Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2009[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 Dabomb87 01:18, 27 September 2009 [1].

John Tavares (ice hockey)[edit]

Nominator(s): MacMedtalkstalk 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all of the required criteria for a featured article. I have added alt text as well as fixed the deadlinks that were present in the article prior to my arrival. MacMedtalkstalk 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
  • Current ref 38 (Todd Kimberley...) first, should be Kimberley, Todd, to fit with the rest of the references, second it is lacking a publisher.
  • Current ref 39 (New York Islanders. NHL.com) seems to be lacking an url?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite there yet (Cr. 1a). I found quite a few nit-picks just in the lead; an independent copy-edit of the whole article would be useful.

  • Please see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.2A: "3-year". Hyphenate "entry level contract"?
  • WP:LINK advises not link adjacent items if possible. It's a rule of thumb often broken with good reason, but in the opening sentence, "centre" is ice-hockey centre, and that link-target will take the reader swiftly to the "ice hockey" article if they want the more general link. "is a Canadian professional ice hockey centre who" or "is a Canadian professional ice hockey centre who". Up to you.
  • "In 2009, he set a new OHL record for career goals as he finished the season with 215, two more than former record holder Peter Lee." Is that a "because/since as" or a "while as"? I genuinely don't know. "As" is usually better avoided as a badly engineered word in English. Here, simplifying might avoid the issue: "In 2009, he finished the season with a career total of 215 goals, breaking Peter Lee's OHL record by more than two." PL is linked, too, which leaves no doubt. Did I get it right? Don't know what OHL means. And is this right?
  • "He" starts a new para, straight after "Peter Lee". But you don't mean PL.
  • What does "TBA–present" mean? Please see MoS on en-dash spacing.
  • Redundant "also". Redundant "additionally".
  • Is "medal" a verb? If it has become common parlance among sports writers, it still sounds very odd here. Tony (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on criteria 1(e). The start of the NHL season is October 1, and Tavares will make his NHL debut October 3. Over the weeks following, he will make news for playing his first game, scoring first goal and/or point, and general scrutany as befitting a first overall draft choice joining the NHL. This will inevitably come back to the article, with constant updates and changes to the article as it switches focus from his OHL/junior career to his NHL/professional career. Because of this, the editors at WP:HOCKEY have resisted nominating the article for FA as of now. We believed that the nomination should wait until at least a few weeks after the start of the season, when the major upheavel of the article will be complete, and Tavares settles into his role as a professional ice hockey player. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination withdrawn based on the points made by Kaiser matias above. MacMedtalkstalk 00:57, 27 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 18:48, 26 September 2009 [2].

The Beatles[edit]

Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FFA, has been on main page


The Beatles story is an eventful one, and it's been said, probably rightly, that the subject is pretty much inexhaustible. There is much scope for developing and rationalizing the already growing number of sub-articles to do the details of this story justice. The parent article summarizes the key moments in the story and is now offered for review. PL290 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consult Andreasegde (talk · contribs) about this nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on the article talk page some weeks ago. PL290 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should s/he be listed as a co-nom? It's a busy talk page, and I can't locate your post; I'll ping Andreasegde. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can go back through and retrieve it from the history if necessary, but in summary, no objections were raised by any editors to FA nomination, and Andreasegde, as #1 contributor to the article, stated a personal preference not to be involved in the FA process for this or any article at the present time and gave blessing for others to nominate. I'm sure Andreasegde will agree that that's a fair summary but I can dig it out of the history if necessary. PL290 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The alt text that's present is very good (thanks). However, two images lack alt text. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Also, the citations reference some dead links and some links with other problems; please see the "external links" button. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text now added. PL290 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks like you fixed both alt text and dead links. Also, I marked a purely decorative image. Looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all with this attempt at an FA. Go ahead, and God bless all who sail in the direction of fair winds, or foul.--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments: What makes these reliable?

Sources updated; the above two removed. PL290 (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources updated; the above two removed. PL290 (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources updated; the above one removed. PL290 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources updated; the above one removed. PL290 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources updated; the above one removed. PL290 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources updated; the above four removed. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs and links: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=The_Beatles Two need disambiguating. All fine

Done. PL290 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • The following refs need more citation detail as appropriate, for example author, publication, dates etc: 1, 4, 46, 73, 130
Refs 1 & 4 fixed; ref 46 removed as unnecessary double cite; ref 73 (now 72) fixed; old ref 130 removed as newer ref 2 can now be reused. PL290 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pick one citation convention when citing web news and stick to it. I see a mixture of print methods (e.g. Daily Express) with web methods (e.g. guardian.co.uk) when citing websites.
Done. PL290 (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RB88 (T) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Media check:[reply]

