idea then maybe you can write an instructive article too. I have made use of the instructions currently recommended by the WP community and followed their advice. NancyHeise (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I would ask that every new Roman Catholic idea presented begins "Catholics believe" or the "Church teaches.." or "The Catechism states..." (not almost every).
    (Under "Jesus, sin, and Penance" that article states "Since Baptism can only be received once..." as a known fact.. which it is not. It is POV.)
    AND...
    2. I would ask that every paragraght with a Roman Catholic ideas presented begins "Roman Catholics believe" or the "Roman Catholics Church teaches.." in the first sentence.--Carlaude (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note well--
    Apart from anything else, there are many official documents where the Roman Church does use the term Roman Catholic Church of itself, eg ARCIC, several dioceses in England and Wales use the term on their websites and so on. (Quote of David Underdown)
    Together this indicates that the RCC is apt to use the the "Catholic" name in documents to it those within and the "Roman Catholic" to those outside-- such as on ARCIC and websites. Which form do you think Wikipedia should take?--Carlaude (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also-- The phrase "one and only" does not have to appear in the article-- it is the constant use of "Catholic" in the article that is objected to. This is an "in-universe POV" because RCC use that name for themselves, but no mater how consistently this is done it is still POV.
    Note also-- the Roman Catholic Church can not be said to call itself the Catholic Church for 1800 years (not that this would make it NPOV) because 1800 years ago the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Catholic Church were the same church. They both-- however-- did call themselves the catholic church 1800 years ago-- and both still do.
    I am copy and pasting this from the article talk page since your discussion was posted there and also here. These are two responses to your demands.NancyHeise (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many don't feel that referring to it as the "Catholic Church" implies Wikipedia's belief that it is the only legitimate church on Earth. I suppose a better example than Macedonia would be the article we have on the Eastern Orthodox Church. After the title and introduction, that article repeatedly refers to the "Orthodox" church and the beliefs of "Orthodox Christians", yet we readers understand that not everyone believes the church in question is the most correct or truthful. Or even the United Church of Christ. Examples of churches whose names claim exclusion are near infinite, but we still use their names. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article provides references to support the article content stating that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. While other churches claim to be "catholic", no other church in the world calls itself the Catholic Church. I agree with BaronGrackle and there is ample consensus on this talk page to support current wording. I do not understand the POV charge when we are simply calling the church what it calls itself. Also, the Church uses the term Roman Catholic when discussing issues with other Christian denominations in an effort to be polite (as with ARCIC). It does not sign its official documents Roman Catholic Church unless it is an document signed in conjunction with another Christian denomination. There are many legal documents around the world that use the term Roman Catholic (only in English speaking world) but in the US all legal assets of a diocese are owned in the name of the presiding bishop - yet the name of the Church is not the name of the bishop - so we cant go by legal documents of English speaking countries! Please read the references before making any more claims of POV [80] and [81]. Also, please provide references to refute our presentation if you continue to pursue this issue, so far you have provided nothing to prove that our text is incorrect while we have referenced facts and talk page consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the issue of posting "Roman Catholics believe" in front of every sentence, please see my responses to Tony above. The Belief section is clearly marked as a "Belief" section. It is thus not a violation of NPOV to state the Church's beliefs under such a heading without a constant "Roman Catholics believe" even though we have sprinkled this phrase liberally throughout, it would be bad form, ridiculous logic and poor prose to have it there any more than we do. In regards to your comment about Baptism only being received once - all Christians who hold the Nicene Creed as their basic statement of faith (which is almost all Christians regardless of denomination) believe that you only recieve Baptism once. As a person baptized in the Episcopalian Church, I did not need to get re-baptized when I converted to the Catholic Church, they accept one baptism no matter where that baptism took place. NancyHeise (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NancyHeise, you are just making this stuff up, re: "posting 'Roman Catholics believe' in front of every sentence" Re: Nicene Creed and Baptism, I do not see Baptism even mentioned on the version on the Nicene Creed page... maybe you are thinking of a later creed... in any case not every church is going to interpet the phase "there is one baptism" the same way as you.
    The Anglican church and all churches who use Nicene Creed to not require converts from other churches to get re-Baptised (Im not making that up!). NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (and vice versa). NancyHeise (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note, the Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox Church the Catholic Church too, the long lost sister with whom they are desperately trying to reunite. This has been a great desire of the Church ever since the split. NancyHeise (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I have a website and a church published source as references to support "official name", for added measure I have also included a reference to a book written by a university professor and originally published by Harvard University to support current text that states that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. I included the quote in my ref but you can see it directly from the book here [82]. Thus, I do not consider Carlaude's an actionable oppose since compliance would require insertion of factual inaccuracies and violation of Wikipedia policies. NancyHeise (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh?--Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the one-sided quotes and comments above I provide these...--Carlaude (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • ...I guess I just don't understand how a self-identifying term such as this that enjoys such wide usage is any more POV than using, say, "Macedonia" to describe the name of that country. Do we need more information stating that the Church is more prone to use the term "Roman Catholic" when speaking to people living in England? As for your other points (using "Catholics believe" or "the Church teaches"), I can't really say, other than hoping the article doesn't become halting or redundant. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...
    A claim that one church body is "orthodox" does not say that others are not orthodox, but a claim that one church body is "universal" does say that others are part of the universal church.
    The United Church of Christ has never made any claims to universality, nor has any other church. What is more we do not confuse "united" with "universal." No one ever claimed or confused the United Kingdom with a sort of universal kingdom-- nor confused the United States of America with all states of America.--Carlaude (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the link to ewtn.com
    • 1. it begins with reference to the Creed that
    "speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church."
    So right off the bat it admits that the pushing the term "Catholic Church" is part of the claim to be seen as the only church -- the only and true church referred to in the creed. You cannot deny this.
    • 2. It spends most of the text claiming the name "Catholic Church" for the Roman Church.
    • 3. Again at the end of the document written by Mr. Whiteheadit shows again his point of view of the true church being the Roman Church all along by stating:
    "By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." ...And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.... for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history."
    Of course this shows the term "Catholic Church" is used to claim that the Eastern Church split from the true Western church (and not the other way around, or split from each other with equal legitimacy.) All clearing showing the POV of the "Catholic Church."
    The Rolling Stones call themselves The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World but it would be POV for Wikipedia to use it of the band in that way.--Carlaude (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article provides references to support the article content stating that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.... NancyHeise (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not really matter how "official" it considers the name now. I am not claiming that "RCC" is more official, but that RCC is NPOV. It does matter that:

    • The name "Catholic Church" is highly POV (as we can see from the Roman Catholic ewtn.com link), and used to support there view of church history and theology.
    • Using "Roman Catholic" once a paragraph does not destroy the readability.
    • We can see that the Roman Catholic Church does not repudiate the label, (like say the way Oriental Orthodoxy does the label Monophysite, in favor of Miaphysite.) --Carlaude (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not violating WP:NPOV by using the official name of the Church in an article about the Church, especially when that name is also recognized popularly by the average person on the street. When people talk about the Catholic Church in conversation, no one assumes it means the Methodist or Baptist or Anglican or any other Church. I used to be Episcopalian and no one refers to that church as the "Catholic Church" in casual conversation. However, it would be considered by Catholics as a POV statement to use RCC throughout the article since it has, in the past, been used by Protestants in an effort to make a POV statement about Catholics as revealed in two of the three references used in the text to support use of the word "official name". These references are a Catholic source here [83] and a Protestant source here [84]. Thus, it would be considered more of a violation of WP:NPOV to adhere to Carlaude's suggestion than what we currently have in the article text. I would also like to point out that I have provide WP:RS references to support my position here and Carlaude has provided none to support his position. NancyHeise (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is certainly not POV to use the name that the Church calls itself in the article. This is akin to saying that "United States" is POV (in lieu of "United States of America") because there are other states that are united in some way. This is absurd. In fact, a much stronger argument can be made that the article should be titled "Catholic Church" instead of "Roman Catholic Church" as the Catholic Church is composed of both a Latin/Roman rite (a particular church) and 23 Eastern rites (independent particular churches, who are part of the Catholic Church, but independent of the Latin/Roman rite.). Carlaude's objection to this is not only absurd, but also, erroneous, and irrelevant. Move to strike. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images

    • Image:Cristeros Caídos.jpg is likely non-free. The copyright term in Mexico is unusually long - life of the creator plus 100 years. The image page has no evidence to back up the public domain claim.
    • Image:PapalMass1.JPG seems suspicious to me, copyright-wise. It has been up for deletion before, and was kept on AGF grounds after minimal participation in the debate. Yet the uploader has only uploaded three images, and the other two included a PD-self claim, but also gave a website link. The description is disturbingly vague for a self-taken image. I would replace this with an image of more certain copyright.
    • The other images are beautifully sourced for the most part.

    Kelly hi! 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for helping us with the pictures. I replaced the Cristero war pic with Miguel Pro but I am going to keep the picture of Benedict XVI celebrating Mass because it survived its attempts at deletion which means it is OK. NancyHeise (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:Miguel Pro.gif will need a fair use rationale for this article...also, a copyright holder needs to be specified for the image per WP:NFCC#10a, as I don't believe the copyright for this image belongs to Creighton University. An alternative would be to move the original image from Commons to here and use it under non-free content rules...it would need to have the copyright holder identified also, though. Oh, and the papal mass picture I was referring to was not the Benedict one (which is Agencia Brasil and is fine), but the John XXIII picture. Kelly hi! 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I really appreciate your help on this, I am not a picture guru, I can upload but the copyright thing is a fog. I replaced the two pictures you mentioned. Please see the new pics, I think they had solid copyrights but I need your help to determine that. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg looks OK to me. Image:P6orthodox.jpg is unfortunately problematic - it has an obsolete license tag, and has permission claimed with no documentation. Image:Pro-life protest.jpg is probably OK - there is no OTRS ticket (I think the upload predates the OTRS system) and the copyright holder's statement is a little ambiguous in that they said "You may use the image from my Web site for your "Pro-Life" article..." and did not specifically agree to the GFDL license, though that is implied. For a featured article, I would look for something a little more solid from Commons:Category:Pro-life movement - for example, Image:March for life 2007.JPG or Image:UK Pro-life demonstrators.jpg. Regards - Kelly hi! 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly, I changed the pro-life rally picture but the other picture Image:P6orthodox.jpg does have a GNU free license copyright, it is just a little further down the page after the alert tag. Can you take a look and tell me if that is a valid copyright, I dont mean to try your patience but I am not sure you saw that tag. NancyHeise (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took another look - I'm afraid the main problem is that there's no evidence to support the license claims (either PD or GFDL), and I think the claim is pretty dubious. The uploader has been notified at Commons but the image will likely be deleted at Commons in a week or so unless permission is forthcoming, which I think is unlikely. Kelly hi! 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I keep the present picture and just let it get deleted if it doesnt get its permission? I don't really have to have a picture in that section and it really goes well there. Is this something that will prevent FA if I dont remove it? NancyHeise (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection - so far as its affect on the FA nomination, I'm not sure. I was just recruited by SandyGeorgia to help here at FAC based on my experience with image policy and copyrights - today is my first day. :) Kelly hi! 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And they should use you again - you did a great job, I am very grateful for your help in this area. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section title "Beliefs" doesn't absolve the text of the responsibility to present every statement, at the time (not later), in a NPOV way.
    • In other sections, it may be OK to ascribe official beliefs to "the Church", or to say that "The Church teaches that ...", where there's little or no disharmony within the Church, but I see beliefs ascribed in some places to "catholics", that is, individual people. For example, "Catholics believe that God is the source and creator of nature and all that exists." I think one might allow individual Catholics a little leeway to see it their own way; and on a different matter, don't all christian churches teach this point? The statement can't help but imply that catholics are distinctive in this teaching. I think this is assuming one monolithic, ideological homogenous fact; but you readily agreed that it's not that kind of organisation in reality, in response to my example of the nuns (the laudable Sisters of Charity, who've battled church officialdom, including entrenched sexism, for almost 150 years to do good among the poor, drug addicts and the like). It's an irksome fact that you'll have to face up to that some people who call themselves catholics—among them, priests—don't privately believe in a god, or in papal infallibility. WP shouldn't take on the role of nailing their personal ideology by framing belief as monolithic. TONY (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made changes in the text to address all of these comments. Please see and let me know if you are satisfied. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I see the one fundamental problem with most of the comments I've read is that the article attempts to present what would be called a global perspective. When dealing with an organization which counts one-sixth of the global population as members, there are unavoidably going to be serious disagreements within the group itself, particularly given the different social and economic conditions which are found today. While those differences are certainly notable, I think most parties would agree that it is all but impossible to expect one single, comparatively short article, to convey all that information. This is particularly important considering that the church as a whole contains within it several smaller groups which are free to interpret the phrasing of the official policy in almost unlimited ways. Although I can see how many of these differences are encyclopedic, I also see that it would be functionally impossible to have "although groups of Catholics disagree", added after virtually every statement of general RC belief. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all the editors of the page are in agreement on this issue. What we have done is make mention of notable controversies and provide wikilinks to their own pages for the reader who wants to learn more. At present, we have a whole paragraph in the history section under Vatican II that describes the two polarized groups of liberal Catholics (with wikilink) and conservative or Traditional Catholics, (also with wikilink). They get the same treatment as all other controversies throughout the article. Thanks for your commment. NancyHeise (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have answered this below next comment. Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Phrasing of "Although the historical record reveals his words and efforts were clearly against the Nazis, his actions continue to be a source of debate" appears contradictory. Use of "clearly" is editorializing and, given the presence of continuing debate, does not appear to be true (i.e. the record is, indeed, not clear). The interaction between Pius XII and the NS-Regime was controversial and reasonable people on both sides can disagree. Generally this section addresses the issue well, but this sentence does not seem to properly acknowledge that several "words and efforts" were, at best, ambiguous. Removing "clearly" and rephrasing of, for example (although not necessarily optimal), "Although aspects of the historical record reveal...", would resolve what I perceive to be a neutrality issue. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the word "clearly" even though the reference itself uses the word "decisively" in conveying this message. Regarding use of the image - it is significant to illustrate that Pius XII was not considered a friend to the Nazi's even by the Nazi's. This cartoon was one of many but existed in a newspaper no longer in existence. Because we have omitted a significant amount of material on WWII due to summary style considerations and the conflict over Pius XII is so notable, this image is particularly important to this article that deals specifically with that issue. It is particularly important per WP:NFCC "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - this image does exactly this - it is a picture worth more than a thousand words and is the subject of the material in the article. I dont know how to make the picture use less of the image which I think would suffice if you would rather, I would appreciate your help in this matter, thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced the cartoon with a low-res version. indopug (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! The low-res, high-res issue is still a foggy issue to me. Thanks for stepping in and taking care of that. NancyHeise (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would ask that the FA director and other editors take note that:
    a) this is the article's 4th FA nomination
    And? I've seen articles which have been at FAC more than 4 times. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: incorrect, third nomination. The third item that was added to articlehistory was a restart of this same nomination. Also, do not alter other editors' declarations. Comments can be added below other editors' posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my implied thesis: this article will never achieve FA status if vague objections from individuals pushing POV against Catholicism or religion in general are considered. This article does exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and it is being held to an unfair high standard by individuals who would likely prefer there be no neutral or positive article about the Church. I freely admit that I have a pro-catholic POV. However, I have not pushed for true statements like "the Church believes that all protestants are heretics whom stand little chance at salvation," to be included in the article. That would be over-the-top POV. Statements in the article being opposed here on POV grounds about the beliefs section such as "the Church believes that baptism can only be conferred once" (I paraphrase) are POV agenda pushing. Stating what the church beliefs about baptism under the beliefs section of the RCC article does not introduce POV--it is a statement of fact. It is my belief that certain individuals in the community wish to blackball this article from becoming featured. As I said, the article is not perfect--but take any featured article on any day and prove to me with specific concrete examples and logical argument that it meets FACR better than this article. Lwnf360 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is conspiracy theorizing. I see little if any evidence that people are opposing on anti-Catholic, still less anti-religious, grounds. Meanwhile, you seem to have difficulty identifying POV. The problem with the statement you give ("the Church believes that all protestants are heritics whom stand little chance at salvation"), beyond its obvious grammar and spelling issues, is not that it's "over-the-top POV"; rather, it is that it is unsourced. Should you have a source that verifies this "true" statement, then it could quite happily go in the article. As it happens, however, the article at present states instead that "the Church acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is active in diverse Christian churches and communities, and that Catholics are called to work for unity among all Christians." The reference given for this statement seems impeccable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    b) the majority of the opposition is coming from individuals who either admit to being, or exemplify the position of:
    -Anti-theists (those deeply opposed to all religion)
    -Atheists (those indifferent to religion)
    -Protestants (those groups who have been in schism for centuries)
    -Schismatics (those who have been declared or are de facto in schism)
    -Traditional Catholics (many of whom are borderline schismatic)
    -Progressive Catholics (many of whom are borderline to de facto heretics)
    Perhaps you might make it clear, for everyone's benefit, which opposes you align with each of these particular groups? I'd be particularly keen to learn where I fit in, in your judgement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to make it obvious, either by your comments themselves, like several traditionalist Catholics here, or by a userbox, as others have, or like TONY, who has a clear statement on his user page: "Pet hates: Supernatural religion". I don't think there is anything wrong with editors of any views contributing here, but reviewer POV has clearly become an issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting that the article has such a spectrum of critics--all of whom have inherent POV bias. It shows in their vague objections. An article that upsets such a range of critics must have something going for it.
    This is not to say that I do not have POV bias either--I am a devout catholic with extensive knowledge of this subject. I want to see the Church portrayed in an accurate and unbiased i.e. neutral light. E.g. rambling on about the priestly abuse scandal without noting that the abuse rate among priests is roughly half that of the general population, introduces a biased slant against the Church.
    It is my view that this article is being held to an unfair higher standard compared to other FAs. Pick any FA on any day--prove to me how that article is beyond the WP:FACR when compared to this one. I submit that you can't. Because this article--though imperfect--meets or exceeds the FACR. I apologize for editorializing in this forum, but these points should be noted with respect to this nomination, given the history. Feel free to agree or disagree with me below. Best regards. Lwnf360 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have struck my oppose, but I am not supporting this. Xandar themselves said thousands of edits have been made to this over the past six months. Hundreds have probably been made since this FAC nom started. I think both of these facts show that the wrong approach is being taken. Please discuss here. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lwnf (I wish you had an easier username): I'd like to see a reliable reference for your claim of half, and with it the knowledge of which "general population" priestly sexual abuse is compared with. And supposing it were the case; the main point is that priests are in a position of significant power over their flock, perhaps more than even doctors or school teachers. Sexual abuse is at its most damaging where there's a disparity in power between victim and perpetrator. In addition, priests are representing a moral system that stands against such abuse. Indeed, it's at the heart of their raison d'etre, whereas doctors and school teachers have a much less explicit and powerful role in the upholding of a system of morality. So half the rate of the general population, whatever that means exactly, is frankly appalling. TONY (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, I disagree with Tony here. And, indeed, with Lwnf. Both are, essentially, engaging in what WP calls original research. The point, rather, is to document the scandal (which is clearly an important one) and the church's reaction, which should in turn be given due weight. In fact, I think that the article at present leans towards OR in this paragraph: at least, it gives that impression, albeit that a look through the footnotes suggests that it could be fixed fairly easily. I'll take this to the article talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      On the talk page, I have suggested a partial re-write of this paragraph that deals with OR issues, as well as grammar, readability, and attribution problems. It is still probably over-referenced, but there we go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spot check on prose and MOS. I took the shortish lead to one section and found a high density of problems. While these might easily be fixed, the point I'm making is that I shouldn't be able to randomly pick small portions of text at this stage and find them wanting. (Aside: the POV issues do seem to have been addressed in the parts I complained about earlier.)
      • " Each pope is elected for life by the College of Cardinals: a body composed of bishops and priests who have been granted the status of Cardinal by previous popes." Ah, comma instead, please.
    added. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Head of State"—lower case, according to MOS.
    done. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The cardinals, who also serve as papal advisors, may select any male member of the Church to reign as pope, but that person must be ordained bishop before taking office." Seems contradictory: why make a claim and then show it's false. "Any male member" seems redundant.
    What's the problem here? What false claim? "Any male member" is far from redundant, as most people think only cardinals, bishops or at least priests can be elected, though I suppose that popes have to be male is well-known. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    not sure what is being shown as false. If cardinals pick an abbot of a monastery (which has happened in the past) canon law requires them to ordain him a bishop before they can then make him pope. The sentence is factual. I am willing to make it more clear if you like. Let me think about it first. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The basic administrative unit of the Catholic Church is the diocese each of which is led by a bishop. Each diocese is further divided into individual communities called parishes, which are usually staffed by at least one priest"
        • A comma is required after "the diocese".
    done.NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the grammar's wrong, anyway (singular/plural clash); why not remove "each of which is"?
    changed. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why "further"? Have we already been told about how diocese are divided?
    done. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Usually"—I thought more than half of the diocese were not staffed by a priest, because of a worldwide shortage.
    I expect you thought wrong then. Is this a prose or MOS problem? Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, you are incorrect in your assumption. The sentence is factual and the priest shortage is addressed in the Demographics section. If there is no priest to staff a parish, there is no parish. There may not be a resident priest living there but it is always staffed by a priest since only priests can perform certain sacraments. About 25% of parishes do not have a resident priest living there but all parishes have priests staffing them. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The official language of the Church is Latin, however Italian is the working language of the Vatican administration." This statement is like a shag on a rock, here. Doesn't seem to belong to either para. Any ideas on where it might be better located? TONY (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have a better idea. The working language of the church is referring to the Vatican administration which is the subject of the paragraph in which that sentence is located. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    “While similar to the national flag that is used today, the eagle in these arms is not holding a serpent in his talons and a crown has been affixed to the head of the eagle to signify the Empire. Variants of this flag that appeared in this period also included a naval flag that had the tricolor pattern, but only contained the eagle with the crown above its head. The military also used a similar, square, flag, but the eagle was larger than on the national flag. The national flag was officially decreed by Agustín de Iturbide in November 1821 and first officially used in July 1822. This flag was no longer used upon the abolishment of the empire.”
    • ” While similar to the national flag that is used today, the eagle in these arms is not holding a serpent in his [its] talons and a crown has been affixed to the [its] head of the eagle to signify the Empire”
    • “Variants of this flag that appeared in this period also included a naval flag that had the tricolor pattern, but only contained the eagle with the crown above its head.” The pronoun/antecedent issues are so bad that I would rewrite it:
    ”A naval variant of this tricolor flag also appeared in this period, but it only contained the eagle with the crown above its head” – Even then, the meaning of this sentence is confused. This sentence describes the exact same thing that the previous one does, but it seems to be here to indicate that the naval variant was somehow different. This isn’t merely a poor prose issue—it is a meaning issue.
    • ” The military also used a similar, square, flag, but the eagle was larger than on the national flag.” –Confused meaning. Is the national flag also square, or is it rectangular and the military flag is instead square? Also contains comma errors.
    • “The national flag was officially decreed by Agustín de Iturbide in November 1821 and first officially used in July 1822.” –How can flags be “decreed?” I would rewrite it:
    ”This design was decreed to be the national flag by Agustin de Iturbide in November 1821, and was first officially used in July 1822.”
    • ” This flag was no longer used upon the abolishment of the empire.” Awkward and I believe improper use of “upon.” Better as:
    ”This flag fell into disuse after the empire was abolished.” or some other such construction.

    There you have it TONY: a random paragraph from a random featured article which has grammatical errors in every sentence. I am confidant that I could extend this exercise across all other featured articles. But I think I have made my point: unfair high standard. Lwnf360 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag of Mexico became an FA in 2006, when the FA standards were lower. As you can see, yes, the standards have risen considerably—for the better. As such, new FAs need to meet the current 2008 standard, not the 2006 standard. Lwnf, if you are concerned about other FAs, there's always WP:FAR where they can eventually be delisted. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, needs to be FAR/Ced, although a whole-article assessment would be necessary before doing that, and an attempt to get the article's guardians in there improving it, which probably wouldn't happen without the incentive of FAR/C, damn it. Lwnf, are you going to hang around this room and review nominations? We'd love you to do that: there's a shortage of reviewers and it's a large, continuous task. TONY (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A sub-point of mine, which you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp--I thought at this point I was being blunt enough--is that the word "perfection" or any such synonym does not exist in WP:FACR. I did not want to name names, as it is impolite and in poor taste, but you, TONY, are one of the several individuals who by your own admission are opposed to organized religion. Lo and behold you are nit-picking grammar issues that are minor and beyond the standard in FACR, in an attempt to keep this excellent article from becoming FA. Lwnf360 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, FAC people like you need to consider that article builders do not have forever to spend bringing an article up to FA (We have spent six months on this). If you want to fail this FAC because of some errors in punctuation then you risk eliminating the article builders. If you really wanted to help Wikipedia bring an important article like this to FA (which you have stated that you don't) then you might consider taking about five minutes to go through and actually read the entire article making a list or correcting yourself the (few) errors of punctuation that you see. If this article fails FA because you can not spend any time to help it get there, and I have to go through someone like you to bring up another FA - I will not waste my time doing so ever again. I think that the comments of Lwnf360 are right on target. This article is being held to standards that are currently unwritten in the FAC criteria. If Wikipedia wants to help article builders, it needs to update FAC criteria or provide some helpful editor at the top of the process who will help with prose - you don't seem to want to be that person. NancyHeise (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is asking you to do all the work. I still don't see why you haven't consulted the help of a few external editors to copyedit this. There are lists of copyeditors at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members (Don't submit to LOCE, just contact a few individual editors). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have consulted - the article was reveiwed by the editor of a journal who has a yale.edu email address, who is also a former seminarian with a graduate level degree in Theology (which means he knows a lot about church history). I know his name but I do not have permission to give it here. He supported the article. In addition, before bringing the article to FA this time, it went through a second peer review and we posted a message on the article talk page and at LOCE inviting editors to come and go through. Several did come and made changes directly or posted messages on the talk page not on the tag. NancyHeise (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also would like to point out that Johnbod and Lwnf are not editors of this RCC article in the sense that Xandar and I are. They are FAC reviewers who have supported the article. I respect their opinions and I appreciate their support and help. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing Tony's comments, I went through the article again to check for any punctuation, MoS, or errors in prose - now completed. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment From my point of view, the article has still following issues:

    • It looks "overreferenced" - I know that it is an unintended result of edit wars, but it means on some places that it is hardly readable and perhaps goes into very deep details
    This is not a FAC criteria. There is no violation of Wikipeida policy for having more rather than less references and we have good reason for having more as there are various points of view to consider we must have these references to meet FAC criteria 1c "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge,". We have eliminated useless references all others are necessary and some added in response to FAC reviewers comments on this page. NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other side, many of the references are not exact enough. For example the 3rd sentence "The Church looks to the Pope, currently Pope Benedict XVI, as its highest human authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance." is backed by a long Constitution without saying where exactly (= a page or a paragraph) is the theme described. (Moreover, the wording is not exact: In fact, the "highest human authority" is/should be Jesus, the same as in all other Christian churches; they probably mean the pope as the highest purely human authority.)
    The wording is factually correct and encyclopedic. The Church belief that Jesus is its highest authority is covered in the section on "Church" and first paragraph in "Community". NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources are not of highest quality/authority. For example Duffy, Saints and Sinners is a book intended for general public, not a scientific/theological study. There are better sources that can be used instead of it. Especially it is not good to use it as a source for dogmatical things (eg. the role of the Pope), because it is about history.
    Duffy's Saints and Sinners is one of the most highly respected sources in the world. It is listed as a reference for the Encyclopedia Brittanica article (see above). NancyHeise (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: "From at least the 4th century, the Church has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization." - Should be mentioned, that it was the old unified church, containing roots of both today's RC and Orthodox churches, and not the RCC as defined above in the article.
    The "Western" covers this I think; the unified church contained more than "roots" of the RCC. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Johnbod, the lead makes no secret about the split - it is enough. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The history of the Western civilization was written also in Asia, Africa and East Europe in the time. But even if we stay in West Europe, the Church was still one, without the Roman/Orthodox distinction. Which is not as it is understood in the most of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The schism is clearly discussed - I disagree that more clarification is needed here. Regarding the history of Western civilization part, this sentence is referenced. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: the Great Schism "largely over disagreements regarding papal primacy" seems oversimplified; it was also a cultural, political, liturgical and theological (Filioque!) schism.
    The lead can not be required to discuss all details. The Great Schism sentence uses clarifying language "largely over disagreements..." - reader can know all the details by reading the history section. The purpose of the lead is to lead the reader into the article which is what we have done. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: "the Church engaged in a substantial process of reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation." Too soft wording from a Middle-European perspective - in my country, the Counter-Reformation was also a mass expulsion of Protestants, wars and uprisings, executions and forced Re-catholisation.
    This is all discussed in the history section. No notable events have been eliminated or glossed over. The Counter Reformation regarding the Church organization is properly presented in the lead. The article is about the organization Roman Catholic Church, too often, FAC reviewers have expected us to cover all of European and world history without remembering that we are trying to give reader a definition of the RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wishing to minimize the Czech experience at all, it was provioked by a political/dynastic struggle, and began many decades after the start of the counter-reformation, when it was winding down in much of Western Europe. But some mention of the Thirty Years War should be made. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but both Reformation and Counter-Reformation were very heavily influenced by politics since their beginning. And it is not only about Czech Kingdom, but also about other countries - France, the Nederlands... The point is that the Counter-Reformation was not only a spiritual renewal, as mentioned in the article, but also a bold political (and consequently military) move. RCC played an important political role, both on its own and as a part of the politics of the European Powers.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is extensively covered in the history section. We can not adhere to FAC criteria if we are to be expected to go into historical details in the lead. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand the idea of the Counter-reformation. The counter-reformation was a movement in the Church which was principally a reforming process. This is how you will see it described in most history texts and in other Encyclopedia articles such as Britannica. Wars occurred during the 16th and 17th centuries in which religion was one factor - but the wars were not a part of the counter-reformation process. They arose from dynastic and other considerations, and often found Catholic nations such as france and Austria on opposite sides. The thirty years war is specifically referred to in the text. The main war the Catholic Church was specifically involved in at the time was the defence of the West from the Turks, re the battles of Lepanto and Vienna - which we have not had space to include. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: "The Church teaches that it is called by the Holy Spirit to work for unity among all Christians—a movement known as ecumenism" - sounds a bit strange - in fact the modern ecumenism originated in Protestant churches and RCC is not even a full member of the World Council of Churches. It sounds as if the RCC were the main originator and sponsor of the ecumenic movement.
    The sentence is factually correct. We are giving reader a definition of RCC. It is very POV to say that RCC is not a main originator and sponsor of ecumenical movement. Catholics might disagree with you on that. NancyHeise (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intro: "opposition to its pro-life stance" - should be more clear that there is also a strong internal opposition of the pro-life stance - that is, a better wording would be something like "conflicts about its pro-life stance".
    "Opposition to its pro-life stance" correctly includes both internal and external opposition without needed to state both. Also, this is expanded upon in the history section under "Vatican II and beyond". NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chapter Origin and mission: The Origin is worth to be singled out as a separate chapter. From the historical/theological point of view, almost no mention about the different meanings of the word ecclesia (church) in the early Christian literature and about the evolving structures of the early Chriatian community is given here. - Moreover, there is a lot of duplicity with the starting section of History below.
    Disagree that there is any duplicity - the only thing that comes close to an overlap is mention of Pentacost as origin of Church. Also, mention of early Church history including evolution of Church structure is covered in History section. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chapter Origin and mission: It looks like an undue weight on the side of charity. But RCC is a church, not a charity, and the aspects of Word and Sacrament should be stressed more.
    Other FAC reviewers thought we did not have enough to say about charity and wanted more. We could not provide more even though charity work is a major part of Church life. We are going to do a separate page and wikilink it in the future because present Wikipedia policy does not allow us to compile our own or translate statistics and this is what we would have to do in order to create a section like this for this article. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beliefs: The starting sentence "The Catholic Church's beliefs are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." is not well placed. It souds like if someone would start the definition of democracy with the statement "The rules of democracy are detailed in the Robert's Rules of Order." The Catechism is not the original or full/comprehensive source, but a contemporary try to summarize the most important beliefs in an authoritative way. It should be mentioned very early, that the two main sources of beliefs are Bible & Tradition, plus Magisterium to explain it, and define them.
    Disagree. The article is an encyclopedia article and takes an encyclopedic approach to this issue. The reader who wants to know about RCC beliefs is directed right away to the most important book that compiles these beliefs. Thereafter, the article discusses what those beliefs are comprised of including extensive mentions of Bible, Tradition and Magisterium. NancyHeise (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The catechism is the current authoritative manual of catholic belief. This section is not concerned with the history or origins of belief, which are dealt with later. it simply states where authority on present day belief can be found. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus..." As far as I know, the Codex Vaticanus has no special place in the RC definition of the New Testament.
    This sentence is referenced to Dr. Alan Schreck's "The Essential Catholic Catechism" a Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur declared third party source written by a professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. The reference provides reader with the exact quote which includes mention of Codex Vaticanus. NancyHeise (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sacred Tradition consists of those beliefs handed down through the Church since the time of the Apostles." In fact, it consist of those beliefs believed to be handed through the Church since the time of the Apostles. There are very few sources from the time of the Apostles other than NT. Therefore it is impossible to prove that the said beliefs really come from the time.
    Added clarifying language to make this clear. NancyHeise (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Magisterium includes infallible pronouncements of the pope..." Seems like a misleading wording; as far as I know, the Magisterium includes both "infallible" and "normal" pronouncements of popes and other bishops.
    Again, this is a referenced fact to Dr. Shreck's Nihil obstat book.

    NancyHeise (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not every pronouncement of a Pope or bishop are part of the Magisterium. Some bishops were heretics. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is alluding to the "extraordinary magisterium" and the "infallible ordinary magisterium". I don't think this article needs to deal with such a subtle point of doctrine. Gimmetrow 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "According to the Catechism, Jesus instituted seven sacraments" - a strange statement, the Catechism has no special place in the development of the teaching about sacraments, it only repeates a stable teaching. The number 7 is far earlier, it comes from the Middle Ages.
    This is a referenced fact coming directly from the Catechism. If you click on the reference it takes you directly to the Cathechism and gives you paragraph number so you can read it for yourself. I just checked it and the article text is correct. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you seem to be confusing an overview of CURRENT belief with a historical treatment of how such beliefs came to be. The main purpose of the beliefs section is to state what the Church believes and teaches - not how beliefs arose, or theories about the same.Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Others are the Byzantine rite, the Alexandrian or Coptic rite,..." Should be indicated, that the list of rites in the sentence is not complete (eg. there is a Mozarabic rite, an early form of the Latin rite not mentioned there).
    This sentence comes from the Catechism - it is referenced and if you go there you will see that all releveant rites are mentioned. It would be factully incorrect for us to include Mozarabic if it is not even mentioned in the Catechism as one of the those in communion with Rome. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, the Mozarabic rite, like the Use of Sarum in England, the Gallican rite, and other early liturgical variations was liturgical within the Roman Catholic Church; it did not have it's own bishops/patriarchs as the Eastern rites do. The Celtic Church is a different story, but I don't think the article can cover everything. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but the sentence should not look like a full list.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a full list of the groupings among the current Eastern Catholic Churches, is it not? Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a referenced fact that is factually correct and complete and comes directly from the Catechism. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • God the Father, original sin, and Baptism: The title sounds strange - God the Father is not responsible for the original sin in the Catholic belief.
    The title is not saying that - it gives a list of what is discussed in each section as evidenced by the comma between each item. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • God the Father, original sin, and Baptism: The content of the paragraph should give less weight on the biblical story of Adam & Eve ("figurative language" even according to the Catechism) and explain more the sense of baptism - it is deeply connected with the Jesus' death and resurrection, which is not mentioned here.
    Jesus death and resurrection is directly connected to original sin - we tell the story from the beginning. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus, sin, and Penance: Again a strange title - per Catholic teaching, Jesus was without sin.
    Remember the comma separating each item. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds not very logical to describe the crucifixion before John the Baptist
    We organized each section of Beliefs according to the sacraments since the sacraments are very identifying marks of the RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why there are no mentions of the Jesus' key concept Kingdom of God, understood as the basis for the life of the Church? The whole paragraph looks too much concentrated on sins and not on other important concepts (Salvation, Resurrection...).

    :Again, we organized by sacraments please also see discussions of Communion of saints and Body of Christ which also wikilink and cover Kingdom of God. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been thinking about this comment and after doing some research I added a couple of sentences to Jesus, sin, Penance section to address this. I think this is a good point and I am glad you brought this up, it really rounds out that section well. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the priest administers absolution, formally forgiving the person of his sins." - According to RCC, it is God who forgives here, not the priest.
    I did some research on this and added some text to the Jesus sin and penance section. According to my nihil obstat source, Jesus conferred special authority to forgive sins in God's name upon the apostles. I added wording to this effect and the reference. NancyHeise (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ego te absolvo.." is (was) I think the phrase - "administers" and "formally" carry the meaning here, but perhaps too obscurely. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an interesting tidbit, the first-person form of absolution is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. (Can dig up a ref if desired). Gimmetrow 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Penance helps prepare Catholics before they can licitly receive the sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist." Of course, but is it really so important? It can help to other sacraments as well and on the other side, it is not its principal purpose to support other sacraments.
    Penance is a major part of the preparation process in the Catholic Church for those preparing for Confirmation and First Holy Communion. It is very appropriate for us to mention this here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The penance is described in the "modern" (=post-Middle Ages) version; it should be perhaps a bit more general.
    No, this section is not the history section, it is intended to give reader a current view of Catholic beliefs and practices, not a history of. Reader has the wikilink to penance if he or she wants more info. NancyHeise (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy Spirit and Confirmation: "Through the sacrament of Confirmation, Catholics ask for and receive the Holy Spirit." Is should be more clear that they believe that they receive the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of belief, not a matter of empirical science.
    I added clarifying language to this sentence to respond to your comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to read further, sorry for my bad English.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would agree with most of the points, but have put some quibbles above. Maybe more later, but I keep getting edit conflicts.Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from Dweller

    This page is suffering a very bad case of WP:TLDR, so it could be I'm raising points already mentioned above. However, if I am, it's because they're still outstanding, so...

    Object based on:

    • Article cites one scholar as suggesting the Catholic church was founded by Jesus. Now, I'm now religious expert, but I'm sure there are fairly hefty ("notable") opinions that disagree. Fine to include this one, but needs to be balanced. The balancing opinion doesn't need to be lovingly dissected (or rebutted) but omitting it means POV
    The article provides the best scholars opinions on all views of the foundation of the Church. Norman, McManners and Duffy are the most respected scholars of various viewpoints - omission of Norman would make the article POV as he represents a significant point of view. The balancing opinion is factually portrayed. McManners is not a church apologist and his view supplements Duffy's lengthy piece. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must have missed the opposing view. I'll review. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see the problem. That paragraph opens with an opinion about the foundation of the Catholic church, but then goes on to dissect various views of when the Pope's role may have begun. If indeed the institution and the office are one and the same, it should be clarified. If not, the article needs more work than that. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fall of Man / fall of man?
    Per WP:MoS we are supposed to capitalize certain religious events like the Exodus or the Great Flood - the Fall of Man falls into that religious major event category thus we capped it. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I was unclear. I mean that I saw it with both usages in the article. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The messianic texts of the Tanakh make up a small minority of the Christian Old Testament, as a matter of fact, given that the vast bulk of the Tanakh is made up of texts irrelevant to the issue and even in the few arguable texts like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc, the messiah is not overtly mentioned and is alluded to occasionally only in the Hebrew text.
    You are incorrect on this point. The article text is correct. The Tanakh comprises all the books of Moses, the propets and more - this is the majority of the Christian Old Testament. The sentence does not state that the Tanakh "is" the Old Testament and the clarifying language allows us to use the actual wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it seems I was unclear. Sorry. What I mean is that the vast majority of the Tanakh is not even by the most generous of interpretations, "messianic texts". Yet, because of an ambiguity in the text, it seems that the article is saying the opposite. I thank my stars English has no nominative and accusative suffixes, but in cases like this it would be helpful. You need to reword to show that the subject of the sentence is the Christian OT, not the Tanakh. --Dweller (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that supposed bulk of the OT, the article claims that "God promises to send his people a savior." The claim is referenced, but some verses should be cited. I for one would like to be educated on this point. Again, I think you'll find that this interpretation of a handful of verses is disputed. Describing it as "much of" the OT and and implying no conflict is POV.
      FWIW, I disagree with this point, and hence with Nancy's recent revision. The sentences could perhaps be re-worded, but the point is that messianism is also a Jewish belief: it's not simply Christians who claim that God promises a savior in (um) the messianic texts of the Old Testament. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a wikilink to a very nice wikipage that will help educate anyone who wants to know more. For our article I think it is sufficient to state what Christians believe and not try to add language about what other religions believe. Why? Because we are going to attract a lot of hate mail if we try to make observations about what all the different types of Jews believe in the RCC article - not a good idea! :)NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the wikilink is perfect - and very educational to this ignoramus to boot. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Penance section could do with a link to an article about Confession. No mention made of the Confessional box.
    No mention is made because in many churches they don't use a confessional "box". A priest can hear a confession anywhere, no box required. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if not universal, is it not a notable element in the Catholic approach to Penance? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No because in many churches the priest just sits in a pew and people will come up to him for confession. There are more churches without them in the world (Africa, Asia, remote Latin American churches and those in very poor countries) than with them - you guys watch too many movies. NancyHeise (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. If it ain't notable, it ain't notable. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ensure citations follow punctuation - an example at current number 95
    • This article implies Eucharist and Mass are not the same thing. The Mass article implies they are. Can you help?
    The Mass is composed of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Eucharist part of the Mass. The Mass article needs to be changed not ours. I will be happy to work on it after we get through this one. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have great concerns re WP:SIZE. This article crashed my browser. Long articles are excusable (I'm about to nominate one myself) but this is massive and needs a careful but effectual prune, most particularly of the overly long history section. Yeah, it's a long and important history, but summarise it and point people to the daughter article(s) Credit where it's due - I think the authors of the article have handled a number of negative issues sensitively and NPOV in the History section.
    The article would be worthless if it gets chopped - no one wants to see that happen. We tried it once already in the last FAC. NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hyperbole. Are you seriously suggesting that not a single sentence could be cut without rendering the article "worthless"? I have to disagree. Strongly. --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that each sentence has been argued over for months - yes I think it would not go over too well with the rest of the community. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree on the WP:size point. This article is massive. I feel that its size, or rather breadth of content, is justified. However, any change that reduces length without substantially short-changing content should be pursued. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On size. the article was far shorter before the FACs. You will find, reading the above, that most editors want matter adding. That is why the History section in particular is so large. In order to maintain Balance and DUE WEIGHT, we have to give each historical period and each important event a fair amount of coverage. So if people want extra sections on Latin America, the Reformation, Inquisitions, Liberal and Traditionalist movements, these must be added without reducing the Due Weight given to other notable events. Material is added as concisely as possible, in keeping with fair coverage of the issues. However on many issues there are controversies that require significant detail and which would quickly gather objections if we attempted to gloss over them or redirect to another article. So there is extremely little that could be cut without removing important information or unbalancing the article. Things such as missions, monasticism and architecture may not be as sexy as the Crusades, but they are every bit as important to the history of the Church. Xandar (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article truly cannot be reduced in size to any meaningful extent, then (gasp) perhaps it is one of those articles that just cannot reach FA quality? We can't espouse as the highest possible quality an article that crashes browsers and is much larger than the suggested maximum in our own guidelines. Please can someone calculate the readable prose size of the article at present? --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With thanks to The Rambling Man, who's pointed me in the direction of the nifty tool apparently on every FAC page, which hasn't stopped me from <ahem> not noticing it ever! It's 74K readable prose, which is less than I thought it'd be, but still pretty long according to our guideline. I feel a little less strongly about this now that I realise it's some way short of 100K readable prose (can't believe there's as much as 70K+ that's not, but there you go). Interested in the opinions of others; I'd be prepared to strike this element of my objection if persuaded (as ever) and I'm eminently persuadable now that it seems less of an egregious problem than I thought. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are those particular titles selected for further reading? Erm... is the bibliography too short?!?
    I did not add the titles to the Bibliography but I kept them out of respect for the non-Catholic editor who added them since I felt that maybe these books helped them in some way.NancyHeise (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be easier if I deleted them for you? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Struck. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In short, this is a terrific piece of work. Huge, impressive and... not FA quality yet. I may well have made some errors above, especially where my lack of erudition comes in, but, I suspect I've hit at least some bullseyes. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment (cont. by Ioannes)

    • Holy Spirit and Confirmation: "To be licitly confirmed, Catholics must be in a state of grace, in that they cannot be conscious of having committed a mortal sin. They must also have prepared spiritually for the sacrament, chosen a sponsor or godparent for spiritual support, and selected a saint to be their special patron and intercessor." - As far as I know, only the first sentence holds. As the following sentence states, in some rites it is possible to be licitly confirmed as a smyll child without spiritual preparation. Moreover the first sentence is too narrow: not only Confirmation, but all other sacraments except Baptism and Penance should be accepted in a state of grace in RCC. I would drop both cited sentences.
    I disagree that your suggestions would make the aritcle more factually correct. The article expressly states the differences between Eastern rites and Latin rite in each section of the article. Small children in Eastern rites have their sponsor or godparent and patron saint chosen for them. They are assumed to be in a state of grace already as small children dont often commit mortal sins. This section is just below the description on Latin rite so there's no confusion. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your comment about all sacraments requiring state of grace (except Baptism and Penance), this is discussed in Beliefs opening paragraph with a wikilink to help reader understand what this means. We have mentioned this expressly for Confirmation and Eucharist for purposes of emphasis (because the Church itself emphasizes this) and gentle reader reminder. NancyHeise (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Infant baptism in the Eastern rites is immediately followed by the reception of Confirmation and the Eucharist." In fact, it is each and every baptism in the Eastern rite, regardless of the age. With exception of emergency baptisms, as in all rites.
    I clarified this in the text by making this clear. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Church, works of mercy, and Anointing of the Sick: "In its apostolic constitution, the Church acknowledges..." There are many apostolic constitutions, should be cited by name.
    It now reads "its apostolic constitution Lumen Gentium..." - thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The part about the Catholic social teaching sounds too general and without detailed information. It should be shortly mentioned, who started it, when and why and how it developed.
    Those facts are addressed in the history section. The Beliefs section is a summary of Catholic beliefs. Catholic Social teaching is part of those beliefs and is wikilinked for reader to learn more right away - all history is in the history section. Please see additional text added per your next comment. NancyHeise (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Church is known for its staunch opposition to ... capital punishment": The Church State itself administered capital punishments till 19th century, not to speak about the so called Catholic countries. Should be written in a historical perspective. A similar case is the environment, mentioned at the end of the sentence: Only too recently they (and most of us "civilized people") started to think about it in this way. Even the importance of abortion & euthanasia in the RCC propaganda is very recent, it is hard to find these words in the 100+ years old Catholic books .
    The sentences are factually correct. They are connected to the discussion about Catholic Social Teaching which is not only wikilinked so reader can learn more right away, it is also discussed in the history section so there is no confusion about when this teaching emerged. I will consider adding a date of foundation in the beliefs section - working on wording. NancyHeise (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::I added wording to clarify that this teaching emerged in 1891 as a result of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and provide wikilinks for reader. Also, the article text states "Modern application of Catholic social teaching ..." before going into abortion opposition etc. the text does not hide the fact that it is recent so I dont think the second half of your comment here recognizes that. Regarding Catholic Church administering capital punishments till 19th century - please read the history section. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The last paragraph in [85]] doesn't seem right. Rerum Novarum is mostly known for the "living wage" philosophy, and its related support for private property and guilds. Notions about the dignity of each person and solidarity of all humans as one family are rather more developments of Pope John Paul II. Opposition to capital punishment grew considerably during his pontificate, too. Gimmetrow 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your comment Gimmetrow, I elimiated my last edit, it is too problematic and off topic to explain the history of Catholic Social Teaching in the beliefs section. If we have explained it in history section, I dont see the need to do it again in Beliefs, especially when it is wikilinked and we state "Modern application of this teaching ....". NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [86] That's better. It was reading as if Rerum Novarum laid out seven themes. Does the article say anywhere that contemporary Catholic opposition to capital punishment is largely based on John Paul II's theology? [87] Gimmetrow 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added two new sentences to the second to the last para in Vatican II and beyond to address your comment here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, enough for today, good night from Europe.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Restatement—As I've said before in more than one place, I'll not be intimidated or put off by the rankling and accusations of the supporters of this nomination. Lwfm, whatever it is, you should know better than to call, in effect, the faulty sentences I cited in my latest mini-review, of "professional standard". Have a good look at them, please. And those who think small glitches in prose are not worth worrying about would be the first to complain if there were editing glitches in a movie they'd paid to see. Even micro-glitches.
    I expect that'll be TONY above. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • Regarding the huge size of the article, I'd recommend significantly trimming the quotes in the references-- my MS Word counts 48000 characters in the section, which I think is some 46 kb; a quarter of the article. (Probably even significantly more than this since it doesn't count the undisplayed, text such as web-addresses.)
    • Check out the Kenneth King link.
    • There's a stray "January 22, 2002" without links: be consistent. Since the article is not American, shouldn't international dates (! January 2008) be used?
    • all–male/all-male?
    • "best reflected in Pope Paul VI's statement"--who says its "best reflected" in that statement?
    • Could those two stubby sentences/paras in the Lay members, Marriage section be merged with the ones preceding them? Looks/reads better.
    • I'm not sure this article addresses the very lay reader (me) yet: The first mention of anything related to the Bible is "founded upon Jesus' biblical command". Yet nowhere before this is it explained what the Bible is supposed to be, nor is it linked (anywhere throughout the article).
    • Link Peter first time
    • Any reason why the Spanish Inquisition is told largely from Edward Norman's viewpoints? The references point to many scholars but both quotes following the intial statement are from him.
    • That paragraph uses the word "inquisiion" eight times in nine sentences, by the way.
    • Why do some of the books in the Bibliography have GoogleBooks links? We aren't advertising them you know. indopug (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [88].