  • Eight separate audio samples seems to be a gross violation of WP:NFCC#3a.
Eight is more than some articles, but I think it's justified in this case. (It's not unprecedented; Frank Zappa, for instance, has eight.) An important theme of the article is the band's musical development and the range of different genres they explored. There are undoubtedly further samples that could also have been used but to respect WP:NFCC#3a the number has been kept as low as possible while still supporting the significant genres and events discussed in the text. PL290 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree but for the particular scene depicted, which is one of the most significant moments in the group's history, for which there's no other free-use picture: the first live U.S. performance in 1964 televised on the Ed Sullivan Show when their international success really began. The article talks about this in the opening sections. (It might be an idea to move the image to that location.) I see the fair use rationale doesn't really reflect why it meets WP:NFCC#8 at the moment so I'll update it to make sure it does. PL290 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if/when all the above issues have been sorted. I cannot see anything wrong with the article that has not been covered above. I don't think the non-free media is a problem, however. Dendodge T\C 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The prose needs serious work. There's too many stubby paragraphs that should be merged with other sections of text. Much of the article seems like it's strucutred to accomodate the subarticles, rather than working as a concise whole. As a result it comes off as rather piecemeal. Avoid citing press releases whenever possible, cite secondary sources that report on the information from an objective perspective. Those are just the most glaring problems. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Press releases: you were right, a lot of these were unnecessary and I've substituted books for most of them. OK now?
  • Remaining points: please provide specific examples with rationale in each case so that your objections can be understood and addressed. PL290 (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (suggest withdrawal) Sadly this is not nearly ready. A lot more effort needs to be put in before this deserves the bronze star. The following points are only representative not exhaustive:

  • insufficient weight is given to various to some very important events in the Fabs' history, but too much to trivialities. For eg: A large paragraph is devoted to the first meeting of Dylan and the Lads, while A Hard Day's Night and Beatles for Sale are reduced to a passing mention in a single sentence. Precious little is devoted to The White Album as well!
  • The structure of the article is very weird. Their history should come in a History section. Subsections can then be the various years, and what they did in those years. Also since all the "History of the Beatles" links are already next to the TOC, I'd remove all of those "see also"s them from the start of the subsections.
  • You give far too much weight to the Rolling Stone "500 Albums" list. There's no need to mention how every album fared on that one list. Better would be to include quotes from contemporary reviews (i.e., from the 60s), as well some retospective critiques as well.
  • I don't understand the purpose of the Films section; all of that can be seamlessly merged into the group's history (since you are not really analysing the films themselves, just stating facts about their release). I don't think see why there should be a subsection called "Radio" with just one sentence in it either.
  • Throughout the article, the writing suffers from proseline. There is little hint of a narrative, just a collection of "and then this happened" statements.

You might want to look at exemplary band FAs such as Radiohead and The Smashing Pumpkins for inspiration/direction on how to proceed. indopug (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article has not been prepared for featured status. The prose is boring and lacks logical flow—it should read as though it is the work of one author, even though it is a collaborative effort. There are Manual of Style breaches, e.g. in the Lead there is "UK", "U.S.", and at the end "United Kingdom". The are too many unsourced statements. It still needs a lot of work. Graham Colm Talk 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - it's clear from the comments so far that the article needs a rethink and a rework. I'm grateful to reviewers for the time spent and the constructive feedback provided. I would now like to withdraw this nomination. PL290 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2009 (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 Dabomb87 21:27, 24 September 2009 [3].

George Orwell[edit]

Nominator(s): Jakeb (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Enjoyable and informative to read. Meets criteria. Jakeb (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: An enjoyable read it may be, but it doesn't fulfill the FA criteria. Not only is a majority of the article unsourced, but the references are inconsistently (and confusingly!) formatted, which, while it may seem minor, is very frustrating to both academics and laypersons alike. I haven't read the article in great depth, but I'm confused as to why the "Personal life" section is separated from the "Biography"; there seems to be a risk of redundancy and duplication here. The timeline goes from Orwell's later life/death/influence on writing, only to regress unnecessarily to his childhood. In short, this article needs quite a bit of work. I suggest withdrawing the nomination until the article has been brought to Good Article standards first, then take it through a lengthy Peer Review, before jumping straight to FAC. María (habla conmigo) 15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per above. Nominator is not a contributor and there is no evidence on the talkpage that the main contributors have been consulted about the nomination. The article does not seem to have had any formal review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Yllosubmarine and Brianboulton above. Also, the images lack alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have withdrawn this, as the article is not ready and the nominator is not a significant contributor. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [4].