    Alzheimer's disease[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone a massive copyediting, review, fixes to references, discussions, and MOS fixes. It meets the criteria for WP:MEDMOS, is well-written, comprehensive, utilizes verifiable statements from reliable sources, is neutral and has been stable for two or three months. It should be a Featured Article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Patients will ultimately not be able to perform even the most simple tasks independently. Finally, deterioration of muscle and mobility will develop, leading the patient to become bedridden[38] and to lose the ability to feed oneself[39] I think (per MOS?) that references are supposed to come after punctuation.
    • I also see two {{fact}} tags that need rectifying.
    • Is there meant to be a {{citeweb}} template in the middle of this sentence? "An example of such a vaccine under investigation is ACC-001[190]Study Evaluating Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of ACC-001 in Subjects With Alzheimer's Disease.." naerii - talk 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "for which there is currently no known cure" - you can drop the "currently", it's assumed
    • "with a behavioral assessment and cognitive tests" - "with a....(plural word)" needs a grammar fix
    • The last para of the lead is kinda short... and there isn't much on Social effects. You could beef it up a bit with that.
    • Not sure there's much else to say. That part of the article is so small that I think the lead represents it sufficiently. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is from the lead. I'll try and get some more done as I get the time. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Hm. Is Heathlink put out by the University of Wisconsin? Might want to put work=Heathlink and publisher=University of Wisconsin for those references.
    • Current ref 47 "Families shed light on likely causative gene for Alzheimers" is lacking last access date and publisher, plus any other bibliographical information.
    Can we nominate Pubmed for godhood? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that would be outside of Wikipedia recommendations, so you would have to do it off-wiki. Sorry.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 99 the Alzheimers Association page "Vitamin E" is lacking a last access date
    • I'm deleting this reference, and the statement. I've done a search on PubMed, and I'm just not finding anything that supports this statement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 107 "Long-term use of ibuprofen may reduce the risk.." is lacking last access date
    • Same for current ref 108 "Ibuprofen linked to Reduced Alzheimer's Risk Washington Post"
    • Current ref 156 "Study Evaluating Safety, Tolerablity and..." is lacking publisher and last access date at the least, as well as any other available bibliographical information
    • Current ref 169 "Neurological disorders Public Health Challenges" is lacking a last access date
    • Same for current ref 174 "Water sanitation in health..."WHO
    • Current ref 182 "The MetLife Study of Alzheimer's Disease..." is lacking publisher
    • Current ref 189 "Pauli Michelle, Pratchett announces he has Alzheimers'.. is lacking the publisher
    • Current ref 190 "Pratchett, Terry and embuggerance" is lacking last access date
    Sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Normally it's good form at FAC to let the person leaving the comments/concerns strike their comments when they feel they have been addressed. But I'm not that picky about it, it looks like you took care of these. Just the first one, which is more a suggestion than a requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments, (for now): I have made some minor edits,[89] Please check that I haven't introduced any errors.

    • There is no mention of 24 million sufferers in the body of the article.
    • often initially thought to be caused by aging or stress by the sufferer Is "by" the correct preposition?
    • The second paragraph of the Lead could be split into two sentences.
    • The cause and progression of Alzheimer's disease is not well understood Is it correct to treat cause and progression as singular?
    • Possible causes and potential cures of the disease Cures "of" the disease?
    • before a person fulfills clinical criteria of diagnosis I was tempted to put "the" before "criteria" and in some other places, is dropping them US english?
    • There are some difficult words: visoconstructional, subcapacities, could you help the reader out with these?
    • In the last stage of Alzheimer's disease all human behavior is likely to become entirely automatic. - I'm not sure what is meant by "automatic".
    • Plaques are made of a small peptide (39 to 43 amino acid residues) called beta-amyloid. - Should this be Plaques are made of small peptides, or is there just one per plaque?
    • I wasn't sure about batteries - does it mean "range of tests"?
    • This is hard to understand At present contradictory results in global studies, incapacity to prove causal relationships between risk factors and the disease, and possible secondary effects indicate a lack of specific measures to prevent or delay the onset of AD.
    • drugs commonly given to Alzheimer's patients with behavioural problems are modestly useful in reducing aggression and psychosis, but are associated with serious adverse effects, such as cerebrovascular events, movement difficulties or cognitive decline, that do not permit their routine use. - Is there a contradiction here?
    • This sentence adds nothing to the article: There are also many basic investigations attempting to increase the knowledge on the origin and mechanisms of the disease that may lead to new treatments.
    • The role of metals needs more explanation.
    • The word patients is overused, could we have some more people?
    • There are lots of empty DOI= , (but this is only a minor issue). GrahamColmTalk 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments regarding images:
      • Image:Auguste D aus Marktbreit.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
        Would uploading the version of the picture from Figure 3 of a reprint of a lancet article ( http://alzheimer.neurology.ucla.edu/pubs/alzheimerLancet.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)) work? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Memantine.png needs a verifiable source.
      • Image:Alzheimer's disease - MRI.jpg - the policy pages referenced in {{PD-USGov-NASA}} address only information hosted on JSC (Johnson Space Center) and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) websites. This image is from a GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) website (I didn't see an equivalent policy for this prefix). The notice page for this tutorial explicitly indicates that some images are not in the public domain. The tutorial does not appear to claim to be a work of NASA; indeed, the forward introduces the primary author as "a former NASA Goddard employee" (emphasis added). Where is the basis for the claim that this image was created by NASA? Why would the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be creating images pertaining to Alzheimer's? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I'm afraid. In March, I reviewed the epidemiology and left comments on Talk:Alzheimer's disease#A review. The numbers simply don't line up with the sources; the article fails WP:V. I won't repeat that review here but I've checked, and apart from the addition of one sentence and some minor copyediting, none of the facts or sources have changed since then. The problems start with opening sentence of this article, which cites a source I have now been able to get hold of (I didn't have it during my earlier review). The article beings "...Alzheimer's, is the most common cause of dementia, afflicting 24 million people worldwide." The highly respected paper that is cited gave a prevalence figure for dementia. The paper's authors state "We combined the sexes, and focused on dementia prevalence rather than subtypes such as Alzheimer’s disease because most prevalence data was neither gender-specific nor distinguished by subtype." Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia, vascular dementia is second (though that WP article and this web page says vascular dementia is first in parts of Asia). This is only one of several issues I found with the epidemiology.
    In addition to these sourcing issues, I also noted that the article didn't help the reader locate Alzheimer's within the various forms of dementia (the relative prevalence of each kind, different symptoms, different causes, etc). One other warning-sign is the number of sources cited only within the lead. This can indicate the lead is not merely a summary of the body, but has been written independently. That 24 million figure isn't repeated in the Epidemiology section, nor is the global prevalence paper cited later. Colin°Talk 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Use en dashes, per WP:DASH, for page ranges, such as at "pages=527-532", "pages=686-694", many in the "The components of a..." paragraph, etc.

    Gary King (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • "Short-term memory", a key concept in this topic, is linked to in the lead, and nowhere satisfactorily explained in the article, IMO. The STM article that is relied on opens with this:

    "Short-term memory, sometimes referred to as "primary," "working," or "active" memory, is said to hold a small amount of information for about 20 seconds. Estimates of short-term memory capacity vary – from about 3 or 4 elements (i.e., words, digits, or letters) to about 9 elements: a commonly cited capacity is 7±2 elements. In contrast, long-term memory indefinitely stores a seemingly unlimited amount of information."

      • I thought "working memory" had become the more acceptable technical term over the past 15 years.
      • Where did they dredge up the 20-second bit? It's not referenced in that article, and further down there's mention of 30 seconds. I'm more comfortable with a much shorter time-span in defining WM, and there's increasing evidence in any case that the boundary between WM and LTM is rather fuzzy.
      • Miller's 1956 "seven plus or minus two items" notion has been not so much debunked in the past five years as shown to be simplistic. That is, the number depends on quite a few variables.
    • Prose: I'm afraid it doesn't pass muster. Not nearly. Here are my musings from part of the lead.
      • "Gradually the sufferer loses minor, and then major bodily functions, until death occurs." The last three words are odd, and "occurs" is the most redundant part of this phrase.
      • "Although the symptoms are common, each individual experiences the symptoms in unique ways"—Here, "common" means shared across sufferers, I presume. It's going to be taken as meaning "frequent" my many readers initially. And what about "many individuals experience a unique set of symptoms".
      • "The duration of the disease is estimated as being between 5 and 20 years.[6][7]"—What does "is estimated" add when you've provided the refs that contain the estimate? "as being" --> "at".
    • "memory-loss"—unsure that this needs a hyphen. Same for "less-prevalent".
    • "the physician or healthcare specialists will confirm the diagnosis with behavioral assessment and cognitive tests, often followed by a brain scan." Not in Burma or Zimbabwe they won't. Why is one singular and the other plural? A little prescriptive, the "will".
    • "The cause and progression of Alzheimer's disease is not well understood, but is associated with plaques and tangles in the brain." I don't like the "but".
    • This sentence is bad for four reasons: "Possible causes and potential cures of the disease have been conjectured, with varying evidence supporting each claim." TONY (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments, ok, needs some work. I will try to copyedit what I can as I go, unless there is something which needs discussion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In australia, physician usually refers to an Internal Medicine specialist (eg what neurologists, gastroenterologists, respiratory phsyicians etc. are). Dx would be confirmed by a geriatrician, psychogreriatrician or neurologsit here too, and we should note that somewhere. Not sure if it is the same in the US. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would consider withdrawing this FAC, but it won't get attention otherwise. I know there are a lot of comments from Tony, Colin and yourself, but I think they are actionable items, which can be fixed. It deserves to be an FA article, and I think with a week or two of focus from me, you and anyone else I can beg or bribe to help, we can get it close to FAC. In my experience, if we get it close, Tony and SandyGeorgia usually sweep in and do the final tune-up. I have to get my fingernails dirty. If you can help, I'll eat a mushroom. But only one. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok ok, I will try to get in there a bit. Got a nasty cold currently, wet and cold winter here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on images (apologies for any overlap with comments above)

    Kelly hi! 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [90].

    Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway[edit]

    Self nomination. This article is a sister article to the City & South London Railway article that I successfully nominated for Featured Article status in November last year. Unlike the previous one I haven't taken it through a Good article review first as I have followed the recommendations made for that article in the creation of this. DavidCane (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 55 needs a last access date and the publisher doesn't need to be linked. (Photograph of Euston Road Staton...)
    Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same for current ref 56 (1908 Tube map)
    Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same for current ref 81 "Photograph of Lord Ashfield..."
    Done --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a self-published source, I suppose that this is not reliable in the sense defined by Wikipedia, but the quality of the information contained on the site is high and it is produced by people with the first hand experience of working on the system. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. It really needs to meet the guidelines and policies. Any chance of replacing with another source? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 71 "Clive's Underground line guides ..." is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
    I've changed the ref 71 links to ref 57. The information was available from both, but I was separating date information from name information by using two sources. the CULG site is also self-published but is very highly regarded in the WP:LT as a source of detailed information on-line. I have also linked to it in refs 1 and 46 as it leads to so much other information on the tube that readers may find interesting. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay. I was unable to check links with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The link checker tool does not seem to like punctuation and ampersands in page titles. --DavidCane (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose until copy-edited. Particular problems are (1) at the sentence-level—how ideas are integrated into some of the sentences, how commas are used (not enough), and unwieldy snakes, and (2) redundant wording, as pointed out by my colleague above.

    • "The company was established in 1891 but construction was much delayed while the necessary funds were raised and many variations of its route were proposed before work began." This second sentence reads poorly: a comma would help the reader (1891,); too many ideas jammed into it, particularly the last one—its very close relationship to the earlier ideas is unclear.
    • "The inspiration for the promoters of the HStP&CCR was the initial success of the City & South London Railway (C&SLR) which had opened in November 1890 and which had seen large passenger numbers using its trains in its first year of operation." Comma before the first "which"; remove the second "which" as an ellipsis. The old "noun plus -ing" problem: see these exercises in how to fix it. Perhaps here, just change "using" to "on". No, better, just remove "using its trains", since it's redundant.
    • "Although the company had obtained the permission it needed to construct the railway, it still had to raise the capital with which to fund for the construction works." TONY (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. I don't want to sound like Tony's pet parrot, but this article is hard-going. Often two, sometimes three, unrelated ideas are squashed into one sentence and please, where are the commas? Tony is possibly too modest to suggest that you read this: User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy. GrahamColmTalk 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Done --DavidCane (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I am the author of both of these and have tagged them as such. The reason they are not currently in SVG format is that I have had major problems getting a properly formatted output from my software in this format. It is something I intend to look into. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:Yerkes002.jpg should have its border removed. Also, it's not clear who the author of the work is or when/where it was first published.

    Kelly hi! 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. The image page gives the source as Catalogue of paintings and sculpture in the collection of Charles T. Yerkes, New York, 1904. It is probable that it was taken from a catalogue published by Yerkes as he intended to leave his collection to the city of New York to establish an art gallery. As it is dated over 100 years ago and is in the public domain in the US it should be acceptable to use it. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose (for the moment):Comment: A few general observations before some specific points.

    • The multiplicity of acronyms is off-putting. Encountering some of these late in the article, I found I'd forgotten what they mean, and had to keep referring back. It's difficult, I know, but there is a real readability issue here.
    I agree there's no easy way to get around this, particularly with the complex history of ownership of the line. I've been following the general principle that having to read "Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway", "Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway" and "Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited", and similar, multiple times throughout the article was tiring. I will have a look through the article and see if any acronyms that haven't been mentioned for a while should be restated in full - assuming that this does not breach any style guidelines.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commas, usually lack of them, is a real problem which again affects readability. Can you get a red-hot punctuation expert, preferably one of those who unfailingly home in on my articles, and get them to do a full scale comma audit? I’ve listed some instances below, but there are more.
    • I was surprised that the article ended where it did, 70 or 80 years ago. I would have thought it worthwhile having a brief section bringing the story up to date. The line still exists – I frequently travel on it – and it has in recent years attracted nicknames such as the Misery Line because of its overcrowded and dilapidated state. It would be useful, too, to have some comparative passenger figures for today.
    Like the City & South London Railway article which got FA status last year, I ended the history at the formation of the LPTB in 1933 because the CCE&HR effectively lost its individual identity then. It could be argued that the article should end in 1910 when it was merged into the London Electric Railway or in 1926 when it joined with the C&SLR. There is a separate Northern line article which is linked in the lead that continues the story. I have added a for later history see Northern line at the bottom of the article.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's useful, but I still believe that the article could be better rounded off by a transitional sentence at the end, instead of the present rather abrupt ending. Also, re-reading, in the first line of the article you say "CCE&HR....was a deep level..." etc. This implies it no longer exists. The name has gone, but the line remains, so, surely: "...is a deep level".... Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a legacy section which takes things a bit further including that fact that the Northern line is the busiest on the Underground. I don't think the "is a deep level tube railway" works. From a start as an independent company, it is now completely absorbed within the Northern line from a route point of view and within the Underground system from an administrative perspective. The last sentence of the lead does state that it is now part of the Northen line, so I think it is clear that it has continued as part of that.--DavidCane (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ending is definitely neater. Having, though, introduced the "Misery Line" tag, I suppose you have to cite it! (or quietly drop it). I strongly disagree with you over retaining "was" in the first line. The immediate impression is that the line doesn't exist any more. The article is about an existing, on-going railway that has passed through many phases of development and ownership, but it's still there. It's something which, in terms of the overall presentation of the article, I recommend you reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Misery line refs added.
    But the CCE&HR does not exist any longer. As a company it is defunct in the same way that the Great Western Railway or British Rail are, notwithstanding that the infrastructure remains in use today. I have reworded the introduction to differentiate between the company and its infrastructure. --DavidCane (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you have handled that well. I have struck the oppose & will re-read the article tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As to more specific points:-

    • Lead:
      • In an article on a British railway line, miles should be the primary measurement of distance, not kms
      This was discussed in the FA review of the C&SLR here. The reason distances are given in kilometres first is that is what the Underground uses as its native format. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Northern Line first mention – Line needs a capital letter
      Personally, I agree, but there has been a major debate about the capitalisation of "line" here and here. As a result, in accordance with London Underground style, all the Underground lines' articles are named in the form "XXX line" rather than "XXX Line". --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In which case, see last word of lead, and your note/references [1], [67], [84] Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Changed to lower case. Thought I'd got all of those.--DavidCane (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The expression "Underground Group" needs explaining – I’ve not met the expression before. The sentence should continue "were (not was) taken into public ownership”
      Done. The Underground Group is another name for the UERL including the buses. I have changed this to UERL.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last sentence of the lead needs clarifying/simplifying
      Done--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Establishment
      • The sentence "On the branch, stations were planned for Euston and Kings Cross" repeats information given a couple of sentences earlier.
      I have merged the two sentences on stations so it's not such a repetition. I want to keep a full list of the stations originally planned here because the subsequent developments in the route add and omit from this. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Parliament should be capitalised when it refers to the institution. It's OK to say "parliamentary session", however
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comma alerts: needed after "parliamentary session" and "deep-tube railways"
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deciding the route
      • Two sentences for reconstruction:-
        • "On 24 November 1894 notice was published of a new bill seeking…"
        Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "On 23 November 1897 notice was published of a bill to change…"
        Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hampstead Heath controversy
      • Remove definite article from section heading
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I presume "tress" is a typo?
      Damn. Yes. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The para beginning "A second railway company…" is over-detailed. It isn't necessary, for example, to record that Edgware was in Middlesex but is now in the Borough of Brent. This is irrelevant to the railway.
    Shortened. Need to keep some of this in as the E&HR comes up again later.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Construction
      • By now I've forgotten what UERL is, so a reminder would be handy
      • Work continued below ground "for a while". Not encyclopaedic
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • More comma alerts: required after "December 1905" and "Lots Road Power Station"
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A semi-colon needed after "MDR". Delete the "and", and continue: "the proposed Chalk Farm…" etc
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comma needed after "construction" in penultimate sentence
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opening: "Gate-men" doesn’t warrant a capital
    It was their job title so I have left it in. There was an anachronistic payment of "Gate-man's allowance" made to tube train guards until the 1970s to compensate them for not carrying out that role. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Embankment 1910-14: awkward use of bullet point here
    I have presented it this way so that the creation of a new station stands out from the text and is consistent with the lists of stations in the opening section and the subsequent two sections.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hendon and Edgware: The sentence beginning "With war-time restrictions…" definitely needs dividing into two. It also contains "war time" in both hyphenated and unhyphenated form
    Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kennington
      • full stop, not comma, needed after "parliamentary session"
      Done. --DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • acronyms needs sorting out in last para
    • Move to public ownership
      • Morrison deserves a better description than (later MP). He held lots of Cabinet posts in WWII and after.
      I have added that he was Transport Minister which is probably most important for this article as it was he who introduced the LPTB bill. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • LCC needs direct referencing to London County Council
      Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "After several years…" is vague - can it be tightened?
      Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last sentence: do you mean "From this date" or "On this date"?
      I do. Done. --DavidCane (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article tells an interesting story, but needs considerable polish before FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008 [91].

    Last of the Summer Wine[edit]

    Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is the best quality now it has ever been in and I can think of no further improvements that can be made to further bring it to FA standards. Redfarmer (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The authors of the book source are Morris Bright and Robert Ross. Thus, the abbreviated citation should be something like "Bright and Ross", not "Bright & Morris". BuddingJournalist 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments:
    • Capitalisation needs to be fixed in the headings, for example "History and Development" needs to be "History and development" and "Supporting Characters" needs to be "Supporting characters". This needs to be fixed throughout.
    • Fixed
    • Overlinking in the infobox. Roy Clarke, James Gilbert, Bernard Thompson, Sydney Lotterby, Alan J. W. Bell and Ronnie Hazlehurst are all linked twice in it.
    • Fixed
    • Single dates like 2008 should not be linked if they are on their own.
    • Fixed
    • Ref 110 isn't formatted properly.
    • Fixed
    • I'm not sure that Amazon is counted as a useable source.
    • I'm more than willing to remove these references; however, are they invalid as a source to the DVD release dates? Redfarmer (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I can see where you're coming from on that. Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "Awards and nominations" could be prosified.
    • Done.
    Aside from this it looks pretty good. Gran2 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose
    The character section is far too long, and has many unsourced statements. I'd suggest renaming Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine to List of Last of the Summer Wine characters, and splitting off some of the character stuff from the main to that list. The table of recurring characters seems excessive and unnecessary when it already has a main list. The DVD release table is also unnecessary, the dates are already in the episode list where they belong. No need to repeat in the main, let the prose standalone. See also section violates the MoS as it repeats multiple links already wikified within the article. The third paragraph of the "Casting" section is missing a citation. The template for this series seems extremely excessive and unnecessary. Everything already wikified from the main, so its just cluttering the bottom of the article. Ditto on the ELs, several of which are already used as sources. The ref section needs tweaking, as Notes are really refs while Refs is also a single ref being used a bunch of times. Refs 12, 36, 76, 84 and 89 all appear to be being used as references, when they are unsourced notes that do not provide actual referencing for their respective statements. Also could use a copyedit. The lead has a rather large run on sentence, and there are some other minor prose issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've completed all the suggestions you have given and will continue to look for possible copyedit violations. If you have further suggestions, please let me know. Redfarmer (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are still a few statements missing citations: last paragraph in "Filming"; last paragraph of "Documentaries"; last part of the first paragraph of "Spin-off"; the last two paragraphs of "Other media"; . Some other ref problems: Ref 101 - IMDB is not a citable, reliable source. Another source needs to be found. Ref 91 is missing publisher info. Ref 24 is missing date and author information. Ref 7 is missing format note (since it is a Word document). Ref 93 was improperly formatted, but I fixed that one cause I couldn't figure out how to type out what needed fixing and have it make sense. :P All cite books should be using the "ISBN" field not "ID=ISBN" where the ISBN is included, and book citations should at least have the month of publication if the full date isn't available.
    • Nothing wrong with filming; everything referenced from the reference at the end.
    • Documentaries fixed.
    • Spin off fixed.
    • Other Media fixed.
    • Ref 101 replaced with more reliable sources.
    • Ref 91 fixed.
    • Ref 24 fixed with date. However, BBC did not publish the author info for this obituary.
    • Ref 7 fixed.
    • ISBN fixed (that was added by a newbie the same day you did the review :P)
    • Dates fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few minor MoS issues left as well, particularly in "Other media" where several sentences have the citation before the full stop instead of after. In the minor nitpicky department, where there are multiple refs, they should be in numerical order (so [4][19] instead of [19][4]). :) Has the article been copyedited yet, as both of those should have been caught in that process.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed Other Media. These were done by the newbie the same day you reviewed the article. He's adding good information; he just needs to be coaxed on formatting.
    • Fixed ref ordering. The one you specify was the only one I saw. Redfarmer (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In the filming section Holmfirth is referred to as a village while the linked article indicates a small town. Need to check which is correct. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • In the real real real picky department, shouldn't it be "Reference" since only one is listed? (Normally I'd have changed this myself, but wanted to make sure there wasn't some MOS reason or something, just making sure I'm on safe ground here.)
      • Fixed.
    • What makes http://www.summer-wine.com/indexbackup2.htm a reliable source? Looks like a fan site to me.
      • Not a fan site. Official site of the Summer Wine Appreciation Society. Its president, Clive Eardley, has had quite close connections to the show for almost two decades. Eardley and other members of the society have, over the years, received full cooperation from Roy Clarke and Alan J.W. Bell, been granted exclusive interviews with the cast, been the first to receive news on Summer Wine, and been granted exclusive on-set access during filming. They have often been the only source of news for what is happening on set during filming.
    Okay, so it's a official site of a fan club? Still, we need something a bit more to show it's reliable.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The story of the society can be found here. Clive Eardley is used as a source by the Huddersfield Examiner here and here. The society is given coverage by the Summer Wine Exhibition, a project supported by cast member Tom Owen here. The late Ronnie Hazlehurst trusted them with the production and distribution of a "best of" collection of his Summer Wine themes[92], which was distributed in commercial shops for a time. Not only are all of the cast members of the society, but the BBC asks the society for advice in filming new episodes. These are the guys you go to when you want information on Summer Wine. They're the ones who get the exclusives from the cast and crew (such as interviews with Tom Owen, the late Brian Wilde, Peter Sallis, Norman Wisdom, and Robert Fyfe, because they're trusted. Redfarmer (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes http://www.phill.co.uk/index.html a reliable source?
      • You're right on this one. Replaced with a more reliable source.
    • Current ref 11 "British TV Comedy: Last of the Summer Wine" is lacking a publisher.
      • See above.
    • What makes http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/index.htm a reliable source?
      • Once again, you're right on this one. I'm removing the information this referenced for now since I can't find a more reliable source.
    • What makes http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/ a reliable source?
      • TVShowsonDVD.com is a news source for DVD releases and is quite accurate. They originally garnered attention when their pressure--both from them and their readers, was largely responsible for causing Fox to release Family Guy on DVD (back after it was canceled the first time). They now have connections to many of the major distributors. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, I should add, they were recently acquired by TV Guide.
    that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the feedback. Please let me know if you see anything else. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion I am not sure in how far this is necessary in the first place, but I'd like to see the same refs combined into one via the <ref name=bright_ross_24>Bright and Ross (2000), p. 24</ref> and <ref name=bright_ross_24 /> way. This would cut down on a lot of redundance in the Reference section. – sgeureka t•c 15:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only problem with this is that almost all of the references are referring to different page numbers in the book, making this impractical and impossible. Redfarmer (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've simplified what I could, which is not much. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've done exactly what I meant. I'll give the article a closer look over the next couple of days as time permits. – sgeureka t•c 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant oppose for criterion 1a (prose). I encourage you to read the awesome User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (it was a big help in my first FAC), because redundancy and awkward prose including comma overuse are the weekest point of the article. Still, take everything I noted below with a grain of salt; I happen to mess up at times too. I have only read through the intro, the production section and the characters section, but I'll review the rest as soon as the article got a copyedit throughout, which will probably take you a few hours but it's worth it (i.e. the prose issues are not unfixable).
    – sgeureka t•c 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Intro: too many "and"s in the first sentence (better make it two sentences); I don't know what the MOS guideance is for a hyphen between "National Television Award" and "winning". Being totally unfamiliar with this show, I'd also like to see a mention in the first sentence that the show has been ongoing since 1973 (or whatever) just for context (moving the last sentence of the first paragraph there could solve this).
      • "a trio of older men, the lineup of whom has changed over the years, but originally consisted of the scruffy..." -> "a trio of older men, whose lineup has changed over the years. The original lineup consisted of the scuffy...."
      • "Although the cast was originally centred around a handful of people, it has, since the 1980s, grown to include an ensemble" -> "The cast has grown from a handful of people to an ensemble... since the 1980s"
      • "and by members of the British Royal Family, many of whom have admitted to enjoying the show.[8]" -> "Many members of the British Royal Family have admitted to enjoying the show.[8]"
      • History and development: "doing a sitcom, which Clarke readily agreed to." -> "doing a sitcom, to which Clarke readily agreed."
      • "The idea Clarke was presented with from the BBC was of a programme centred around three old men. Clarke initially felt no enthusiasm for the concept and, at one point, almost turned it down." -> "Clarke felt no enthusiasm for BBC's idea of a programme centred around three old men, and, at one point, almost turned it down."
      • "Clarke wanted the title of the series to be The Last of the Summer Wine to reflect the fact the characters were in the summer of their lives as opposed to the autumn, even if, for them, it was the last of the summer." -> "Clarke chose the title The Last of the Summer Wine to reflect characters being in the summer of their lives as opposed to the autumn, even if, for them, it was the last of the summer."
      • "Shortly before production began, Clarke reverted to his previous idea of the show being titled The Last of the Summer Wine.[4] The title was shortened to Last of the Summer Wine after the pilot.[12]" -> "Shortly before production began, Clarke reverted to his initial idea for the show title,[4] which was shortened to Last of the Summer Wine after the pilot.[12]"
      • Filming: "Eventually, under Alan J. W. Bell," has the word "completely" twice
      • Music: "The theme for the series was composed by..." contains the word "compose" and its variations three times
      • "Although normally played instrumentally..." contains the word "although" twice
      • Characters and casting: the first paragraph has Sallis's name too often, and I guess some sentences and subsenteces can be combined
      • "It was James Gilbert's idea..." contains the word "idea" twice
      • Guest appearances: "the original dialogue packed discussions" -> "the original dialogue-packed discussions"
      • "and a need was felt to bring in guest actors to give the trio new situations to respond to." -> "and guest actors were brought in to interact with the trio in new situations."
    – sgeureka t•c 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Implemented all of your suggestions and have been proofreading based on the article you suggested. Thanks and cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck the oppose for now as the changes/improvements seemed significant, but I'll need to read over the article with a closer eye before I can support. – sgeureka t•c 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last batch of comments
      • Plot: Mention the names of the trio again in the first sentence. Some people (like me) who don't know the characters and like skipping around in the article need the names for context.
      • "The focus of Last of the Summer Wine is the trio of older men..." -> "Last of the Summer Wine focuses on the trio of older men"
      • "attempts at carrying out an affair without Howard's wife, Pearl, finding out" - too many commas, very confusing grammatically
      • "and their theories of men and life they discuss over tea" - the last four words don't really fit with the flow of the sentence
      • Episodes: "Series 28, which concluded in September 2007, had ten episodes." - why is this sentence important? The article already says "Each series of episodes has between six to twelve episodes."
      • "A 29th season is currently in production to air in 2008." - the "currently" can be dropped
      • Specials (this whole subsection needs a little more copyedit attention): "This was followed up with Christmas specials in 1979 and 1981. " -> "Other Christmas specials followed in 1979 and 1981." or combine with the former or the following sentence.
      • "Some years specials are the only new episodes made when a new series is not ordered." -> Awkward sentence. Maybe write "Specials (may) constitute the only new episodes in the years without an order for a new series." or something else
      • "In 1995, the first New Years special..." - put the year at the end of the sentence. Also, something must be wrong with the year since it "aired on January 1, 1995."
      • "One additional New Years special would be produced. It was broadcast in 2000..." - combine the sentences
      • Films: "The BBC, however, had never commissioned a film based on a comedy series before for original broadcast on television." ->(?) "The BBC, however, had never before commissioned a film based on a comedy series for original broadcast on television." (move the word "before")
      • "The network initially displayed skepticism of the idea. They were eventually convinced and commissioned..." -> "Despite initial skepticism, they commissioned..."
      • "The plot centered around the marriage of Seymour's niece, Glenda (Sarah Thomas) to Barry (Mike Grady). " - either put a comma after "(Sarah Thomas)" or move Barry before "Seymour's niece"
      • DVD releases: "(for example, series one and two are grouped together, series three and four, etc.)" is not necessary I think, or you can add "consecutive"
      • "and a fourth is in production." - comma before that
      • "The third collection, Last of the Summer Wine: Vintage 1976, was released in 2008, focuses " - one "was" too much
      • "A fourth release, Last of the Summer Wine:..." has the words "release" and "released" in it, which is a little awkward
      • Spin-off: "First of the Summer Wine was not filmed in Holmfirth like its mother show. " - then where?
        • Not fixed. No one knows. There's not a lot of secondary sources on FOTSW, so any mention of filming locations other than it not being in Holmfirth would, at this point, be OR. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "New supporting characters were added to round out..." ->(?) "New supporting characters rounded out..."
      • "it has been broadcast internationally[82] and on UKTV Gold.[80]" - I'd switch UKTV Gold and internationally
      • "The series was cancelled after only two series of thirteen episodes in 1989." - think about removing the word "only" to avoid POV
      • Stage adaptation: "The plot of Howard and Marina was based, in part, on an early subplot..." -> "The plot of Howard and Marina was partly based on an early subplot...". This also seem to be a run-on sentence, so consider splitting, and maybe combine with the following sentence
      • "Despite their efforts, he trio were well aware of their affair." - typo
      • "In 1985 the show was once again" and the following sentence both use the phrase "once again"
      • "Waller did not return, and Robert Fyfe was recast as Howard." -> "Since Waller did not return, his character Howard was recast with Robert Fyfe."
      • "It was not believed the new characters would be carried over to the television series. This changed when Roy Clarke included the new characters in four of the following six episodes of the 1985 series." -> "Although the new characters were not intended to be carried over to the television series, Roy Clarke included them in..."
      • Other media: "The novel... The novel... The novel..."
      • "Clarke later adapted The Moonbather into a stage play by Roy Clarke, and was first performed by the Scunthorpe Little Theatre Club from October 7 to October 11, 2003.[87]" - Clarke was performed?;-)
      • "The CD was released under the name "Last of the Summer Wine: Music from the TV Show".[90]" -> the title should be this, not "this".
      • Reception: "The BBC has wanted to find a reason ..." uses the word "appeal" twice
      • The Reception section has two very short paragraphs (or actually sentence-paragraphs) that should be combined with other existing paragraphs. The section currently has a little bit of a trivia feeling
        • Fixed the short paragraphs. I agree it sounds trivia-ish, but these are things the media has covered with regards to LOTSW. Omitting them would be omitting a part of secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • General: You should run a spell-check over the article for American and British English. For example, the article says both "centres" and "centers". The word "philosophize" may also need to be changed to "philosophise", or "favourite" to "favorite" etc. depending which English standard gets used in the end
      • When you start a sentence with "In 19xx", decide if you want to put a comma after it or not
      • The article uses a passive sentence structure followed by "by" quite often ("The cat was killed by me"). This can sometimes be improved by turning it into an active sentence ("I killed the cat").
      • Some people prefer to have refs like this[1][2] instead of[1] this.[2]
        • Question: Is this a must? There are some points in the article where references could get very cluttered if this is adopted. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a must(?), and I personally don't care. I however know that other editors care, but I can't speak for them since I haven't found anything in the MOS or related pages. This was just one of the things that I've repeatedly seen brought up in other FACs(?). – sgeureka t•c 07:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't check the sources, but the article makes several evaluations by saying that something "proved a success". I'm just saying in case this is OR.
        • Not Fixed. Not OR. This is only stated where the source backs it up. Redfarmer (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    – sgeureka t•c 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless stated above otherwise, all suggestions have been implemented. Redfarmer (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Although the article still has half a dozen or so prose hickups (which I was not able to fix for various reasons), I think the prose is now good enough for FA status. It can't hurt to ask another editor for a new copyedit though. – sgeureka t•c 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink dates in references so they are formatted, per WP:CITE/ES
      • Which refs are you referring to? The only ones I can see where the date is not Wikilinked are books, which have specific instructions on the template page not to Wikilink the release dates. Per the instructions: "date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked." Redfarmer (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Starring" in the infobox, what do the --- represent? Perhaps replace with either just a line break or an em dash?
      • Done. The dashes represented the three different screens the credits are listed on during the opening credits. I can see where this would be distracting so I've taken your suggestion and formated using breaks instead. Redfarmer (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • remove extra space in " Wine [28]"
    • missing a period in "Burt Kwouk[4]"
    • Ensure spelling is British. "ization" is American. So is "traveled". So is "anymore". And "skeptic".

    Gary King (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose—Sorry, poorly written. This needs thorough surgery before resubmission. Here's just one portion as an example, with a multitude of issues I could analyse:

    In 1972, then-head of BBC Comedy Duncan Wood watched a programme called The Misfit, written by Roy Clarke. Clarke impressed Wood with his ability to inject comedy into the script at the same time since The Misfit was supposed to be a drama. He approached Clarke and inquired about his interest in doing a sitcom

    TONY (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Could you be more specific about what you don't like about this paragraph? I wouldn't be here if I could see what you're seeing about the article. Redfarmer (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly hi! 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, there are lots of issues with the prose. I realize you may not readily identify the current issues, but frankly, that is the primary reason for a substantive peer review before coming to FAC. Additionally, my random source spot-check was not promising: You can't use a primary source for a statement like "... the longest-running sitcom in the world." Random prose issues:
      • "Brian Wilde replaced Bates as the quirky war veteran Foggy ..." Illogical, since Bates did not play Foggy.
      • "The cast has grown from a handful of people to an ensemble ..." A handful of people is an ensemble. Your description of the show from the start is the very definition of an ensemble cast.
      • "Although reception of the series is mixed, with some feeling ..." Avoid the "with <noun> <verb>-ing" construction.
    These were just in the lead; Recommend withdrawing to work with a copy-editor and get a good peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I've tried to get peer reviews and copy edits before with absolutely no results, so you can understand if I'm a bit skeptical of the peer review system. I've plead with editors to help me the past six months and only recently have I had other editors making substantial edits to the article. I've opened two peer reviews in the last six months only to have both closed, one with no comments and the other with only an automated bot list. I've received more feedback from this FAC then I have from any other method in the last six month. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might find peer review improved since you last tried it. There is now a volunteer list where you can locate people interested in reviewing/editing by topic. I do empathize, but FAC is not the place to bring articles up to par. I recommend you withdraw until it is ready. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how is a documentary on the show a primary source? Redfarmer (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How would I know it's a documentary? You used the {{cite episode}} template but didn't provide much information so I assumed it was a special episode of some kind. If it's produced by the same company that produces the show, it's a primary source. --Laser brain (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to my reading of WP:PSTS, a documentary about the programme is a secondary source. It "draw[s] on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview" Bluap (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:06, 10 June 2008 [93].

    The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

    previous FAC (19:18, 1 June 2008)


    Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. I also believe I've done the necessary cleanup from the previous nomination in order to make this one more successful. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Simply too many reasons. Poor prose, poor references, lack of information, poor layout, and so on. Please check the FA criteria and withdraw this to work on it. To be more specific, Google Books lists 225 books with limited preview (meaning you can freely read them online) that mention "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre'. For such an important film, you need to do lots of research using books. You can't rely on online sources for this type of topic. Since the movie is usually spelled "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", there are 630 books listed with preview. New York Times, one of the best sources available, has 114 results. There are many other sources you can use to expand this into what it should be. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The following images need correct fair use information: Image:TheTexasChainSawMassacre-poster.jpg and Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg
    • "by critics, [1] which" — space
      The above happens several times. Remove spaces before references.
    • "$83,532[7]" — missing a period?
    • "brutality" [11]." — reference goes after punctuation
    • An extra line before "Box office" section

    This was rushed quickly back to FAC after it was withdrawn. Take your time and work on it. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I'd like to see the article featured, but at the moment, it is not cut out for FA status, if only for the reason that it is too short. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose I say this reluctantly, as I'm a big fan of TCM and I'd like to see it become featured, but there is still a lot of work to be done. I recommend you look at the article for Halloween (1978 film), a featured article, and maybe you can try basing your work off this.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The article has been re-nominated too soon and the comments made and advice given at its previous FAC have not been fully reflected on. GrahamColmTalk 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was this re-nominated only five days after it was archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - too little was changed from the previous nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Surely there's loads more info not in the article. The prose isn't very good. Wackymacs pretty much said it all. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm not saying that this article meets FA status, can some of the above voters please clarify their reasons for opposing? Voters are meant to clearly identify why an article doesn't meet FA status, and only some have done so. I count four votes above I deem invalid, given their vagueness. To clarify;

    1. "I'd like to see the article featured, but at the moment, it is not cut out for FA status, if only for the reason that it is too short" - This vote is simply invalid at the moment. "Too short" has never been a valid reason to oppose an article, and it'd be great if FAC voters began to realise this. If we're judging merely by length, then both the songs I got to FA ("Eyes of the Insane" and "Jihad (song)") are "too short". The only reference to length in the FAC criteria is criterion 4, which states "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". To make this vote valid, it'd have to reference criterion 1b which says "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details", and then clearly identify which facts or details have been neglected.
    2. "There is still a lot of work to be done." - What work? What specific problems need to be addressed? What aspects of the criteria have yet to be met, and why?
    3. "The article has been re-nominated too soon and the comments made and advice given at its previous FAC have not been fully reflected on." - I'm not aware of any FAC criteria saying that an article being renominated too soon can be opposed for that reason. Also, this is a separate FAC, so which advice from the last FAC wasn't addressed? Prose issues? Comprehensiveness issues? Please be specific.
    4. "Too little was changed from the previous nomination" - And in making your oppose, which criteria are you referring to here? None whatsoever. In making your oppose, please state which specific criteria isn't met and why.

    In future, can the above FAC voters please be specific, and actually say specifically what is wrong? You wouldn't want such vague comments at your FAC nominations, so please don't be so vague in other FACs. For FAC nominators, this can be rather tiring. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was, I thought, specific during the first FAC. It seems rather a waste of time to be even more specific if nothing is going to be changed and my requests ignored. But let me go into more detail now. This film is the first widely released, and perhaps most famous "splatter" film, one of the most influential horror films of all time. Though it had a shoestring budget and was panned when released, its impact on the history of moviemaking has proven to be influential by its use of shocking gratuitous violence, which allowed other horror films with bigger budgets to come after.
    I just improved a film article to FA status: Mulholland Dr. I would say that Mulholland Dr. has a much more ambiguous meaning than Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but as of yet, not as great an impact. Therefore the majority of discussion in the article I edited is about the meaning of the film. The areas you would have to expand would be production, a full character description of Leatherface, and an entire section on the film's impact or legacy. Trips to the library are going to have to be made. Reading scholarly film journals will have to be done. Like I said in the previous FAC if you love the film, that shouldn't be a chore. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for all you comments, you've been a great help. I'm basically doing work on this article on my own, and nobody really seems interested in helping me, so excuse me if one person cannot make all the difference. I'm trying my best to make it a great article, and hardly anybody seems to want to help me. If you want to remove this FAC again, go ahead. I will not dispute the fact that it could still use some work, but if it's only one person doing the work, I doubt it'll ever reach FA status. It would be nice if somebody could help me out. I've asked around, but nobody seems to be responding. Maybe I'll stick with the GA class, probably for the best. Who am I to give my opinion? Anyway thanks, for your comments, I'm sorry I renominated so quicky, I just thought I did a lot during that time. Obviously I didn't. Well, thanks anyway guys, --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find useful tips for how to locate volunteer help at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:06, 10 June 2008 [94].

    London[edit]

    previous FAC withdrawn
    previous FAC 2
    previous FAC 1

    Self Nomination Hi there, I've been working on this article for some time now, and also have had it gone through Peer Review, located here. I think it meets the FA criteria, and would be happy to make changes to it if you don't agree. The Helpful One (Review) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gary King (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename 'Sister Cities' to 'Sister cities'
    • move 'Further reading' to after 'References'
    • "# ^ [1] Green City Walks in London. Retrieved on August 17, 2007." — unformatted reference
    • Done Removed the sentence and reference bsrboy (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "^ London School of Economics and Political Science. London School of Economics accessdate=2008-04-28." — broken
    • "^ London in its Regional Setting (PDF). London Assembly. Retrieved on [[August 16, 2007]]." — bad link
    • In fact, the above happens to several references. Fix them please.
    • Placement of ref is incorrect at "Business Week's D-School list"
    • Done removed the paragraph as it doesn't add much useful information, nor is it correct bsrboy (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use en dashes per WP:DASH for numerical ranges such as page numbers, including "61-64"
    This still needs to be done, if it hasn't already. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "London , Kodachrome " — extra space
    Where abouts is this in the article? bsrboy (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This must have been removed after I made this review. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also:

    • "Demography" → "Demographics" per WP:CITIES Nevermind, I'm more familiar with American city articles, as you can tell. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more:
    Not done yet. An en dash is this: "–", which you can generate using – or {{ndash}}. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spaces needed for "1666.[40]This", "city.[41]A ", "Canary Wharf.[143]Soho ", and at least half a dozen other spots. - Done --The Helpful One (Review) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gary King (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gary King (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Capping comments. I made some minor fixes, also. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support: perfect article --Andrea 93 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adacore (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments I've never written any comments on a FAC before, so forgive me if I don't do this right. I did a quick read through and seem to have generated quite a few mostly minor points...

    • The second paragraph of the lead begins "It is". I'd suggest changing this to "London is" then switch the usage of "London boasts" in the second sentence to "It boasts". Or, if you don't like having two consecutive paragraphs beginning "London is", how about "One of the world's leading business, financial, and cultural centres,[15] London's influence..."
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Rise of modern London", I'd prefer a word other than flattened to describe the WW2 bombing, perhaps destroyed. Just look at the picture - definitely not flat.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Local government", I don't like "The administration of London takes place in 2 tiers". Suggest "is formed of two tiers". Note also that as a number less than 10, two should be written out.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure the detail on the British/European/Commonwealth parliamentary systems in the second paragraph of National government is relevant to an article on London.
    Done -- Removed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really like the first line of Scope. It should be made clear that the geographic definition of London's boundaries is being discussed, not some other form of definition. It also says "the situation was once even more ambiguous", without making it clear that it is at all ambiguous now.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also in Scope, shouldn't it be "the Square Mile"?
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that the second paragraph in the Districts section should start "The City of London" and some well meaning editor has changed this to just London, which makes the paragraph seem very out of place.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The eastern side of London" doesn't sound right to me. Do cities have 'sides'? To me a 'side' implies a boundary, not a region. I suppose New York does, so maybe this is ok.
    Done Changed to region. --The Helpful One (Review) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Demography: "...its wider metropolitan area has a population of between 12 and 14 million depending on the definition of that area."; drop "of that area." Perhaps change to "definition used."
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Ethnic Groups, why not simplify "by about six to four" to "by about three to two"?
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Religion, I'd say "Religious practice in London is lower" rather than just "Religious practice is lower" to make clear the article is referring to London as a whole, not one of the aforementioned Cathedrals or Abbeys.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Economy, "London stock exchanges have had approximately 20% more initial public offerings in 2006." Remove "have", or update.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Economy - as a tourist destination London is second only to Paris in what context? Most popular city in the world? This should be clarified.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Parks and Gardens, I'm surprised that Regents Park makes reference to Sherlock Holmes and Madame Tussauds but not to London Zoo, which is, I would think, both the most relevant and the most important attraction nearby. I'd remove the Holmes reference, since it's mentioned in the Literature section.
    Done The Helpful One (Review) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leisure and entertainment says just "Selfridges" but "Harrods department store". I'd assume that if people don't know Harrods is a department store, they certainly won't know that Selfridges is. It should probably also say "London is home to designers Vivienne Westwood..."
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely certain that ballet should be in the Music section. Maybe it could be moved up to "Leisure and entertainment", perhaps mentioned alongside Covent Garden, where the Royal Ballet is based, with the Coliseum (but not Sadlers Wells) nearby for ENB.
    Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a similar theme, a seperate theatre section might be merited - West End theatre is certainly famous enough and at present there's only a passing reference. Alternatively it might be an idea to strip down the Music section and assume that people can follow the link to Culture of London.
    Not sure if required/what you mean --The Helpful One (Review) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Sport, why does Twickenham give a capacity while Wembley does not?
    Done - and cited the addition. The Helpful One (Review) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Sport, I really don't like "London Towers are the most recognisable name to experience the rise and fall". In fact, the basketball part in general seems far too extensive in the context of the rest of the article and the relative lack of the sport's popularity in the UK.
    Done - Removed Basketball from Sport. The Helpful One (Review) 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Transport - possibly personal style, but I don't like starting sentences with "However".
    Done changed the full stop into a comma. What about starting a sentence with "although"? bsrboy (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Railways, "Over three million journeys a day are made on the Underground network, around nearly 1 billion journeys are made each year." Drop one of "around" and "nearly", drop the second "are made".
    Done, dropped "around" per the reference. Reference was for 2003, so it might have gone up (or down). A new reference would be great. bsrboy (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Air, "to the disapproval of residents near to the airport and to its take-off and landing corridors" doesn't scan well. Either rephrase or remove completely, I'd suggest removal.
    Done Removed. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a bit of overlinking of universities in Education, and the paragraph about Imperial comes in before it is mentioned as an 'other university', then later on Imperial's leaving the University of London is mentioned. It generally seems a bit mixed up, I suggest a rejig of the whole section.
    • Also, education makes very little reference to the Primary and Secondary education in London and problems faced by inner city schools. Perhaps this isn't in the article scope though.
    Not in required scope - AFAIK. The Helpful One (Review) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, not exactly experienced at this, so if anything above is silly just ignore it. Adacore (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a hide to the done comments. --The Helpful One (Review) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unhidden these comments. Do not hide the comments of other users; allow them to decide whether you have addressed their issues. BuddingJournalist 13:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. --The Helpful One (Review) 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think all my concerns (except perhaps the disorder in the universities part of the education section) have been addressed, I think the referencing/sourcing problems mentioned by others are too bad to merit a support, so I must regretfully oppose. I might have a look at fixing the referencing myself at some point if nobody else does it, but I can only really do that properly when I'm back in the UK, which won't be for a couple of months. Adacore (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher - Done The Helpful One (Review) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known. - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linck checker tool shows a few dead links. - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Link checker tool still shows broken links. BuddingJournalist 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed now, one link will work tommorow AFAIK, when the server comes back online. The Helpful One (Review) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments about sources and references:

    I'd like to point out the HEAVY reliance of this article on online sources, to the exclusion of much more reliable printed works. There are a number of printed histories of London that should have been used in preference to some of the websites for the history section. There is no requirement that everything be available online. We want reliable sources, and often times that means they need to be printed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based on the sourcing. I don't think I've ever done this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: please see the instructions at WP:FAC, remove the graphics, and refrain from breaking up or adding to someone else's post. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The second paragraph in Districts is more economy based. Some of this should be moved into the economy section. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support looks like a great article from where I'm standing --Thanks, Hadseys 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Oppose I skimmed through some of the sources used, and what I found in my few minutes of looking is rather troubling.
    Done, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/english/ bsrboy (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/resources/history.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/romanbritain_timeline_noflash.shtml bsrboy (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Permanent/medieval/Themes/1033/1035/default.htm bsrboy (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This reference is used 16 times, bsrboy (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Past/MissingLink/Themes/TML_themes_Lundenwic.htm
    2. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/Onlineresources/RWWC/themes/1295/1288
    I'm having trouble locating this within the article. Could you point me in the right direction? bsrboy (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the Districts section, first section, first sentence, directly after: "London's vast urban area is often described using a set of district names (e.g. Bloomsbury, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Whitechapel, Fitzrovia)." The Helpful One (Review) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference gives a long list of places and their translations, so it doesn't really back up what the sentence says. Seeing as a reference is very difficult to find for this I propose we change it to "London's vast urban area has districts that are not technicaly districts in the England district system, but have special characteristics or are very well known." Something like that perhaps, although I question the need for this sentence in the first place. bsrboy (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, http://www.gardenweb.com/zones/europe/hze1.html.The Helpful One (Review) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a random unsourced map from a gardening website a reliable source? BuddingJournalist 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "London is a major centre for international business and commerce and is one of three "command centres" for the world economy (along with New York City and Tokyo)." Lacks page number. Sassen's classification is up for scholarly debate. Many would argue there are more than three "command centres" for the world economy.
    • "According to the dictionary definition[78] of 'the seat of government', London is not the capital of England, as England does not have its own government, however according to the wider dictionary definition[79] of, 'the most important town...' and many other authorities[80][81] London is properly considered the capital of England.[82]" So many problems in this odd and confusing sentence. The dictionary definition? Comma splice. And I'm sure a junior high school's web page is a great authority on this subject. - Done, made clearer and changed the reference to http://www.great-britain.co.uk/london.htm The Helpful One (Review) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncited statistics in the Demography section. - Done Cited. The Helpful One (Review) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) BuddingJournalist 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too many problems with this article. Below are a small sampling of them. Fixing these alone will not bring the article up to standard. This is a large, complex subject that will require lots of effort and time to clean up. Since FAC is not a peer review, I'd suggest withdrawing this article for now and working with a bunch of interested editors to bring this up to standard. Go through line-by-line, examining prose and sources.
    • Oppose per Ealdgyth and BuddingJournalist; too many reliable sources issues at this stage (and the prose could do with more work too). giggy (:O) 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How long are FAC's allowed to be open for? I know there is this sourcing issue, but how long are we allowed to keep the FAC open for to fix the problems?? The Helpful One (Review) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:45, 10 June 2008 [95].

    Pilot (30 Rock)[edit]

    Self-nominator - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have successfully brought this article to Good Article status. I feel that I have brought this article to an even higher standard since it became a Good Article. I have compared this article to similar Featured Articles (at their time of promotion), such as Pilot (House) and The Last Temptation of Krust and I believe that this article is of the standard of those similar article. If this article currently does not meet the FA standards, i'll happily make changes. Jamie jca (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see no major problems. Looks well written and referenced. Support. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comments

    • Numerical ranges need to use an en dash, per WP:DASH; an example is: "18-49"
    • "until August, 2006 when" — unlink lone months and years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
    • "filmed in March, 2006." — same deal as above

    Gary King (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Jamie jca (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Needs some polishing. Some examples of problems:
    • "Pilot" is the first episode of the first season of the American situation comedy 30 Rock, which premiered on NBC on October 11, 2006 in the United States.[1] It aired on October 10, 2006 on CTV in Canada[2] and October 11, 2007 in the United Kingdom.
    Strictly speaking, it didn't premier in the US; it premiered in Canada (assuming those dates are correct).
    • Fey, as well as appearing as Liz Lemon, acts as the series creator, a writer and an executive producer for the series.
    Awkward.
    • The continuity section is sloppy. It's just a list of unrelated ideas. It at least needs some sort of topic sentence, and better transitions.
    • ...and prior to the meeting Jonathan (Maulik Pancholy) tells Liz to "put on some decent cloths and go talk to them."
    should that be "clothes"?
    • Her various characters were Greta Johansen, The Girlie Show cat wrangler,[4][11][12] Maria, a maid,[5] Elizabeth Taylor,[13] Blue Man, a hallucination who can only be seen by Tracy and Liz,[14] Pamela Smew, the leader of a sensitivity training group,[15] Barbara Walters,[16] Vlem, a prostitute,[17] Martha Blanch, an anti-Girlie Show protester,[18] and Dr. Beauvoir, Liz's doctor.
    How many of these list items are just appositives? For example, is Vlem the prostitute, or did Dratch play a character named Vlem in addition to an unnamed prostitute? To make things clearer, you might want to use semicolons to separate one item from another.
    • Is it really necessary to quote all those reviews? A few insightful comments should be sufficient. I know the WP:FICTION crowd is serious about including real world information, but just because a review exists doesn't mean you have to quote it in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think i've address these comments. I've removed the continuity section because on re-reading the section, it does come across as sloppy and it is pretty trivial anyway. I also shortened the reception section. Does the section need anymore removing? -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that section needs more trimming, but it could use some smoother transitions between sentences. Keep in mind that my comments were just examples of problems. I haven't read every single sentence. It might be better to withdraw the article for now, and let a good copyeditor work his or her way through it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Needs a lot of work. Simple grammatical errors (note the missing apostrophes in the first paragraph of the lead, misplaced comma: "It introduces the character, Liz Lemon", etc.), repetitious sentence structure, awkward phrasing, informal writing ("various insane stunts"), and many typos tax the reader. Continuity section is a bunch of unrelated trivial ideas cobbled together, which have little to do with the show's continuity. Production section could surely be expanded. Reception is listy and ungrammatical. I'd suggest withdrawing this for now. BuddingJournalist 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look into these problems now. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've started to try and work on these. I'll keep trying. -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. I just noticed your post to Raul's talk page about withdrawing; if you'd like to withdraw this FAC, just post a note saying so on this page, and someone will come along soon to archive it. You can then work on the article at your own pace, and bring it back here whenever you feel the article meets FA standard. BuddingJournalist 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • One link (Arizona Republic) is showing up dead with the link checker and it is dead on clicking it.
    • Current ref 26 "D. Allen, Marc "Polished Rock Rolls On" is lacking a publisher.
    • What makes http://www.tifaux.com/ a reliable source?
    • While its not wrong to link to IMDb for Director's GUild awards, wouldn't it make more sense to link to the DG site itself?
    Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, but i'm just looking to replace the TiFaux source. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seem to find one. Only another unreliable source. I've removed the paragraph. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done! Yay! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to withdraw this article from FAC please. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry for the delay; I'll withdraw it now. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through. I hope to see you back as soon as the article is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [96].

    Star of Bethlehem[edit]

    Nominator ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nominator does not appear to be in the top 10 (nor on the list of) editors who have contributed to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see on the talk page of the article any query about nominating for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm responsible for most of the writing in this article and it's an unexpected surprise to it nominated. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:FAC instructions, pls identify as significant contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for not informing the significant contributors before hand. That was a mistake on my part, still not entirely used to the FAC process. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    This FAC has broken every rule in the FAC rulebook. Anyways, on to comments:

    • Format references so all include title, url, publisher, and accessdate. For bible passages, I would suggest using {{cite book}} and {{harvnb}} instead.
    • Lots of MOS issues, such as ""astrologer"[9]) arrived" — see WP:FOOTNOTE
    • "Matthew. [8]" — space
    • for all date ranges, use en dash, per WP:DASH — same goes for all bible passages with dashes, I believe, and for all page ranges, too.
    • "(or 'wise men') " — use double quotes

    These are only from a quick sample of the article. Gary King (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think {{bibleverse}} is the proper template for citing scripture, since it would be difficult to fill in a cite book template for the bible. And I believe the other issues listed here besides maybe some ndashes still and citing (which I will fill in when I come back from school tonight, if someone doesn't do it before hand) have been corrected. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Far too many prose issues.

    • No citation for the alternate names in the lead.
    • Footnotes as Gary said
    • Don't begin section titles with articles.
    • "The magi then went to Bethlehem, found Jesus and his mother, paid him homage, worshipped him, gave gifts, and then returned to their "own country".[3]" - very awkward sentence. Consider splitting up into several sentences.
    • "In modern times, astronomers have proposed various explanations for the star, including a nova, a planet, a comet, an occultation, and a conjunction (massing of planets)." - also awkward. What do they mean "including a nova"? If you mean they thought it could have been a nova, make that explicit.
    • Weasel word - "many". Also, that paragraph is too short; consider merging. In fact, there's many other short paragraphs that hsould be merged.
    • "Some writers have suggested Luke was referring to another event such as the mass oath taking when Augustus was given the title "father of the nation" (3-2 BC)" - vague, weaselly. Make "some" explicit.
    • "The magi may have decided to travel to Jerusalem when they somehow, "conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually come into the world", according to Origen.[22]" - I believe that the comma after the "somehow" is incorrect.

    I may search for more later. In any case, I won't be able to support unless this is given a full copyedit by a pair of fresh eyes. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I think this is a great starting point for this article, but I also think that there is work to be done before it reaches FA. Here are some examples of issues (this is not a comprehensive list):
      • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, do not use calloutquotes.
      • A lot of the article is cited specifically to the Bible, with no supporting citation to a scholarly work. This is problematic, because it is original research to point to a certain Bible verse and say it means X or is representative of Y concern.
      • The article presents the statements in the Bible as historical facts. This is not an era in history that I have studied heavily, but I would think that there might be historical facts that dispute some of this. To me, the tone of the article feels a little like sermonizing.
      • There is nothing in the article about the legacy of the star and how it is viewed today (or even throughout history). For example, see Jeanne HAnson's Star of Bethlehem: The History, Mystery, and Beauty of the Christmas Star [97]
      • I would expect there to be more scholarly sources cited in the article. I did a quick search on Google Books and Google scholar and found many references that have not been consulted. Those that have been consulted seem to be only referencing one or two facts. It makes me wonder what else was in those sources that has been left out, making the article not as comprehensive.

    Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as the issue of whether the Bible is history or not, this is addressed specifically the section "historical fiction." As for the other sections, mythology can be analysised for its own sake and on its own terms. Kauffner (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Many WP:MoS breaches and the prose is poor; some sentences are very difficult to understand:
    The statement that Herod was "troubled" by what the magi said has told him implies that he was disturbed by their statement that the "king of the Jews" had been born, since that was his own title. GrahamColmTalk 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: the "historical fiction" section - I'm pretty sure it should be renamed to "Historiography", which seems to be what the author intended. Raul654 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher
    • Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known.
    • Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number
    • Link checker tool shows a few dead links.
    • External links is for websites, Further reading is for printed material.
    When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [98].

    Doggystyle[edit]

    Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I have been working on the article for about a month now and I have made significant additions to the page. I put it through a GAN, which it passed after being put on hold, and it has also been through a Peer Review, which I have used to improve on the parts which needed a little work. I think the article now passes the FA criteria and deserves to be a FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 15, 2008

    Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Ensure references are uniform. Some are using plain text, some are using {{cite web}}, causing some of the references to say 'Accessed on' and some to say 'Retrieved on'.
    • "I retains the" → "It retains the"
    • U.S. → United States — I would prefer this, especially at least once before using the acronym.
    • "as well as Rolling Stones "Essential Recordings of the 90s"." Looks really odd when the 's' is not linked together; it should also be Rolling Stone's
    • "contributions on Dre's The Chronic." → full name on first occurrence, so 'Dr. Dre'.
    • "hip". [1][7]" → Extra space?
    • "won't kill"[9]" — missing a period?

    There are probably more; these are some comments on only the first section of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some are already clean-up. --Efe (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahm, who is Phillip Woldermarian? He should be identified. --Efe (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all of those things have been taken care of. To do with Phillip Woldermarian, he was a member of a rival gang who was murdered. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Woldermarian must be identified there. Reading that part alone will leave us hanging. --Efe (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • inconsistent "Dr. Dre" and "Dre". It should be the former.
    • Time is identified as magazine. How about NME and Rolling Stone? Please identify also The New York Times, and many more. --Efe (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of subsections that are only occupied by a single paragraph. Maybe we can merge them? --Efe (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've used "Dr. Dre" throughout and added "magazine" to the publications that needed it. What sections do you think would be better merged together ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That subsections with only one paragraph. If its possible, you can merge them. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/061024/A896.htm a reliable source? Looking at this site, I'm not seeing it supporting statments like "The record is regarded by many critics to be one of the most significant albums of the 1990s, and one of the most important hip hop albums released to date." or "Doggystyle is viewed by many critics and fans as a "hip hop classic" and is included in The Source magazine's 100 Best Rap Albums, as well as Rolling Stone magazine's list of Essential Recordings of the 90s."
    The website accumulates the various "Best Ever" accolades bestowed on a song/album by different publications. indopug (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the album was included in The Essential Recordings of the 90s, Top 200 Albums of All time and The 90s Top 100 Essential Albums, I think that supports the view that "The record is regarded by many critics to be one of the most significant albums of the 1990s" and since it was included in the 10 Essential Hip-Hop Albums, Hip Hop's 25 Greatest Albums by Year 1980-98 and The 100 Best Rap Albums, I think that supports that the album was "one of the most important hip hop albums released to date". Also, basically the whole 'Critical Reception' section supports "Doggystyle is viewed by many critics and fans as a "hip hop classic". - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look okay, and links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Like Spellcast said before, DubCNN is ok because they did an interview with Snoop who explained about the album. HipHopDX is used for an interview. EveryHit seems reliable, but I'll remove it and the information extracted from it if other users believe it untrustworthy. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because it is an interview, doesn't mean it's reliable. We need to be sure that they transcribed the interview correctly, didn't introduce bias by not putting something in that he said, things like that. Generally, the discussion on everyhit.com hasn't concluded that it's reliable, but it hasn't concluded it's unreliable. It looks unreliable to me, but that's my opinion. I'll let others decide on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There are still serious problems with prose, and also some of the claims made. Take the following almost random couple of sentences:
    The album is considered as one of the first G-funk albums which many rappers duplicated in later years.[1]
    Black culture
    Doggystyle has considerably affected African American culture. Its influence on gangsta rap has lowered the status of women in black society.[20][14][41] Some publications have held the rap genre responsible for a number problems
    • The grammar of the first sentence is all over the place.
    • The claim contained in the second couple of sentences are far too ambitious, and completely unsupported by at least two of the three references cited (the third, I can't access).
    • The final sentence is missing a word.

    I tried to do some copy-editing, but really the prose is a long, long way off. Here's another example: "This has been attained through the ability to communicate free of censorship, which has allowed hip hop culture to become a dominant style and ethos throughout the world." Not a good sentence.

    As a whole, the article has a way to go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - I copyedited this yesterday (fixed redundancy, incorrect word choices, and other prose issues). However, this is still not ready. Please format all the references using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} (or alternatively, use {{Citation}} solely). In addition, there are various parts of the article which represent ambiguity which I was not able to solve. I share the concerns of Jbmurray. The most problematic section is "Black culture" which continually says "This..." after sentences, and "It has also...". Please state who you're quoting and be specific to avoid confusion to the reader. Avoid usage of "This" to begin a sentence - restate what is being referred to. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to fix the 'Black culture' section, but it may need another copy-edit. Does an article have to use a citation template ? because I have just used plain text in the references throughout ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See both Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for lists of copyeditors. See WP:CITE regarding the citation issue. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't have to use any templates; just be consistent throughout. indopug (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but at the moment there are already usages of Cite web in the article, from what I last saw. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article now uses plain text in references throughout. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I supported the previous nomination, and I still feel the same way. Well written, excellent references. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose. Prose is not of required standard; from lead alone:
    • "Released by the album's producer Dr. Dre's record label Death Row" - the use of two possessive apostrophes makes it hard to parse.
    • "while some of its musical stylizations" - "while" isn't accurate; "and" would suffice. It is not very clear about how the two albums are related.
    • "Snoop Dogg was arrested in connection with Phillip Woldermarian's death; a charge he was not acquitted of until 1996." - I'm no expert, but I don't think being arrested in connection with a death is a "charge" from which you can be acquitted. And the phrasing "not acquitted of until..." seems to convey an odd emphasis - surely "he was acquitted in 1996" would be more neutral and clear.
    • "one of the most" is repeated in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which would be better to avoid.
    • "Both" at the start of the next sentence is redundant; "introduced" should be "introduce"; "bring" should be "bringing". Using "West Coast hip hop" so close to "1990s hip hop" is jarring; can it be avoided?
    • "by 2003 it has sold seven million" - should be "had sold", year and number of sales both seem pretty arbitrary
    • "It was the fastest-selling hip hop recording in the U.S., only surpassed by..." - obviously ridiculous.
    Article needs a lot of work. Trebor (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose—Just like my recent declaration at the previous nom page. TONY (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:46, 7 June 2008 [99].

    Insane Clown Posse[edit]

    The article has been successfully listed as a GA, and after a lot of hard work, I think that it's ready for Featured Article candidacy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Oppose

    • "Disney claimed that the boycott was not related to the company's discontinuation of the album, stating that their review board had "messed up" and that once executives learned of the album's "inappropriate" lyrics, they decided it "did not fit the Disney image." - Signs of redundancy in places, this is just one example. This sentence reads fine without "that" being used three times.
    • There are other examples of redundancy throughout the article - please get a copyeditor new to the text to go through it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is good, but I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
    • Links checked out fine with the link checker tool.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • As shown by Laser brain and others, this needs another copyedit - but before that, I would suggest withdrawing this and working on it some more to weed out any POV. There are still sourcing problems, and problems with comprehensiveness throughout I'm afraid. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes http://www.livedaily.com/ a reliable site? I can't find an about us page.
    • Just a note, current ref 59 Williams Margo "Friends thought helping Gay Bar ..." is blocked by some ISPs, so I wasn't able to check it's reliablility.
    • I share the above concerns about Publicity Whore and MurderDog. I didn't see the others in the article, though, so no idea if I would have an concern with them or not.
    Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — LiveDaily is a music news and concert ticket website. Although Publicity Whore and MurderDog are not well-known websites, the comments in their interviews with Utsler and Bruce check up with what the duo has stated in regards to the fued in video interviews. These links are the best sources I have been able to find for this information, aside from a series of YouTube videos uploaded by a fan, and I don't think that those would be allowed here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment — I removed the LiveDaily link in favor of a printed source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Oppose
    • Where are the Musical style and Influences sections? They are needed to make a band article comprehensive. (See R.E.M., The Smashing Pumpkins)
    • I have written a "Style and influences" section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • No music samples?
    • None of those non-free pictures except the album cover seem to satisfy WP:NFCC #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." indopug (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the Psychopathic Records logo, but kept the other images, as they illustrate significant information (their mainstream success and their live performances). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    AMG discusses the music of each album in reasonable detail; see if you can't pick common styles to all their records as well as how their music has evolved/changed over time (that "earlier work features a rawer, minimalistic hip hop sound, while their later work features a more rock-oriented sound." is a good start, but needs expanding). You can also see Radiohead for guidance. You should discuss their lyrics: "racist", "crass", "sexist", "juvenile" etc seem to be buzzwords. All-in-all, just go through what Rolling Stone, Allmusic etc have to say about their music, image etc and try to summarize. indopug (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to mention the guests who appeared into every album; that's unnecessary detail and is meant for the album articles. Eg: "which featured guest appearances from Ice-T, Ol' Dirty Bastard and Snoop Doggy Dogg." and "featuring appearances by comedians John G. Brennan, Harland Williams and Rudy Ray Moore, and punk band The Misfits". indopug (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, some basic work needed before this is ready. Before I can even review the prose, you'll need to fix your links to sources. All of the MTV news stories are broken links. The fair use images have to go—you don't have a good rationale for using any of them. --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I rewrote the fair use rationales for each of the images. MTV's website appears to be down for the moment, but these links were working the last time I checked them, and should be working again in the next day or so. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Okay, will check MTV again tomorrow. For the images, I should have been more clear: I don't think there is any rationale for using them. The album cover can be used in the article about the album only. The live images are replaceable with free alternatives. I would just remove them - insisting on fair use images in this article will quickly sink the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed fair use images. Added another Commons-licensed image from Flickr. Took my own picture of a shelf of Faygo and added it to the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - Laser brain, the MTV links are working fine for me. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a sec - since when were fair-use album covers categorically not allowed in main articles? They are fine per policy "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I got Stereolab to FA with plenty of album covers, with the necessary critical commentary in the text. - Merzbow (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: After reviewing the prose today, my opposition stands. It's not up to the professional standard required by FA criterion 1a. It's also not properly sourced per criterion 1c. I found issues in almost every sentence. In my opinion this needs further research, attention from a strong copy-editor, then a more substantive peer review (contact editors from the volunteer list). Suggest withdrawing to work on it and coming back when it's ready. Some examples follow, just from the first few paragraphs:
      • The lead is too short and does not summarize the main points of the article.
    • What else is discussed in the article? Check the lead on other musical article FAs. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of the History section relies on primary sources but includes more than basic facts (interpretation and POV). Primary sources are OK for basic facts like DOB and family but nothing else.
    • I don't see any POV or interpretation. I think the article does a pretty good job of detailing ICP's history, while remaining as neutral as possible, and offers some objective criticism of the individual albums and their style of music. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • You don't see it because you wrote the article. Need secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Bruce and Utsler founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with manager Alex Abbiss, which produces and distributes works by Juggalo musicians, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." Poor organization and unfamiliar terminology.. what are "Juggalo musicians"?
    • That would be Juggalos who rap or play in rock bands (like Zug Izland or Motown Rage). Rewritten to read "which distributes music by hip hop and rock acts inspired by Insane Clown Posse, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • "Joseph Bruce ("Violent J") and Joseph Utsler ("Shaggy 2 Dope") met in a suburb north of Detroit and participated in various backyard wrestling rings, developing the skills and showmanship that they would eventually use during their careers." Lots of issues.. what is participating in a backyard wrestling ring? "Skills and showmanship" is POV sourced to a primary source. Need secondary sources.
    • Took out the "skills and showmanship" remark. Rewrote the rest of the paragraph for clarification. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • "... in the ghettos of Delray" Colloquial use of "ghetto" is incorrect and unsourced.
      • "Bruce, Utsler and Hill formed a gang, calling themselves the Inner City Posse." Why not "... a gang called Inner City Posse"? --Laser brain (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's GA, but it really needed more prose work before coming to FAC. Here's some stuff from one section...

    • Several of the quotes in the Style and influences section aren't attributed in text, and thus are rather awkward/meaningless.
    • "Insane Clown Posse's earlier work features a rawer, minimalistic hip hop sound, while their later work features a more rock-oriented sound." - Active voice would work better here.
    • 2nd para of this section has a few "also" one after the other.
    • "Insane Clown Posse has influenced similar acts, such as Twiztid, Blaze Ya Dead Homie, Anybody Killa and Boondox." - How? Says who?

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I made a few changes here and there (removal of repeated uses of "also"), and fixed the part about acts ICP has influenced to correspond with All Music Guide. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Comments

    • "music.[62][4] The word" — Refs in ascending order
    • "increased sales [14] and" — one extra space
    • "charts [36] and has" — same here, extra space
    • "various backyard rings." — link "backyard rings" otherwise we just think it links to backyard
    • "who had reportedly paid $1 million to buy" — first mention of currency, so use US$ per WP:CURRENCY

    Gary King (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [100].

    Brazil[edit]

    previous FAC

    This comprehensive article provides a really good overview of contemporary Brazil. The writing is good and the facts are well sourced, I fully support its promotion to a featured article. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

    Oppose There are several problems with this article; namely:

    • Several uncited paragraphs ("Within Brazil's current borders...", "In 1808, the Portuguese court", and the first four paragraphs of "Subdivisions"). If the nearest upcoming reference references all of the preceding paragraphs, then please still explicitly place those references in the preceding paragraphs so every paragraph has a reference. Shouldn't be too difficult.
    • I spot at least a few unreliable sources; hopefully I can save User:Ealdgyth some trouble here. The last time I checked, World66, for instance, was a wiki, and is used as a reference several times in this article. A few of the references are also unformatted (with only the title and URL). There are also a few dead links — about half a dozen.

    I would love to see this article reach FA status, but these are only a handful of the issues that exist in this article, unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I've worked on the article and believe that it has the potential to be featured, but is not ready at the moment. There are issues with formatting (not all references are formatted correctly, I spot numerous MoS problems), reliable sources (as GaryKing has pointed out), and the fact that there is an ongoing debate about content on the talk page that should be resolved. --Kakofonous (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Refs need to state when they are in a non-English language. Numbers of them are.
    • What is IBGE?
    • I'm not sure what http://www.fundacaooscaramericano.org.br/eng/Collection/Colonial_Brazil/colonial_brazil.html is supporting in this statement "Initially Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of high profits gained through commerce with Indochina. After 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies."
    • Ref 10 is a journal article, correct? (JSTOR: Anglo-Portugese Trade) Format it as a journal article as originally published, not as a website with JSTOR as the publisher. ALL the JSTOR refs should be formatted as journal articles, since I'm assuming you read the whole article and not just the abstract.
    • THis source http://www.casahistoria.net/Brazil.htm#Colonial_Brazil is just a collection of links.
    • http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture34/lec34.html This source would work better if it gave its sources, although it probably passes muster (looks like a online course lecture notes for a college course?)
    • Current ref 15 "Reis, Jao Jose "Slave Rebelion in Brazil" is lacking a page number and publication date at the very least.
    • Current ref 17 "Brazil's prized exports rely on ..." is lacking a last access date.

    Okay, I'm only this far in and there are that many references problems. Please go through and give page numbers for all printed sources. Languages for all non-English sources. Get the JSTOR refs into journal form. Web sites need publisher and last access dates at the very very least. If those get fixed, I'll come back and look over the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Back in 2007 we didn't have any of the aforementioned problems with references. That was the last time I worked on the article. I think since then while many editors made several small improvements, some people have been inserting things indiscriminately (although in good faith). Hence all the new reference problems. Perhaps we can revert parts of the article to older versions in an attempt to save a bit of time? Sparks1979 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose1a. Here are random issues just in the lead.

    • Federative? No, translate it as "Federal".
    • So religion is important enough to be worth privileging right at the top? I'd have thought the lifestyle and ideology of many Brazilians was very very uncatholic; gives the wrong impression to paint it as a profoundly religious culture of a particular European brand.
    • Comma in 7,367 but not in the conversion?
    • "While Brazil is one of the most populous nations in the world, population density drops dramatically as one moves inland."—"One" is two entirely different senses jars here. And the second one is a MOS breach.
    • "There are currently 26 States and 5,564 Municipalities." Why is "currently" necessary? Is this particularly unstable?
    • "One of the ten largest economies in the world"—so which is it: the second-largest? The tenth-largest?
    • "with wide variations in development levels and mature manufacturing, mining and agriculture sectors"—with wide variations in mature manufacturing? Insert a comma as a boundary to stop this. It's still a heady mixture of notions in a single clause.
    • "Technology and services also play an important role"—so technology plays no role in manufacturing, mining and agriculture? Category problem.

    Careful, thorough copy-editing required by fresh eyes. TONY (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per Tony - fails 1a, poor prose. I am actually concerned about how well researched this article is. Only three of the 141 refs are books, the rest are online sources. I would think that for a subject as broad and important as Brazil, some serious research would have been conducted from reliable books. There are some good books listed under 'Further reading', but why haven't these been used as sources? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [101].

    Textual criticism[edit]

    Self-nom — I have worked on this article since the last nomination, using the comments made there last year to improve it and look forward to feedback to so that it can make it there this time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments Some quick notes from a cursory glance:

    Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please standardize your short-form book cites; I see the following variations:

    • Roseman, 1999: 73
    • Greg 1950, p. 21
    • Dunnett & Tenney; 1985: 150
    Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check your dashes in page ranges: they should all be endashes.
    Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add retrieval dates to your web citations.
    Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Midsummer Night's Dream and Canterbury Tales need italics.
    Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The See also section includes an awfully long list of people. Are there categories that would serve the purpose?
    These are scholars that have worked/written on this particular subject. Most of them. if not all, are all in the Category:Textual criticism. Shall we remove them? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there are only four people in Category:Textual criticism, and not many more in its subcat Category:Biblical criticism. When I clicked at random on people from See also, I found that most of them were in Category:Biblical scholars. I couldn't find relevant people cats for non-biblical textual criticism to go with it, but maybe you'll have better luck. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the long list of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try to give this a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hidden my resolved issues above, and elaborated on one. As an aside, {{done}} and other graphical templates are discouraged at FAC - in bulk, they make the individual pages and especially the main WP:FAC page unbearably slow. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. I have removed these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Some short sections, and the one on "The Hebrew Bible" is a list: some expansion required. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Expanded "The Hebrew Bible" section. Would that be enough for this article? That subject requires a full article; I may start such article in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. The lack of in-line citations is a problem; there are many sections that are not referenced. There are too many long quotations that would benefit from précis and citation. The article loses direction in the middle becomes un-encyclopedic in tone and more like a treatise. The inclusion of a modern example would have been interesting, such as Joyce's Ulysses. I noticed some over-linking. I feel bad about being negative because I enjoyed reading most of the article, but it would benefit greatly from some bold editing to reduce the verbosity. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Prose/reference issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

    • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
    • Short, stubby paragraphs throughout the Eclecticism section ruin readability/flow.
    • Unnecessary bold text at start of Overview section, see WP:MOS.
    • There's a huge list of verifiable books under 'References', but hardly any have been used as footnotes?
    • The current citations are disorganized, please go through them for consistency.
    • Serious lack of references, including many paragraphs throughout the article which are not referenced at all.
    • Current ref 46 needs publisher/author info - but more importantly, what makes earlychristianwritings.com a verifiable source?
    • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 3 "tanselle 1989" I don't see such an entry in the references
    • I think current ref 5 is missing a 9 at the end of the date?
    • Typo in current ref 8 Harting? Should it be Hartin?
    It's ref 14 now, still with a g?
    • What makes http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html a reliable source?
    • Current ref 13 Mulken & van Pieter, do you mean Van Reenen and van Mulken?
    • Is it Rosemann or Roseman? Footnote says Roseman, references says Rosemann.
    • Are the following refs actually used in the footnotes? If they aren't used, they need to go in the further reading section.
      • Gaskell?
      • Hodges
      • Love?
      • Maas?
      • Robinson?
      • sober?
      • Zeller?
    • Actually, I see you're mixing citation styles, you're using parenthetical (Bowers, 1972 p. 86) with footnote. I believe it's supposed to be one or the other.
    Links checked out. The sources seem okay, apart from issues noted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs in footnotes fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • General question

    Thanks for the feedback. I can fix most of the smaller issues, re citations, footnotes, etc. But for copyedit I will need to engage other volunteers to come and lend a hand, as that is not my strength. My question is: should I de-list this FAC, or keep it going while fixing these issues? Look forward to your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment not sure whether to withdraw as yet. I have to work through it. Now let's get started...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Overview needs renaming. To me, overview means summary, which is what the lead is doing for the article anyway. Paras 1 and 2 of section are history, as is part of para 4. The rest is process and aim I guess.
    In the lead - add one or two sentences to describe the three fundamental approaches for starters. I would be although fascinated I am a neophyte in the area.
    Try to remove redundancy. See also material which is mentioned explicitly in text, remove. We can use CTRL-F keys these days.
    OK. Will work on these next. Thanks for the feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scanning through it, the prose is good in places, and this is the most difficult piece of the puzzle at FAC, so maybe give it a bit longer and see how it pans out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A copyeditor, User:Alastair Haines has expressed his interest in working on these aspects. This is great as this editor is knowledgeable on the subject. See User_talk:Jossi#Textual_criticism_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - oops. Missed that it was already at FAC. See my comments at Talk:Textual criticism#Comments in passing. Wouldn't support for FA status yet (I don't know enough to know if this is truly comprehensive or not, so it is more a "not sure" on that account), but it did teach me quite a few things. I would like to see more balance away from the Biblical and Shakespearean side of things, though. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Only half way through, but first suggestion is maybe a more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    • Please be consistent in references. You've got "# ^ Greg; 1950: 36" and then "# ^ Bowers 1972, p. 86". I recommend using the latter format.

    Gary King (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed format of all inline citations to Author year, p.# (e.g. Bowers 1972, p.86) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks a lot better now. However, add a space after p. so it is "Ehrman 2005, p. 46". Also, merge references that are the same, such as "Bowers 1964, p.226" (it is used multiple times), using WP:REFNAME. Gary King (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added space after p. ; will work on consolidating all dup refs soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This article has the potential to be quite fascinating, as it seems to map out mistranslations and misunderstandings in common knowledge. In short, the article is an example of what Wikipedia does (should do) in light speed. It's an abstract concept that should be illustrated concretely, and I found I was unable to follow some of it because I don't believe it is well-written. Of the things I wish I could read are:
    • A cause and effect relationship in the lead that ties errors of translation to misunderstandings, with perhaps a concrete example.
    • A brief explanation of the terms "eclecticism, stemmatics, and copy-text editing" in the lead.
    • Before the history is discussed, I believe the reason for criticizing text it should be addressed.
    • The Objective section should be written in paragraph form.
    • There is so much jargon in the article that I am unable to follow it, particularly the Objective section. It won't do to obfuscate an already difficult topic deliberately. For each blue link, italicized, or "quoted term" that is a concept in Textual criticism, provide a brief explanation.
    • The section on Eclecticism is choppy, and I'm not sure what it is explaining. I think you need several topic sentences to put your reader in a frame of mind of what to expect, why these areas of study are important, and what they mean for interpretation of concepts.
    • Concrete examples of what scholars have found to be misprintings, omissions, misunderstandings, and mistranslations should be given frequently, and they should be well-cited.
    • Citations are few and far between, particularly in the Stemmatics and Cladistics section. For such a topic as this, these claims need to be cited. I hope the fact tag in Internal evidence was put there by an FAC reviewer, and it didn't come to FAC that way.
    • In the Application of textual criticism to biblical criticism there is a list of works that have gone through textual criticism, but nothing is compared. What are the differences between languages or translations, copies? What is the use of listing works that have had textual criticism applied without giving examples of what scholars have found?
    • There is a list of findings, but is there an explanation of their importance? For instance, I read that Mary, mother of Jesus, is described in Hebrew text using a word that means both "virgin" and "young girl". Can you imagine what the impact of the translation of "young girl" would have been for women throughout history? At the very least, Madonna would be dancing on a street corner without that ammunition.
    • These issues are prevalant throughout the article. I think if you work on it some more by providing cited concrete examples for these ideas, and rewriting some sections to flow better, you will have the basis for an FA. I wish you luck. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for you thorough review. The challenge is that this is an extraordinarily complex subject, and treating it in detail will require probably 6 or 7 articles. My intention was to provide an overview of the subject, and I can see that some of your suggestions could be applied to that effect. I guess, it will need the involvement of many editors, copy-editors, experts on the subject, as well as wikignomes to make this article reach the coveted FA status. I am concerned that some articles on pop-culture subjects are reaching FA status, while articles such as this one often get neglected... That is a challenge: to get articles on subjects such as this to attract enough eyeballs and attention to give it the treatment it deserves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not just whistlin' Dixie there. Of the stunningly small percentage of editors who escort an article to FA, an even smaller percentage escort a classical topic such as yours. I have to admit that I am guilty of putting forth such a pop culture article as my last FA, but it was unavoidable. Obsession made me do it. As for the preparation of this one, you may have to split it apart, but I didn't really think the article required a substantial amount of content; not doubling it by any means. However, I think it needs almost basic This is the Term. This is a definition of the term. This is an example of the term. This is a nonexample of the term - type illustration. Just written a lot better than what I just did. You can always ask the FA Team for assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Moni3 for your feedback. I will give it some thoughts and see if I can rally a few editors to help in this effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [102].

    Ghosts I–IV[edit]

    Self-nomination This article recently went through a very easy GA nomination and a more in-depth peer review, so I am confident in its quality and thoroughness. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links, that'll help with future FACs. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem. Drewcifer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments That Release versions section resembles a shopping catalogue. The whole thing seems to be just unencyclopedic detail. How is the fact that the Two-Disc release "includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release" of any interest/importance to the lay reader? I think the whole section should be replaced by a sentence, "the album was released in many different formats such x, y and z." indopug (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest comparing this article to FA In Rainbows, which had a similar release and varying formats. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that such detail is useful to the lay person. For example, I'd say that the fact that the 2-Disc release includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release is actually quite remarkable: as far as I know, no album in history has ever been offered as a physical package AND as an included immediate high-quality digital download. In Rainbows included. And don't take it from me, a ton of 3rd party, reliable sources have also found this fact worthy of mentioning. And to respond to Wesley, I take it what you were pointing out from In Rainbows was that the release versions were explained via prose rather then list/tables? I'm not sure if such an approach would be the best here, since there's so many differing versions each slightly different content. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so I picked an awful example to prove my point. How does "If downloaded from the official site, it also includes a 40-page PDF and additional wallpapers, web banners, and icons." not resemble an advertisement? In any case, of these release modes were so revolutionary, why not discuss and analyse it critically? That'll be quite interesting and encyclopedic. indopug (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I agree with you on the web banners thing, took it out. As for your other suggestions, I agree with you in theory, but I'm afraid of going into OR-territory, as well as just repeating stuff that's already mentioned in the same section (what's in each release) and/or the second paragraph of the Critical reception section (what critics thought about the release methods). Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Or in other words: critical analysis is already in the article (just in a different section, dedicated to Critical reponses, including their analysis to the distribution methods), and any other analysis (ie non-critical, ie coming from me), would be OR). Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - this page isn't nearly ready. The whole price list and features section is repeated twice, one as text, one as table. It's also self contradictory, starting by saying that "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license", then saying later that (surprise) it's only some tracks from Ghosts I. And with a lead-on like that, why isn't at least one representative song (or even a sample from it) listed as an .ogg image like one of the other music articles above? Worst, there is virtually no discussion of its significance. There are some immediate news articles yes, but no indication if the practice of differently pricing various grades was copied by others or what the results were. Sure, the article says the very top grade sold out, but it doesn't explain whether these were purchased by speculators or die-hard fans. It says the site clogged from downloads, but not whether the downloaders went on to buy the full album, whether marketing analysis was done (or by who) to determine whether sales were lost or gained by the practice, etc. There's no depth here. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your comments. I'll try and address or respond to all of them. Unfortunately I don't agree with many of your comments, but hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement. So:
    • I personally don't think I see a problem with saying the same thing twice, especially since the info is presented in two different manners. And, both ways are relatively small space-wise, so it's not like I'm wasting a ton of space repeating myself. That said, if you had your way, what would you suggest removing or changing? I'm definitely up for concrete suggestions.
    Redundancy is a recurring problem I have seen in articles you have brought to FAC. If things are presented twice in two different formats, choose one format over the other, or a find a way to combine the two. This will make the article more concise and better-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, took it out. I guess I just like pretty tables and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The table was pretty - it was just the duplication that was the problem. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that's what I liked about, since it's summarized some points graphically. But hey, you can't win 'em all. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you were confused by the CC thing. Which is probably a fault in the prose, but not in the way you're implying (a bait and switch). The whole album is CC-licensed, it's just Ghosts 1 that is free. There is a big difference. What exactly was it that lead you to believe otherwise? Perhaps the Creative Commons thing wasn't explained clearly enough?
    I'm under the impression that any CC licensed thing can be freely peer shared. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. CC-licensed stuff can be freely shared (within the limits of the specific licenses), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily free from the original source. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the band charges money but anyone could put it on their Web site? I'm confused. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty much exactly what it means. It's definitely an a-typical business model, and kind of depends on good-faith, but it looks like Reznor made out alright for himself regardless. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as including a song sample, I'm a little worried that you didn't actually read the whole article, since there is indeed a sample included in the article (in the Music section).
    Sorry, I was unclear. That is a fair use sample from Ghosts IV, but so far as I understood not freely redistributable. But then again I'm not sure how Wikipedia regards the "noncommercial" restriction on the Ghosts I license anyway, so maybe it's not as clear a point. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the non-commercial thing that forced me to use it under Fair-use. Wikipedia does not allow the free use of non-commercial CC stuff, so I had to treat it as fair-use (ie non-free). I've updated the image page with an additional template that hopefully clears this up. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the significance of the release, again, I'm left wondering if you read the article in its entirety. The second paragraph of the Critical reception section discusses critical reception of the article in relation to its importance to the music industry as a whole. 5 separate critics are quoted, all of which in some way discuss the releases larger implications: artistically, business-wise, etc.
    These all seemed to be forward looking predictions. The real problem is that there is no overall idea of the long term significance because you're pushing a freshly released album. What I was getting at is that I don't think you can have a stable, comprehensive view of an album that has just barely been released ... not until after it has been out a while. It'd be a pity if that diminished its financial value...Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By criticizing the article for being too soon, you seem to be going down a few slippery slopes: 1) an article cannot be an FA until a designated time after the event/release/whatever since it may prove to be influential in some way, 2) the potential for the album to be influential necessitates the article to mention such influence in past-tense terms, and 3) if a potentially influential topic is yet to be influential, it is incomplete until it does so. The problem here is that you're judging the article based on the topic's potential 2/5/10 years down the line, which is bordering WP:CRYSTAL. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, could the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 be featured? This product likewise is facing a popular vote. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that right now, the primaries article couldn't be featured because it's not finished yet. But once they are, (I suppose around the time of the Democratic convention), then yes, it could be featured, since the event has happened/is over. Any long-reaching effects of the primary (such as whether the Dems rework the primary system or whatever) should be included if and when these effects happen, but I don't believe you can fault the article for something that may or may not happen sometime in the future. The same goes for this article: the album was released (which means the event in question has happened), and it may be influential, but we really don't know until it is. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for distinguishing between whether hard-core fans/speculators bought the Ultra edition, I'm not really sure how one would know that or find it out. Exit polls? Tracking down each customer? Besides, how does one define a "hard-core fan" versus a "speculator"? Does one have nose piercings and the other wears a tie? Obviously I'm being facetious, but it seems like a very vague undertaking. So, along those same lines, how would a newspaper/magazine/other reliable 3rd party source have any chance of finding that stuff out then publishing it? If this is an unreasonable expectation of the New York Times, surely it's an unreasonable expectation of the article?
    • As for specifics about sales, marketing analysis, etc, that is entirely dependent upon whether sources with access to that information (ie pretty much just NIN and its management) decides to disclose such information. If they had/do, then great, that info should certainly be included at the risk of not being comprehensive. But assuming like 99.9% of every other album ever released, that info is not disclosed, then it's an unreasonable expectation to insist on it being included. I can't include information that is never made public. The fact that the album was released in an unorthodox/potentially groundbreaking manner does not change this fact. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many articles on Wikipedia that don't make it to featured status because enough is known about the topic, and I see this in the same position. Saying that "comprehensive" includes only what can be found out from crystal ball gazing and the company that owns the album because you're trying to feature the album two months after its release just doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you seem to be saying is that no album article will ever be comprehensive without some form of marketing analysis. Whether it's two months or two years after an album is released, 99.9% of albums released don't have such information released. So based on this assumption only an exceedingly few album articles will ever be FAs, and all other album articles are un-comprehensiveness because such data is never released. And again, the fact of how this particular album was released doesn't change this fact. It seems like a mistake to fault an article solely on the fact that it's missing information that is very very rarely released. And it also seems like a mistake to fault the article on it being too soon, with the assumption that such information might be released later. (WP:CRYSTAL) Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral Oppose for now. The criticism section is very short and is about two different aspects; the music and the way the recording was released. The shallowness of the critical appraisal is a big worry. If this article were to appear on the Main Page as of now, it would seem at "best" promotional, at worst an advertisement. Can you not find more reliable critical reviews and balance this section? Lastly, why are Trent and others constantly stating rather than saying or writing? GrahamColmTalk 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm finding this one difficult to judge. It's well-written and interesting for sure, so I'm changing to neutral and I will follow the discussion here for now. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. Your point about "stating" is well-taken, I've tried to address it in the article. As for your other criticsm about the Critical reception section, I'm not sure if I completely follow you: do you think you could offer me some more specific suggestions? I've done my best to provide a wide range of critical opinion (positive, negative, about the music, about the release), and they're all from well-known, reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc). I could add more, of course, but I'm afraid that that would just be more of the same. I can't imagine adding anything else that hasn't already been said in that section, but if you have some suggestions I'm certainly open to them. Drewcifer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with an average rating of 64% based on ten reviews on Metacritic" - I wouldn't call that generally favourable... more mediocre. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually now 66% based on 11 reviews (I've updated the page). And "generally favorable" is what MetaCritic calls it. Check it out: link. Drewcifer (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's cool. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that ship has already sailed. I rearranged the citations to fix the problem, however. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies also commenting favorably on the unorthodox release of the album" - do without the "also" DONE
    • "Much coverage of the album has compared Ghosts I–IV to the releases of Radiohead's In Rainbows as well as Saul Williams' The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!." - might want to say why (the way they were released, right?) DONE
    • "that the band had completed its contractual obligations to the band's record label, Interscope Records," - "their" instead of "the band's"?
    Reworded to "its", since "their" is a tricky word to use for a semi-psuedo-one-man-band. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to use or rework the material for any non-commercial purpose" - could this be said in lay man terms? Otherwise, it's obvious from the license title.
    Changed "non-commercial" to "non-profit". Does that make it a little clearer? Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • May wish to say in the infobox that it was released online (under the release date)
    I don't know, I'd rather not. A release is a release, especially in terms of the infobox. If this is a deal breaker I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the Halo numbers in the Release versions section be in italics?
    I don't think so. They're essentially catalog numbers, which as far as I know are usually written in normal typeface. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first sentence of the lead it's in italics, that's why I ask. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that was a mistake. 5 words in an there was something wrong! I fixed it to be unitalicized. Drewcifer (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Washington Post stated "There's too much here. Yet it's the most interesting NIN in years." The Washington Post review" - bah, repetition... FIXED

    dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I've addressed/commented on all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • "Have fun and ... be creative" — The ellipsis do not appear in the reference.
    The ellipsis bridges the gap of stuff I've taken out since it's not as relevant. The full quote is "Have fun and I’ll see you in a few hours.” And he said, “We could go the traditional drum route but be creative—See where your mind and your ideas take you.”" Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at "just have fun and be creative". But still, use [...] instead of ... Gary King (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "26) – US$5 to download" US$ already stated once before so no need to link again; just $5
    Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: What is the deal with those genres in the infobox? Can you make it more general? How about Industrial rock and Ambient? indopug (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you take a look at the talk page (or the talk page for the main Nine Inch Nails page), you'd see that NIN's genre(s) are a hotly debated topic. I can see about changing it if you really think it's necessary – and by see I mean bring it up on the talk page, since there's a note in the article saying any changes will be reverted unless discussing on the talk page – but I honeslty think it's an uphill battle. I myself am satisfied with the genre descriptions up there now. A little too specific I perhaps, but they get the point across. Drewcifer (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, 1a and 1b. I stopped noting problems after getting bogged down in the lead, which indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit. Also, the article is not comprehensive. The information on composing and recording is much too light. Almost nothing about the tracks themselves. You'll have to move beyond Google and hit some indexes of print journals, newspapers, etc. Samples of prose problems (from the lead):
    I expanded the recording section a bit, but I'm not really sure what else there is to say. The album was started and finished in a very short time span, so there isn't alot of history to catch the reader up on. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opening two sentences mix tenses. Instead of "The album contains 36 instrumental tracks and was recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007." why not "Recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007, the album ..."?
    I reworded it, but not in the way you suggested. But I think it does work better now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The team behind the project included ..." Why "included" if you list everyone? REWORDED
      • "The album was initially released digitally ..." Released "in a digital format" and released "digitally" mean two different things.
    I agree in theory, but in practice I don't see how the two could possibly be mutually exclusive. You can't have a digital release in any other format other then digital. And the reverse is true, if it's released digitally, I can't imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be a digital format. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments? Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The album was initially released digitally on the Nine Inch Nails official website, without any prior advertisement or promotion." What is the comma doing? I dunno, FIXED
      • "Via the official Nine Inch Nails YouTube profile, a user-generated "film festival" was announced, where fans were invited to visually interpret the album and post the results." Passive voice eliminates the subject. The final phrase is confusing... what does "visually interpret" mean? Look at the album and write about it? Also, "post the results" is confusing as the "results" of the film festival would really be the entire body of work produced.
    Reworded slightly, hopefully to rectify the problems you've pointed out. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies commenting ..." The "with ... (verb)" construction is poor grammar. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, in part because I tried to think of a better way to word it, but am unable to find any better solutions. The sentence is most clear in my opinion using "with". Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, exercise 2g. --Laser brain (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing like a paint-by-numebrs exercise to take you down a few pegs! Well, I changed the sentence a bit, given the valuable lessons I've learned from the exercise. Personally I think it's worse off because of the change, but it's one sentence, so I'm willing to let it go. Drewcifer (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:18, 4 June 2008 [103].

    Cyclone Gamede[edit]

    After passing a GA nomination and A-class review, I nominate this article for featured status, since I believe it passes all of the criteria. It has been copyedited and looked over a few times, and if anything was missed, I'll be happy to get it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise links check out fine with the tool, sources look fine. I think this is the one I get to skip doing a full review on, right? I just reviewed Tropical Depression Ten... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the Australia Severe Weather reference: it is a public mirror of mailing list posts by Gary Padgett, who is considered an authority in tropical cyclone studies worldwide. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, you can skip fully reviewing this one ;) I'm not sure if Le Mauricien is a newspaper, but it is a news agency, and here is their website. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets be good kids and see some links showing he's well respected? That way I can put his site on my list of "all proven" sites and we won't have to request it again, when I see another cyclone article (which I know I will). I should have taken up storm articles, they definitely work up quicker than bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in a previous FAC, he is cited in various NOAA publications ([104][105]). If they are good enough for NOAA, they should be good enough for WP. Yea, TC's are easy to write about, since they don't usually cause conflict, but there's always a ton of info on them. The choice is yours whether or not to come to the dark side of WP. WPTC: disrupting FXC processes with endless successful candidates since 2006. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me, on the source that is. TC's, I think I'll leave alone. I did enough worrying about them in 20 years in Houston, I am just as happy to get away from the coast! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • "Tropical Cyclone Hyacinthe" (in lead) no wlinks?
    • "with the JTWC classifying it with winds" - what's JTWC?
    • "upwelling; upwelling is the process..." - it'd read better if the word wasn't repeated
    • "again underwent weakening" --> "again weakened"?

    Generally a great read, couldn't find much. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I added the link to Hyacinthe, and fixed JTWC (I meant to add the acronym after its first usage). I changed the second upwelling to this, which avoids the redundancy. Fixed the redundancy with weakening. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Good prose, layout, fully referenced. However, I think you should de-link the dates if they do not include the year. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe I should change the dates. User preference will automatically change the date to the American or UK style of dating, so May 24 will show up for me as May 24, but for another as 24 May. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with one comment. In the sentence, After being named, Gamede quickly intensified, with the JTWC classifying it with winds of 120 mph (75 km/h) early on February 22, per MoS, "with" is generally not a good connecting word. Otherwise, the prose is excellent. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    Since I come from the French Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not I have the right to vote. By the way, I'd like to say that this nomination comes too early, by far. The article would be in a much longer and better state if only French sources had been used. Since Gamede stroke Réunion, there are many of them available on the Internet, and they should be dealt with. For the moment, the description of key events is kept within a sentence whereas it should be detailed in many paragraphs. I am thinking about the airbridge that had to be set up by the French army between Roland Garros Airport and Pierrefonds Airport. An unprecedented event in the history of France, it is unheard of in the current version. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing is, I don't know French at all. I wouldn't know what to look for, and how to find it. If only French sources had been used, yes, it probably could be longer. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and I relied heavily on English sources (including a thorough check in a news archive via Lexis-Nexis). This article is comprehensive via English sources, but it's tricky, since the comprehensive criterion says nothing about foreign language sources, though obviously they are acceptable. For myself, this comment is unactionable, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed for you to add the important missing information (which I could integrate into the rest of the article). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable source is a reliable source. Le Monde is no different to the New York Times. For en.wp English sources are preferred, but if the French sources contain significant information that is not available in English ones, that information will have to come from those French language sources and the article would fail 1(b) without that info. The article should not use "only" French, but wanting information from French language sources (the airbridge reference is an example) is actionable - you cannot ignore sources in other languages just because you can't read them! Btw, search engines translation tools are typically "good enough" to determine if there is useful info in an webpage, even if someone would need to translate properly for use in an article.---Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose. You can have a look at www.temoignages.re and www.lexpress.mu for local sources with free articles. Yet, I doubt that you will be able to provide a comprehensive synthesis if you don't speak any French, as there are many subtles things that you should take care of in the process. For instance, if you want to fully understand the impact the cyclone had in national media in France, you have to take count of the chikungunya massive outbreak earlier in the region. And if you want to be precise, you'll need articles such as Rivière Saint-Étienne and so on. Thus, I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. I can deal with the first two steps if you want, but only after September. For the moment, I strongly oppose. Cyclone Gamede may be a Good article, but I definitely think it cannot be a featured one. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Le Mauricien is a newspaper, indeed. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through some French sources (as well as the French article), and I don't see any significant pieces of information that is not covered in the article (I added a few pieces of info from a few sources I found). I disagree with I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. An FA on a topic outside of the English-speaking world can certainly be completed by an English writer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but that is not what matters here. The debate is whether or not the article should be featured. And I think it should not, due to the failure to provide important pieces of information about how the authorities reacted to the cyclone, how they dealt with its aftermath, how the media covered the event and what was its social and political impact on the islands. For example, François Baroin and Pierre-Henry Maccioni are not spoken about. Consequently, the article is three to four times shorter than it should be, with the French version not being a standard either. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thierry Caro, Hurricanehink indicated that he searched through French sources and found no more than small facts. Thus, the article is comprehensive, and therefore meets the FA criterion. Also, the length of an article is not grounds for opposing. I honestly don't see how the article could be expanded three to four times its current size. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not prone to calling comprehensive an article about a cyclone that would ignore important facts the press has echoed and that would thus describe the meteorological event without dealing with its social impact. Ministerial visits and national media coverage are not details that can be bypassed. In a sense, I oppose the nomination because of the very criteria you refer to. Plus, I miss the contextualization that is often found elsewhere and that generally comes with well-written featured articles. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I suppose you are right. It wouldn't deserve to be featured if there is indeed that much information missing. I'm withdrawing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll archive; please leave the fac template on the page until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 18:42, 2 June 2008 [106].

    Vädersolstavlan[edit]

    This is a GA, reviewed and discussed. I recently added a reference from 2007, so the article should be updated too.
    Self-nominator Raven in Orbit (t | c) 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (aka Mats Halldin)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes http://www.atoptics.co.uk/ a reliable source? Note I'm not saying it's necessarily not one, but I don't see anything that jumps at me and says it is.

    Not reading Swedish, I can't evaluate the sources in Swedish. The link checker tool is showing one site with a soft 404 redirect. This one:http://www.sl.se/ErrorPage.htm. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments.
    • atopics.co.uk is run by Les Cowley who has studied the halo in the painting. AFAIK, the site is one of the most widely used on-line references on atmospheric optics. (And that's not me suggesting I'm an expert from the field.)
    • I've repaired the sl.se link. Apparently, they've updated the site lately.
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 14:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Several uncited paragraphs, including but not limited to: "In 1523, as the newly elected King of Sweden", "The painting is used on a variety of merchandise""The painting shows a bridge stretching north", "Where the southern city gates were"
    • "(left to right)[14]:" References go after punctuation
    • Every time "Vädersolstavlan i Storkyrkan" is referenced, it needs page numbers.

    There are more issues than these, though. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for pointing this out, I must admit I do use references a bit randomly. I've lived my entire life in Stockholm and I avoid leaving it. Some things related to the city are so self-evident to me that I tend to think of them as not needing citations.
    • I agree about the "elected king" claim needing a citation. I don't have one right now, but I'll try to produce one. And I just discovered I missed a citation for the "Like the islands, the ridges surrounding the city, ..." section. I didn't make this up; it comes from one of the sources already available in the article - I'll try to fix this.
    • However, I can't see any reason to doubt the painting is depicting Stockholm looking east, so I can't see a need for adding references for sentences claiming various structures are facing/pointing in various cardinal directions.
    • Stockholm really is littered with various products featuring the painting, so finding a citation for it seemed redundant to me. (Here is a link to a puzzle at the Stockholm City Museum.) I guess I could produce a photo from any museum shop in town.
    It would still be WP:OR as we can't just "take your word for it". Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I get your point, but finding a ref for this is like finding a ref confirming Mona Lisa is used for all sorts of honky-tonk. Would the example above be enough?
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "left to right" list comes from reference [14], so the citation is valid for the entire list. Maybe I should add a ref tag for every item in the list?
    No, I mean ref goes after the colon (:) Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rothlind's Vädersolstavlan i Storkyrkan article is 7 pages long. Why is there a need for more specific page numbers?
    I wasn't aware. Fair enough. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd greatly appreciate if you could point out other similar problems in the article.
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was greatly helped by 4u1e with my shortcomings in English. As a non-native English speaker I feel I can but admire you people reworking the prose. Here below are my five pennies: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven in Orbit (talk • contribs)

    Prose issues:

    • "Facing these challenges, the king saw conspiracies everywhere, sometimes correctly, and started to thoroughly fortify his capital." — The commas really feel like they are stopping the sentence a few times, as if you're in a car and the brakes are applied when you least suspect it. The wording also doesn't seem as professional as I would like. It can definitely be polished further.
    I don't see the problem here. Please improve this sentence if you can.
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
    Reworded. / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "while the king, in contrast gave his unreserved support." → "while the king, in contrast, gave his unreserved support."?
    Done
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although the king and the reformer collaborated initially, within a few years they started to pull in different directions." doesn't connect very well. Perhaps "Although the king and the reformer collaborated initially, they started to pull in different directions within a few years."?
    Done
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The primary historical source describing the events following the celestial phenomenon is the minutes of the proceedings from the king's legal process against the reformers Olaus Petri and Laurentius Andreae in 1539–1540 as described by the clerk and historian Erik Jöransson Tegel in his chronicle of Gustav Vasa written in the early 17th century." Wow. Technically, I would say this is grammatically correct, but perhaps it can be bogged down less? It's just... really long and winding.
    I broke it up into two sentences, let me know if this is not what you meant.
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
    Reworded. / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Devil - one" convert to em dash, per WP:DASH (—)
    Done
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These were all found in the History section. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These were just samples; there are several more issues in the text. I don't mean to be critical, but if I don't look for issues, then others will. I've also gone through the FAC process with my own articles and have received very similar criticism (just ask User:Tony1, User:Laser brain, or User:BuddingJournalist). Gary King (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand you are supposed to be critical -- a FAC process would of course be worthless if you weren't. No problems with me. It's the first time I'm attempting a FAC, so even if it fails I will learned a lot from it. BTW, I've added a lot more references and reworded various sections. Apparently I still got a lot to learn.
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Avoid articles in section titles - "The church and the castle" can be changed to "church and castle"
    • Possible weasel word - arguably. I don't have access to ref#1, but couldn't this be attributed to it?
    • Found one contraction - isn't. There might be more.
    • Footnotes should be located after punctuation. Most of them are, but there's at least a few that aren't.
    • "However, a copy from 1636 by Jacob Heinrich Elbfas held in Storkyrkan in Stockholm, is believed to be an accurate copy and was until recently erroneously thought to be the restored original." - should there really be a comma?
    • I'm not an expert on this, but between years (i.e. "1998–1999" in the lead) I'm fairly sure there should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
    • "The painting was commissioned by the Swedish reformer Olaus Petri, and the resulting controversies between him and King Gustav Vasa and the historical context remained a well-kept secret for centuries." - awkward sentence, consider rephrasing.

    Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for those suggestions, Nousernamesleft.
    I've now realised I need to rework various parts of the article and I'm in the middle of the process of reordering the entire reference section. Could I have this nomination postponed for a while? Is there a template or something for this? Sorry for stealing your time folks.
    / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've withdrawn this. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot adds it to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [107].

    The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

    I wish to withdraw this FA nomination until further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by EclipseSSD (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2008


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. EclipseSSD (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Good job, appears to be through.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment a good start. I enjoyed reading this but there is still some work to be done before the article will be ready to be featured. The writing needs to be sharper as shown in these examples:

    • The house used for the film's location now suggests no indication there ever was a house there.

    This should be something like: The location of the house used for the film now shows no signs of a house ever having stood there.

    • Special effects were simple and likewise limited by the budget. - There is no need to say likewise here.

    There are many other examples like this in an otherwise well written article. Please do not just fix these two. I suggest you ask someone new to the article to take a critical look. GrahamColmTalk 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. I think this article can be better. Much better. This is one of the most influential horror films, and by that designation, films in general, and the article doesn't go into detail about its cultural impact or enough explanation about the filming or production. You can find a wealth of information in print sources such as books and film journal articles about this movie. Search Film Indexes Online at a library (I just did) to find journal articles for this film (I found about 30 references). Use this book: Eaten alive at a chainsaw massacre: the films of Tobe Hooper, as well as others on the horror film genre. I've never seen this film and I know the article is not comprehensive. That's how pervasive the film is in culture. An entire section should be dedicated to the depiction of the graphic violence in the film. I suggest you de-list the article and work on it some more. Ask folks at WP:Films for assistance if you don't have access to the Film Indexes Online. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I'll take on board the feedback, and try to cleanup as requested. By the way, the graphic violence in the film is extremely minimal. Tobe Hooper went for the effect of actually scaring people, rather than over the top gore.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Usually, the Plot section of an article needs to be shortened. In this case, however, I think it should be a bit longer.
    • "An estimated $83,532(USD) was raised." — The placement of "USD" seems odd; I don't think it follows WP:MOS.
    • The list in "Release" should be converted to prose.
    • Why is there one of those labels that appear when you hover over an image, in the "Tobe Hooper setting up a shot using an Eclair NPR 16mm." image?
    • "Financing" might be better placed as a subsection under "Production", and perhaps the paragraphs in that section could also be organized better under subsections such as "Creation", "Filming", and "Cast"? Just some examples.
    • You mention that the film grossed $30 million in the United States (and the fact that it is the most successful independent film) — twice. Is that necessary?
    • "Critical reception" can be renamed to just "Reception".
    • The amount of money that the film made should go in Release, I believe, while the amount of money the film cost to produce goes in Production.
    • A space should be in "crowd.[6]The".
    • "(1991).[7][6][8]" — Sort the references in ascending order.
    • "about thirty miles southeast" — Use the {{convert}} template so that the length in kilometers is also shown.
    • "August of 1973, under" — Years do not need to be linked unless they are significant to the understanding of the article.
    • "House [5]." — References go after punctuation marks.
    • "character. [6]" No spaces between punctuation and references.
    • I would suggest replacing all IMDB references with something else, as it is generally considered unreliable.
    • This tells me there are at least three paragraphs that are very short, and I agree with it because that's how the article looks like. There are a lot of paragraphs that are fairly short and could either be expanded on or merged with other paragraphs.
    • Format the references; some say "Retrieved on" while others say "last accessed on"; be consistent and use the {{cite web}} template.

    These are only some of the problems that this article faces. It will need a significant amount of work before it reaches FA status, but it is doable. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    I can't do all of this on my own. At least I managed to make it to Good Article status.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is understandable. I would suggest withdrawing this FAC (by saying you wish to withdraw at the top of this FAC) unless you can find some other editors to help out. Gary King (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting this to Good Article is a fine achievement. It is very, very difficult for most editors to get an article to FA without help. The editors at WP:Films should help with this; as Gary said, "it is doable". Graham. GrahamColmTalk 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :) Yep, I've been on both ends of the process now (having had 2 FAs and a few that I later withdrew, and now I am reviewing articles) so I understand very well the difficulties faced here. I would be glad to see the article back later on after it has improved. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Graham and Gary. Do not be discouraged. If you love this film, it will not be difficult to work on this. Between the GA designation of To Kill a Mockingbird and its FA, it doubled in size. Be patient and tenacious. It will be very rewarding. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, everybody. I'm actually proposing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre project which will help with stuff like this. You can find it here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a task force or something, at WP:FILM, might be better and elicit more response. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [108].

    Seth MacFarlane[edit]

    Self-nom. I worked on this article for about six months. The article is a GA. All of the images are free use, so the fair use rule doesn't apply. I have fixed the dead external links. I am free to suggestions on improving this article for FA status. miranda 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen that this was a premature to nominate this as a featured article, because this is early in his career. Thus, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to those who took the time out to comment on the article. miranda 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • What makes the following sources reliable?
      • http://www.wargs.com/other/macfarlane.html a reliable source? Just as an FYI, it's generally considered not ethical for professional genealogists to publish any biographical data on living persons (like Seth's parents).
    Not really. Genealogists published results of political/actors, recently. miranda 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yahoo is a reliable source.
    This is a biography of a person. I can't find it at the moment (duh!), but I seem to recall a discussion at the RS:N about how Yahoo's biographies of people were editable by anyone? Remember this is a BLP, we should be using the best possible sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean WP:N or WP:RS? miranda 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I meant Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which has an abbreviation I never can remember. Sorry about that! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous users or logged in users can't edit the yahoo article. The site publishes the content. The main content is here. I will find alternate sources. miranda 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we're not dealing with an editable-by-anyone type article, yahoo's reliable enough to make it reliable. I could have misremembered!
    Official blog of Frederator Studios miranda 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with Yahoo.ca story
    Flak Magazine - RS
    I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide, since some folks have a more jaundiced eye about online magazines than I do. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with IGN source.
    About page mentions that it is a source used by professionals. Mentioned in reliable magazines. miranda 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will leave this one out for others to decide. I'm always a bit leery of pages from the site itself that say "So-and-so says we're great", not so much because I think they're lying, but you always wonder what got left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stuff (magazine) - RS
    Insider magazine to Hollywood. Has cancellation of shows. I will contact the owner about the website's credentials, forward to OTRS, and place the results here. miranda 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Animation World Network - RS
    So a trade organization for Animation professionals? Assuming that is so, I've struck this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsmeat - reliable source. Has campaign contribution reports.
    What makes it reliable? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with Huffington Post link miranda 23:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed your strike outs, at FAC it's usual to let the person making the comments strike out issues when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I brought this up on the talk page, I'll bring it up again: how is where McFarlane was and what he was doing on September 11 important enough for a dedicated section? By the page's own admission, it didn't affect him that much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see by the talk page, the section was much longer, and I had to cut it. The section is notable because interviewers ask him about his experience with September 11th. And his incidents from September 11th have influences on Family Guy. He uses September 11th in several episodes. Just because someone doesn't think an incident is important to their life, doesn't mean that incident should not be included with the article. miranda 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of TV shows and movies have addressed September 11. The section currently says nothing about why his experiences are important to the reader understanding the subject (i.e., nothing about how 9/11 affected his work.) Without this, it's a section that shouldn't be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — It is still very early in MacFarlane's career, and it is highly likely that this article will be expanded and altered as new shows, films, etc. are produced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support This article looks great. Discount this if you want to, I do after all don't know much about FA, but judging from the readable paragraphs and the references I say it should be featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    • Use {{cite web}} for references so they are standardized. Several references, such as "Hooper, Barrett. "Winner’s one big loser: Not all ex-Daily Show correspondents make great sitcom stars". Now Toronto. Published March 8, 2007. Retrieved December 21, 2007.", has the publishing date formatted differently from "Finley, Adam. "Seth MacFarlane and Samm Levine in new short film - VIDEO", TV Squad, Webblogs (in partnership with AOL), June 30, 2007. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. "
    • Somewhat of a minor issue, but in "wrote a short titled", "short" is the noun and not the adjective that most people associate it with. Perhaps reword to short subject (and link) or explain it? I had to double-back on that one.
    • "intellectual dog Steve" → "intellectual dog named Steve" might be better
    • "characters called Family Guy." I don't think the characters were called Family Guy; a comma might be better here.

    These are only a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawal of this nomination was probably a wise decision (I say probably because it isn't too far off, with a bit of work) but to withdraw because it is "early in his career"? I don't think that should prevent this from being FA. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I withdrew it because there aren't enough sources online. And, since he reached a new deal with Fox after the strike, it's kind of early in his career. IMHO. miranda 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair enough; but personally, I would not consider an article to be "too early" for FAC, unless there is a set date for when it would not be "too early" anymore. Examples include sports championships, where their articles would be stable after they ended, film releases, etc. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 16:32, 1 June 2008 [109].

    Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York[edit]

    I hereby christen this article a featured article (candidate). It showcases brilliant writing legal and is sourced, good format, images, etc. JeanLatore (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Oppose
      • Completely uncited, I can't see one citation.
      • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD
      • No references whatsoever.
      • Please consider re-reading the featured article criteria once more. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose per Milk's Favorite Cookie. Your perennial nomination of articles that do not meet the FA criteria is getting annoying. Please familiarize yourself with the FA criteria before nominating in the future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous noms by JeanLatore:
    1. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beavis_and_Butt-head/archive1 and talk page note.
    2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strap-on dildo/archive1 and talk page note.

    I am traveling and on a bad connection; will leave the talk page notes to others. See also: User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on Sandy Georgia. see her unhelpful commentary at my talk page referenced to my queries her talk page. Folks, I think we've been had! JeanLatore (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose Premature FAC nom. One online source is provided, but nothing else and no footnotes. Please withdraw it, JeanLatore. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose No in-line citations, one primary source, clearly not even B class.--Grahame (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support It's a Supreme Court case, and those are very informative. Angie Y. (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose of course. I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. The nominator has been extremely rude to User:SandyGeorgia on her Talk page and this is the third completely unprepared article nominated by this person, despite the clear explanations of the process that have been offered. Please withdraw the nomination and follow the peer-review and Good Article route. GrahamColmTalk 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok fair enough, someone plz. help me do a "peer review" of this article ASAP. JeanLatore (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [110].

    4 Vesta[edit]

    Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-written and does a very good job of explaining the science of Vesta (plus, aesthetically I think it's well-formatted and just nice to look at and this just makes it more fun to read). --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 9 is lacking a publisher, and also it dead links for me.
    • Current ref 13 "evolution of Vesta" is lacking publisher and last access date
    • Current ref 14 is just a bald link. Needs to be formatted with a title, etc. but at the moment, it's a dead link (with tag on it saying so too, I might add)
    • Current ref 21 Greg Bryant "Sky & Telelscope ..." is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic data
    • Current ref 23 is lacking publisher, and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable site? Looks like a homepage.mac page to me.
    • See also sections usually go before the notes
    • http://www.rasnz.org.nz/MinorP/Vesta.htm deadlinked by the link checker tool
    Sources look good. Other links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—This article is going to need a significant re-write in about two years when the Dawn spacecraft arrives.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Prose/reference/layout issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

    • Short, stubby paragraphs/sections ruin the flow and readability.
    • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
    • Lists should be converted to prose to improve readability/flow.
    • The pictures push the layout around (especially the last one, which obscures the 2 column references list.)
    • Orbital characteristics in the Infobox are not sourced.
    • No reference for "Vesta was discovered by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers on March 29, 1807."
    • No reference for "After the discovery of Vesta in 1807, no further asteroids were discovered for 38 years"
    • No reference for "Vesta is the only known intact asteroid that has been resurfaced in this manner. However, the presence of iron meteorites and achondritic meteorite classes without identified parent bodies indicates that there once were other differentiated planetesimals with igneous histories, which have since been shattered by impacts."
    • What makes http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/PageVesta000.htm reliable? It's a .Mac homepage (personal website).
    • Current ref 2 needs access date.
    • Current ref 5 needs access date.
    • Current ref 11 needs access date.
    • Current ref 13 needs publisher/author/access date information.
    • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

    — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. This interesting article needs copy-editing. The prose if often non-encyclopedic, ("thanks to" for example,) and stubby. There's much to be done for it to be of FA standard. I concur with the advice given above by Wackymacs. GrahamColmTalk 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There's a lot of work to be done on this article, I think. Some basic things like the length of the introductory paragraph: the LEAD should summarize the important parts of the rest of the article. There is no way the four sentences currently in the lead of this article summarize the main points of this article. I note things like the Dawn mission sometimes appear in italics and sometimes do not. This needs to be standardized (one way or the other). This article is only about half the length of Featured Article 1 Ceres, leading me to believe that it's not comprehensive, although I realize comparing the two articles isn't an exact science. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: How much time left to fix these issues? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The rough plan here is that nominees may have issues which take up to seven days to fix, or more if steady progress is noted. It is possible to recover from this point if you have alot of free time and some handy reference books or journals but may be a tough call. It is no drama if you withdraw now and a few astronomical folks help out for a few weeks to give it a good spit'n'boot polish and renominate then. There'd be some who'd help. Either way is cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I also agree the article needs some work. Happy to help, but needs comprehensiveness issues addressed before copyediting Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - simply not ready. For the wealth of information available on Vesta, this article is simply insufficient. A quick ADS search gives 1156 hits for Vesta [111] Google books give 671 books mentioning it [112]. Substantial expansion is needed before this can be considered featured. WilyD 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator Comment: I'm a bit disappointed to see no one's taken the initiative to revise the article. Well, I'm the nominator so I guess the responsibility goes naturally to me. Give me until tomorrow afternoon (USA) to make some revisions. And yes, I agree with the above mentioned objections and they seem fair. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't come to FAC to get your article improved. Naturally that happens in the process if your article is not good enough. If you're seeking more editor help I suggest a peer review. Since the article needs serious expansion, this is something more suited to one with interest in the subject. Clearly, the people here (including me) are those who would do small edits such as minor copyediting. At the end of the day though, everyone has their own projects going on (and real life), so not everyone has the time. There are lists of copyeditors who can help you at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members, but I only recommend a copyedit once you're finished expanding - as WilyD explained there are a vast number of sources out there you can use. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [113].

    Water supply and sanitation in Colombia[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfills the criteria for a featured acrticle.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Current ref 9 "Rojas, Leila, Vice Minister of Drinking Water and Sanitation"... is this a published source? I don't see a publisher for it, or any other bibliographical information that would enable folks to verify it, per WP:V
    • Current ref 32, "Garcia Carreno Jose Noe ... is this a published source? It's lacking all bibliographical information to enable others to verify the information, per WP:V
    • Same for current ref 33 "Guzman Hoyos ...
    • Current ref 43 (Columbian peso data from 2008) has a bald link for the source
    • Current ref 39 Columbian peso data from 2004 is lacking a source
    I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't evaluate the Spanish language sources. The links seem to work according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the article's current size and depth, I'd say the lead needs significant expansion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: I love it --Well Hater (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well Hater (talk · contribs) is blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding the lead should be easy - we did have a longer lead section in an earlier version and a peer reviewer suggested to shorten it. What is more difficult to address is the information that is not based on published sources. I am not sure if I'd like to take this out if that's needed to make it a featured article, or if I'd rather keep it as a GA and keep the information in.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What information is this? Even a Good Article isn't supposed to have that in it.-Wafulz (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. The lead is too short and many of the sources are in Spanish, please see:Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. GrahamColmTalk 09:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would seem to me that "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" is the operative sentence. But I don't see any reason to assume that there's extensive English-language sources that could be used instead. In order to combat systemic bias, we do have to allow foreign-language sources unless English sources are available. Unless we have evidence that extensive English-language sources exist discussing the water supply of Colombia (this seems unlikely to me), then the article is actually okay in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Oppose This is an interesting topic, and I wish it was ready for FA, but I agree with the others who have stated the lead is too short. There are external citations throughout the article and breaches of MoS, 1-sentence paragraphs, and quite a few places without any citations. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [114].

    History of Indiana[edit]

    Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

    Mingusboodle and myself have been working on it for several weeks and I believe it is ready now. Charles Edward 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment A few of the references are pretty bare. Is it possible to include author and/or publisher on the internet sources? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've went through all the references and included publishers, authors, and titles as they are available on the pages referenced. Many links are to IN.gov where no author information is provided, all info there is the work of the Indiana Historical Bureau and I have listed it as the author. Charles Edward 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still seeing quite a few refs with just the title and "Retrieved on...". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    looks my changes were lost in an edit conflict.. I will make the changes again. Charles Edward 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've fixed the refs again, and this time it saved. :) Please note that many of the refs point to IN.gov and the author is the Indiana Historical Bureau or another state agency. Also note that the refs who's publisher is stated as the Indian Center for History are on a site hosted by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, which is separate from the Indiana Historical Society, which other refs point too. Many have no "author" listed on the pages but are just general informational type pages. (if there is something more that can be done to these refs to improve them please let me know) Charles Edward 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks very good, but I would recommend someone go through and check for grammatical errors. I found four such issues in the lead alone. Small, nitpicky things though. Definitely is a high quality article. Resolute 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Websites still need publisher and last access date information on the references. I'm seeing quite a number of them missing publisher and/or last access date. When that's taken care of, I'll be glad to come back and double check the reliablitliy of sources and links.Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I think it's on it's way, but I have a few concerns. Pronoun usage is a major issue. Please check all pronouns (he, she, it, they, their...)
    • The region was largely deserted until the Ohio River Valley became thickly settled by the Mississippian culture from about 1100 AD - 1450 AD. - how do we know it was "largely deserted". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    I've changed the wording, hopefully that will address this concern. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their settlements where known for their ceremonial burial mounds, many of which are still visible. - wrong use of where (should be were), and the pronoun their has no antecedent.
    "Their" points to "the Mississippians". I've addressed that also. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For unknown reasons they disappeared in the mid fifteenth century, about two hundred years before the Europeans first reached the region. again, no antecedent for they, and it isn't clear why this should be compared to the arrival of Europeans.
    I would argue for leaving that. Point 1- European movement into the region is the next section and this provides context for that 2. This makes is clear that the disapeared for "unknown reasons" is unknown because no Europeans where there to document it. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire "Early civilizations" section seems very under-developed. Presumably, the data that exists comes from archaeological digs, which typically bring up pieces of pottery and other elements of daily life that can be expounded upon here.
    To my knowledge, praticly nothing of much significance is known about the Mississippians or the Hopewells other than a few things about their settlements.(you can find this if you look at their wikipedia articles) Which would be another good point for leaving in the line about no contact with Europeans as an explanation to this lack of evidence. However I would like to expand that section where more information on it available. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indiana held a very important post during the colonial period. - this sentence could be removed entirely, with only a few tweaks to the rest of that section to make it flow better.
    I've removed that sentence. The next two sentences do seem to provide ample context. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No permanent settlements were established in Indiana during most of the colonial rule, but control of the territory - although inhabited by Native Americans - was contested at various points by the European colonial powers - during most of the colonial rule is improper grammar. It also seems unlikely to me that Native Americans did not establish a single permanent settlement between 1673 and 1783 - if a source says that, please make it explicit which source it is.
    The natives did have settlemts, at least 20 or so that i have read of. But these were not "permanent" as the natives were nomadic and moved between different parts of the state. The sentance is meant to refer to European settlements anyway. That is clarified and the sentence rewrote. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • came to the area eventually known as Indiana in 1679, claiming it for the King Louis the XIV of France. The area was further explored - repetition of the area
    reworrded the sentance, sounds better now i think Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • from migrating too close to British influence - "migrate" in this sense requires an indirect object (e.g. it should be from migrating to a position perceived as too close to British influence, but that's a bad wording too - change the whole sentence instead)
    changed to "moving to close the British sphere of influence". Might still need work Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other forts and outposts where established - wrong use of where, should be were
    fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These forts where manned - wrong use of where, should be were
    fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the Jesuits conducted missionary works in the area they inhabited in an attempt to convert the local natives to Christianity - needlessly wordy
    revised sentence Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the missionaries even went to far as to live among the natives and accompany them on their hunts and migrations. They would perform infant baptisms and preach regularly to the tribes. - vague pronouns - remember, pronouns should refer to the closest previous noun or pronoun that agrees in number and gender
    revised sentences Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • he first war to affect the region was the King William's War in 1689 which saw some minor raiding by the native tribes - not to be pedantic, but it's highly unlikely that there was never a war in Indiana before 1689. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, it isn't clear what King William's War is, or why there was raiding.
    I am not clear how to change this sentence without going into a sizable addition. While there may have been wars in the region before there are none recorded, so I see no need to speculate. To say why there was only raiding would require a broader explanation of the entire war which was european in nature. And as previously stated the natives where allied to the french and there were no european establishments, so there has been established for which to attack within the state, so the raiding is external and not really relevant to the article other than the fact that natives left the state to raid. I made a small change, hopefully that is enough Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second, Queen Anne's War from 1740 to 1748. not a complete sentence
    noticed that earlier but forgot to fix. fixed now Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • French convinced many of its Native American tribes - vague pronoun
    changed to "convinced many of the regions native american tribes" Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • French control of Canada which would lead to its fall to Britain - vague pronoun
    changed "its" to "Canada's". Not sure if that is proper either though Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • During the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in the Americas) the British challenged - this is an article about the Americas, right? Shouldn't we be using that term?
    But at this point in the article the state is being discussed in the context of being a european possesion. I have no problem to change that, but a second opinion would be useful. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if that's the standard for historical articles I don't really care either. But wasn't all of North America a European possession at the time? Tuf-Kat (talk)
    • the Native Americans largely support the French - wrong tense
    changed to supported Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the beginning the tribes sent large bands of warriors to support the French in resisting the British advance and counter-raiding - this is a recurrent problem in this article - you can't say something like "the British advance and counter-raiding" unless you're confident the reader knows what advance and counter-raiding you're referring to. It would be more proper to change it to "an advance and subsequent counter-raiding by the British" (see Article (grammar) on definite and indefinite articles; only use a definite article if it is clear which member of a set is being referred to). Furthermore, "counter-raiding" can't really be used if it isn't explained what they were countering - the implication is that the Native Americans raided the Brits, and the Brits counter-raided the French, but I'm not sure if that's what's meant.
    I have reworded this to sound better. But again, this war has it's own article and would be very lengthy to go into detail as to why they did everything they did. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • westward but eventually where able to overcome the native resistance, after the fall of Montreal and where no longer able to support the hinterland - another major recurrent problem. Please look at every instance of where to see if it should be were.
    fixed Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great Britain began her influence on Indiana in 1760 - earlier France was referred to as "it" (the French convinced many of its Native American tribes - though now that I look more closely, that's mixed up with another pronoun misuse), whereas GB is referred to as "her" here. I think either one is considered acceptable (I prefer "it") but be consistent.
    In that instance was changed to "the region's". Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are only the issues I found on a casual glance up to the very beginning of the "Great Britain" section. This needs a thorough copyedit to be read for FAC. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These tribes where significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes where nomadic, returned to the use of stone tools - there are still these two misused wheres. Also, the second sentence is improperly constructed (the comma after "nomadic" introduces a list, each item of which is grammatically optional: "The new tribes were returned to the use of..." is not sensical). I still think this needs a thorough copyedit. There remain improper usage of definite articles (The control of the territory was contested at several times by the European colonial powers., the British challenged the French control in the region yet again), and generally sloppy writing (there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements, Gabriel Marest was one such priest, teaching among in Kaskaskia as early as 1712.). I don't see any additional vague pronouns, but I don't have time to look too thoroughly (and I haven't actually checked that my specific concerns listed above have been satisfied - I think so, but don't quote me on that yet - the relevant sections do seem much improved). Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've went through the article completely and did a major copy edit. The sections seem to flow together much better to me now. I've also removed alot of the pronoun usage replacing them with nouns and proper nouns wherever it seemed appropriate. I've also reordered some of the paragraphs and sentences to best convey the thoughts in a coherent way. And i've tried to clarify as many vague points as possible, even removing some minor content. If you should have a chance please check through the article again and let me know if it is at all improved in your opinion. Thanks Charles Edward 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Let me first say that I am no expert on wiki rules, so please correct if my assumptions are incorrect. i am only interested in writing a good clean article. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/index.html this site. it gives its sources, but they are all tertiary sources, it looks like. Facts on File and Encyclopedia Britanica. Also, they are older sources, perhaps something more recent?
      • I've replaced this with a ref to a newer book i found.
    • What makes http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/ a reliable source?
      • this website has a NSTA award and the author is professor at Kansas state University. Does that not count? Plus it has some good pictures and alot of content. I've went ahead and replaced it with another ref I found. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 31 "The Indian Historian - Indiana Territory" is lacking a publisher
      • fixed
    • This statement "These nations would be participants in the Sixty Years' War, a struggle between Native Nations and White Nations for control of the Great Lakes region. These tribes were significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes were nomadic and returned to the use of stone tools and did not follow the large scale construction and agrarian ways of their predecessors." is sourced to a book published in 1892. Scholarship has advanced quite a bit since then, surely we have something more recent about the Mississippians?
      • I found a newer another book saying the same thing. (but it the older book seems to be more informative to me)
    • There are sources listed in the notes in a short form that aren't in the references section.
      • Current ref 28 Judge Law The colonial history of Vincenens which is lacking all bibligraphic information past that.
        • expanded
      • Current ref 32 Matilda Gresham Life of Walter Quintin Gresham
        • expanded
      • current ref 44 "By Julia Henderson Levering Historic Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that.
        • expanded
    Still missing publisher. ALL book references need at the least: Title, publisher, and page number. Author, year of publication etc. should be given also, but there are rare cases where sometimes that's not always available. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Current ref 47 Dewitt C. An Illustrated History of the State of Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that. Later it is used as current ref 55 with fuller information, I think. There though, it's lacking a page number.
        • fixed - pausing here, seems someone has screwed up the reflist template...
    Second usage is still lacking page numbers. They are needed for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Current ref 62 Miller Harold Economic Geography is lacking all bibliographic information
        • expanded
    • You reuse William M. Fowler Empires at War quite a lot, perhaps move it to the References section and do the footnotes in short form? Also, ISBN seems to be incorrect, is it this book: Google Books link
      • done
    • Current ref 14 is to the Encyclopedia Americana, but that's an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it is a bit odd for an encyclopedia to be using another encyclopedia for references. Also it's lacking a publisher and publication date and other bibligraphical data.
      • I'm not clear, do you suggest replacing it with a better reference or expanding the info on the existing one?
    Id suggest replacing it, but if you are adamant that it must stay in, it needs the other information. Really suggest replacing it though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • i've replaced it with a ref to barnhart which gives the same information on the topic. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 29 Dowd, Gregory Evans A spirited resistance is lacking publisher and any other bibliographic information and page number
    fixed
    • current ref 30 Arville L. Funk A Sketchbook of Indiana History is lacking an ISBN and page number, and you use this reference again, so shouldn't it go in the references section? Also several of its later uses lack page numbers.
      • my copy of the book does not have an ISBN number, and I cant locate one online either. It was published in 1963, did they do that then? Pages numbers are added, and it is converted to short reference. =But, fyi, i used two books by thus same author, I don't want to cause confusion so i left one as a long reference.
    To do the one author with different books thing you can go two ways... you can differentiate them by Author (year of publication) or Author Title. I generally go Author Title but that's a personal preference. Just pick one and stick to the style, it's perfectly okay to have more than one work by an author and still use the short references system. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 35 Cleaves, Freeman Old Tippecanoe is lacking a page nubmer
      • fixed
    • You reuse William Wesley Woolen Biographicl and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana a number of times, probably should put it in the references section. Also, this book was originally published in 1883, perhaps you should mention that in the bibliography, that's it is a reprint of a 1883 edition.
      • done
    • Current ref 50 "Indiana Historiacl Bureau The State House story' is lacking a last access date
      • template was formated wrong, fixed
    Still has no last access date. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • template was still formatted wrong... It is fixed now.
    • What makes http://www.potawatomi-tda.org/ a reliable source?
      • The site is maintained by a member of the Indiana Historical Society and the information containted in it is from their publications, and it's the best online reference I've come across. I have replace it anyway with a ref from Funk 45-47
    • Current ref 60 Emma Thornbrough Indian in the Civil War Era is lacking a page number
      • fixed
    • What makes http://historic.shcsc.k12.in.us/CivilWar/BATTLE.HTM a reliable source?
      • The site is hosted by the public school of Corydon, the city where the battle occured. The site is used as a public school teaching recourse.
    Yes, but it doesn't give its sources nor is a public school going to be well known in the history field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You reuse Ralph D. Gray Indiana History A book of readings, perhaps it should go in the references section?
      • done
    • What makes http://www.bsu.edu/ourlandourlit/Regions/EC.html a reliable source? It says at the bottome "Our Land Our lIterature is an electonric exploration of Indiana's enviromental literature created by student scholars at the Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry in Muncie Indiana."
      • it is published by student scholars at a reputable Indiana university.
    Yes, but the key part here is "student scholars". For self published information, we want to satisfy WP:SPS which requires that the writers be noted in their field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced the ref with two different ones that, combined, bear out the facts of paragraph. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 69 Milestones in Medical Research is lacking last access date.
    Still missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • template formatting problem, fixed
    • Current ref 71 McMakin Dean Musical Instrumetn Manufacturing in Elkhart Indiana is lacking bibliographic data past that.
      • I am unable to locate this book or any additional information on it, perhaps someone else can? I will search for a ref to replace it.
      • I've found a another source to replace it with. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 72 is lacking last access date.
      • fixed
    • This statement "During the postwar era Indiana became a critical swing state that would often decide which party would control the Presidency. The parties each vied for Hoosier support and included a Hoosier on almost every presidential ticket in the three decades following the Civil War." is referenced to this site, which however only covers 1888. Need better sourcing for this statement.
      • added additional ref to gray, page 171-172 which covers the same topic.
    • Current ref 83 "Idnaian Center for History " is lacking a publisher
      • fixed
    • This is a marginal source http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=44dc224971c81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, it would be nice to see it replaced with a better one.
      • i've supplied an additional ref to supplement it, but I do not find it as informative as the previous one so I have left it. The ref does site a biographical book as it's reference, however I do not have access to that book - would it be alright to add that book the reference instead?
    If you don't have access to the book, you shouldn't cite the book. Only cite sources you've actually accessed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I found another source that confirms the info in the article published by the County History Preservation Society of Indiana. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 85 "Indiana History Chapter Nine" is lacking a publisher
      • fixed
    • Current ref 86 Jack Keenan "The Fight for survival ..." is lacking a last access date
      • fixed
    • This statement "The 1973 oil crisis created a recession that significantly hurt the automotive industry in Indiana. Companies such as Delco Electronics and Delphi began a long series of downsizing that contributed to high unemployment rates in manufacturing cities like Anderson, Muncie, and Kokomo. The trend would continue until the 1980s when the national and state economy began to recover. Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry." is sourced to this http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/july1998/jiml-j02.shtml which is an interview with a retired autoworker. One interview with a retired autoworker isn't enough for the sweeping statements made in the article.
      • a ref has been added to the US labor department report about the rise and fall of auto industry in the midwest during the 1970s-1980s. Wording of the section may need changed slightly to more properly reflect the new reference, I will look that over.
      • I've went through and removed the part that is not supported by the new ref. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 27 just says "English" what is that?
      • fixed
    • Current ref 96 Corporate Tax History http://www.in.gov/dor/taxtypes/corp-history.html deadlinks for me.
      • The pages has been moved and replaced with a new page with far less content[115]. I don't think there is enough information there now to support the statement in the article, but I have went ahead and replaced the link. Another ref will need to be found or that statement should probably be removed.
      • i've been unable to locate another source to properly reference that statement, So i have removed the statement. It can be re-added when another source is found. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not wrong, but very odd formatting to see the last names of the authors of the notes given in short form be italicised.
      • that is due to using the cite book template for all the refs, I will correct that.
    • Please change all your references that give the author name in First last form to last name first, as that is the format you seem to use most
      • done
    Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will be glad to work through this list this afternoon. Charles Edward 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Comments from Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Current refs 57 and 59 are to Funk, Arville Hoosiers in the Civil War, but neither give their page numbers.
    • Current ref 87 Indiana History Chapter Nine is lacking a publisher
    • Do you actually use the "Indiana" the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia ref? If not, delete it.
      • it doesn't appear to be used, I have removed it.
    I'm going to suggest you read up on the use of the name function in the <ref> tags. If you go something like <ref name=TAG>(bibliographical info)</ref> for the first usage of a web page or a page (or pages) from a book (with the same page numbers) then every other time you use that same site or set of book pages, you can just go <ref name=TAG/> which simplifies things greatly, AND combines all the refs that are the same together so that it's easier to read the refs.
    I will look into that, I've seen it done on other articles. To be honest when I began working on this article I never expected to become so lengthy and didn't consider that I would end up with nearly one hundred references.
    I also took the liberty of formatting a few easy ref changes, and alphabetizing your references.
    Thank you!
    Lastly, I don't see any explanation of the origin of the nickname "Hoosiers"?
    I didn't add an explanation mainly because no one really knows where it came from. There are four or five very different theories but the only thing definite is became common sometime between 1820-1830, which is mentioned in the "Early development" section. And too add one theory I would have to add the others to be fair which would make what I consider an already very long article even longer.
    Heh. COI, my family is one of the ones that is supposed to have orginated the term. Actually a way back great-uncle, but... family nevertheless. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Northern Indiana Historical Bureau has a good webpage that explains the different theories, so I could add that information to the article if you think it would be useful. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be glad to run through the remaining items tomorrow. Thanks for your your thorough review of the article! Charles Edward 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per criterion three:
      • Image:Mississippian city.jpg - on what page is this image? The book doesn't have an "appendix" and I've been unable to locate the image after going through the book twice.
        • page number added, my copy is a revision with three appendixes on the end. Charles Edward
      • Image:Pontiac conspiracy.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
        • I cant find anythinf certain on this image, I think it came from a harpers weekly though. Should we remove it? Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Treaty of Greenville.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
      • Image:Grouseland.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
        • I think someone just took that pic an uploaded it. I have removed it though because of the space issue. Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The small resolution, lack of camera metadata and non-self license are big red flags; very unlikely to be a user-made image. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Wh9.gif - needs a verifiable source.
      • Image:Tecumseh and Harrison.jpeg - needs a verifiable source.
      • Image:Indianaconstitutionelem.jpg - history center website does not assert a date for this image. What is the basis for the 1910 claim (note, also, the discrepancy with "after" 1920 in the caption)? Where is evidence that the image was published, not just created, in 1910 (only the former is the PD-US criterion). Additionally, source asserts copyright and states "Users may download material displayed on this site for noncommercial, educational purposes only". Non-commercial images are not acceptable per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
        • I am not certain I understand what you mean by "published". IHS has had the photo in it's public record for nearly 100 years, is that "published"? Anyway, I live two blocks from this tree.. I will just go take a new photo. :) Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Publication is "the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". For example, if I take a photograph of a tree in my front yard and put the photo in an album or hang it on my wall, it has not been published. If I go and put that photo on postcards, use it in a book, etc. (i.e. copies to be distributed), it is thusly published. So the question here is whether this, say, just sat in a trunk before the historical society scanned it or it was actually copied and distributed before 1.1.1923. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok I am removing the current image. I will replace it when I am able to take a new photo. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:80 Indiana Regiment.jpg - what edition of Harper's Weekly is this image from? Merely saying "Harper's Weekly" is not sufficient information.
        • It says its from the November 1, 1862, issue of Harper's Weekly and the author of the picture. What more do you suggest adding? Charles Edward 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It didn't say that when I reviewed it. You made the alteration. What is the basis for the assumption that the date provided is the issue of Harper's Weekly and not the photograph itself? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a photo that I uploaded. I listed the issue date as the date. The image can also be found online here [117]. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Indywarmem.jpg - needs a verifiable source.
        • The source says it is from www.indy.gov. Should we remove the image?
          • The image does not currently contain a source. On what specific indy.gov page is the image used? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks like its from here [118]. The copyright info would be listed wrong though, IN.gov is state, not federal, and therefore not free. Charles Edward 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image sandwiching issues in "Indiana Territory" section; see WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unfamiliar with the picture referencing criteria. Do these references to the source of images need to be shown on the article page or on the image page? Also, you have pointed to quite a few places you would like to have references added, this can be done but it is nessecary to reference every single statement in this article? Charles Edward
    Image sources need only be provided on the image pages. You may be confusing me with Ealdgyth above, as I have not made reference to sourcing of statements. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will see what I can find out.. I've only added two of the images myself, the rest are from other articles. Charles Edward 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based primarily on prose, although there are some MOS issues and a few areas that need to be a bit better cited. For each of the main prose issues, I've given one example; the issues are not confined to just those examples, though.
      • Prose issues
        • Many long unwieldy sentences (example "the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s." could be rewritten as "Explorers claimed the area for France during the 1670s.")
    I've tried to go through and cut all this out, but I am not great with prose. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • issues with clauses matching (example " These tribes succeeded one another in dominance until the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s" - the tribes were still dominant in the 1670s; they didn't suddenly stop being there when the explorers arrived"
        • Use of descriptor "Hoosiers" in the lead without explaining what that is (many people will not know that is the Indiana nickname)
    I dont think the lead is the place the go into that, I just replaced it with "residents" of Indiana. Charles Edward
        • Pronoun antecedents don't always match: example "During the early 20th century the state developed into a strong manufacturing state, then experienced setbacks during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The state saw many developments during this time " - which time? the 1930s is the last time discussed, or does this mean the early 20th century?
    clarified this point, are there others? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the lead there is a reference to Eli Lilly. This goes to a disambig page - do you mean the company or the man?
    fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lots of repetition across sentences that could be reduced. example "Evidence suggests that Indiana had a very low population following the Hopewell decline. The population remained low until " could be rewritten "Following the Hopewll decline, evidence suggests that Indiana's population was low until..."
    I've tried to remove as much as this as I have noticed. Is there more? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen several grammatical errors - verbs don't agree with subjects, extra words in sentences, no apostrophes in words that need it. It needs a thorough read-through again.
    I've went through the article about ten times looking for things. It's all starting to run together. Hopefully I have fixed some of the issues. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS issues
        • Per WP:MOSDASH, use ndash instead of a hyphen for date ranges (and it should be spaced for a date range)
    i've replaced all the ones I saw in the article. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Capitalization errors: Cultures, Priests, etc probably shouldn't be capitalized. Check the article for other instances of wikilinks like these that ended up improperly capitalized.
    fixed the ones I found Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of fewer that 4 lines should not be offset.
    I assume you are refering to the consitution quote - I have removed that line. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See also templates should be at the beginning of a section, not at the end, and I don't think that See also: History of Indianopolis really belongs here anyway - maybe in the See also section at bottom?
    fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is Jefferson Academy bolded? That appears to be against WP:MOSBOLD.
    I believe it was bolded because it was not wikilinked. That can be changed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see at least one instance where there is no conversion between standard and metric.
        • I don't believe that "War" is supposed to be capitalized when used by itself.
      • "but it is theorized that European plagues " - theorized by whom?
    Theorized by the author of the book in reference that ends the paragraph. Should I duplicate the reference at every statement that is made using that reference, even within the same parapgraph? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation method you use is fine, but it is usually best when there is phrasing like "it is theorized" to make it explicitly clear in the sentence who is doing the theorizing. Sometimes the source is reporting that someone else theorizes that. I'd rephrase to say..."Historian/author/etc John Doe theorizes that ..." Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If La Salle didn't come to Indiana until 1679, how was there an outpost within the territory in 1673?
    La Salle claimed the land for france, he was the first to map it and truely explore. Traders were in indiana before him dealing in furs. That could be made more clear. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of excess wikilinking and repetition in section France. It talks about each fort, when it was founded and by whom, and then has this sentence which repeats all the info " Of these forts the more important included Fort Vincennes (Present day Vincennes), Fort Ouiatenon (Present day Lafayette), and Fort Miamis (Present day Fort Wayne). "
    that can be pared down Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On my screen, there is a gap of several lines before the paragraph beginning "By the 1850s". This is likely because the image and table are bumping against each other; one of these should be moved.
      • Is there a source for "In the early 19th century, most transportation in Indiana was accomplished by river.
      • Is there a source for "The first road in the region was called Buffalo Trace"
      • Is there a source for fact that New Albany was the largest city?
      • Is there a source for "The first major road in the state was the National Road, "
      • Is there a source for "The value to the South of this secession was only a brief piece of propaganda."
      • Is there a source for "Prior to the Civil war, the population was generally in the south of the state where easy access to the Ohio River provided a convenient means to export products and agriculture to New Orleans to be sold"?
      • Is there a source for "This would lead to a population shift to the north where the state would come to rely more on the great lakes and the railroad for exports"?
      • Is there a source for "Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry."
    I've added references to each of these statesments or a sentence or two after that should satisfy the claims. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the images are of Governors. It might be helpful to put the years of their terms in office in the captions.
    There are no images of the governors of Indiana in the article. There is one of President Harrison who was a territorial governor, but he was more than just governor, wouldn't it take away from him to just put his dates as governor? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the picture of Harrison and one of Gov. Morton. I think the captions should have a bit more context. In Harrison's case, it could say something like, "Harrison, the xxth U.S. President and the only one from Indiana, served as territorial governor from yyyy to zzzz". Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, I have done that. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    this can be fixed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a little concerned that the article relies a great deal on the Indiana Center for History, the Indiana state government, and various websites. I would imagine that there are many books dealing with the history of Indiana, and I wonder why those weren't used rather than the web sources. I'd rather see independent third-party sources.
    75% of the article is sourced from books exclusively. I would have sourced this whole things books, but then how could anyone verify anything at all unless you have access to a libary. There is a question about an image i scanned from one book in a lower comment that is not available in a copy of the book they are looking at. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Verification requires that good sources be used, not that internet sources be used. Many FAs, especially for historical events do not use a single web source, and that is okay. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how Indiana Historical Bureau stuff could be conisdered questionable and will work through to see what I can be replaced with better references. But in regards to the Indian Center for History, that is funded by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, and independent orginazation, I would think that those sources are acceptable. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The books listed in the reference section are using different formatting methods. Can these be made more consistent?
    All the books where listed using the cite book template, they should all be formated the same. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't put a section around the templates. They should just be by themselves.
    I am not sure what you mean by this. please advise. Thanks Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a section called Other Information, and the only information in it is two templates.

    The section header should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK fixed Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks for your review. To be honest almost every sentence could have a reference put after it but some if it is such basic knowledge is there really any value to referencing it? I have the books and go do that if you think it is needed, Most of these statements have wiki links which you could follow, as a reader, and get more information, including references on the topic. Please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect on anything :) Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every fact requires a reference. The ones I pointed out are those that could potentially be disputed. It is generally not a good idea to depend on a child article to contain the references, as those articles are outside the control of this one. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2008&oldid=222727821"