Jeita Grotto[edit]

Nominator(s): Eli+ 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it ha already passed GA review and i think it meets the FA criteria; it is a stable article, no hx of warring and features important info abt Jeita grotto Thank you for you suggestions and feedback Eli+ 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Juliancolton | Talk 12:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Hold your horses Mr Colton
  1. references without authors/ publishers > fixed
  2. new 7 wonders link was moved, link was fixed
  3. geocities removed
  4. tripsfinder removed
  5. reference number 1 displays no authors, its info is corroborated by reference number 2
  6. SpeleoCub of Lebanon is a very VERY respectable scientific institution in Lebanon, so i'll skip on this one
  7. will fix the pic when i read more abt ALTernative text.

Anything else mates ? Eli+ 23:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
    • Archnet is a community of scholars based in MIT's School of architecture and planning [7]
    • Jochen Duckeck is a professional geologist and a member of the German national speleology society
    • The article referred to from Tourism-Lebanon is taken from the Lebanese ministry of Tourism,
    • Buzzle is dispensable
    • Atlas tours, well you are right ill fix it, there has to be a more reliable source corroborating the data
    • will fix non English sources and source N 1 Eli+ 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • I'll be back in a few days to revise my opinion based on this. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply

Usage of both Jeita pictures is fully justified :

    • there is no No free equivalent.
    • does not jeopardize the commercial opportunities ,
    • Minimal usage. is assured, each picture shows a different gallery and one picture cannot substitute for the ** ** Minimal extent of use very low resolution used
    • Previous publication. already publicly displayed outside Wikipedia, in much bigger resolution too.
    • Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
    • Media-specific policy. tag and required fields are complete
    • One-article minimum. point me
    • Contextual significance. read the article
    • Restrictions on location. met
    • Image description page. as said earlier tags are filled.

Guardian of time pic, we will work on that Eli+ 15:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment it appears guardian of time pic nomination is not justified as per Lebanese copyright law, note that the Jeita premises are owned by the Lebanese Republic and are public grounds Eli+ 15:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter; as I explained to you on my talk page, the image can only be used by "the media" or for educational use, which is not free enough. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, fails WP:WIAFA#3 as the images do not meet image use policy. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [8].

Rumination syndrome[edit]

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I've essentially nurtured it from dung pile[9] to glory (or something along those lines). My significant other had this disorder for some time, and was recently and successfully treated. One of the major problems with this illness is the huge lack of awareness by doctors and the general public as to its existence (who would favour to instead label its sufferers as bulimic). A successful candidacy and eventual appearance on the front page would be a significant step forward for the awareness of this disorder.

I have terrible command of sentence structure, so there may be some grammar mistakes here and there that other reviewers have missed. Please temporarily excuse the bulleted list under Diagnosis, as I will be cleaning that up tomorrow. I'm happy to fix any problems necessary. Cheers ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article needs significant work to be FA quality. I suggest going through peer review first. Here's a first cut of problems that I found, but I didn't read the whole thing carefully.
  • Images need alt text as per WP:ALT (particularly WP:ALT#Diagrams).
  • There should be Classification and Prognosis sections as per WP:MEDMOS #Diseases/disorders/syndromes.
    MEDMOS says that not all are required. A classification section is warranted, but prognosis was merged into treatment at PR as there was and is nothing more to say beyond the 30% cessation and 56% improved. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks, so long as prognosis is covered. (It might help other reviewers and readers if the word "prognosis" got put in there somewhere. :-) Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True say. I'll add it.
  • There should be brief coverage of quasi rumination syndrome in other animals. See, for example, Hill 2009.
    Done. I wasn't aware of its existence in other animals, but I put a small tidbit in at the very bottom using that source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Rasquin-Weber et al. 1999 (PMID 10457047) a bit dated? It talks about Rome II, whereas Rome III is current. Let's stick with Rome III unless there's a good reason to mention Rome II.
    It isn't used in the discussion of the classification of the disease. The article contains far more information that is irrelevant to both Rome II and Rome III. The Papadolpoulus and Chial reviews deal with classification and nosology. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but still I'd feel better citing newer reviews than a 10-year-old one. 10 years is fairly old in a medical topic that's evolving, as this one is. Are newer reviews available to support the claims that Rasquin-Weber et al. supports? Eubulides (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The WebMD website also deals specifically with the childhood illness (Nothing specific)... Is it reliable enough? Tbh, most of the studies cite the Rasquin-Weber article for the limited statements on childhood rumination, so I could just cite the papadopoulis one (Really, almost the entire article could be cited with the chial and papa... studies. I've just gone through them and pulled THEIR citations out so that I reference the journal that they do. This may explain why many statements seem misleading alongside their source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally WebMD is not considered to be as reliable as a peer-reviewed journal article. If all the studies cite Rasquin-Weber to support routine background statements, I suppose it's OK. Is that the most recent review on the overall topic of rumination syndrome? Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the only reliable source that focuses on the disorder in children. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (minor) Please remove the ISSN from the first citation. It is distracting and provides no real benefit. A DOI would be more helpful there.
    Removed... The doi seems just as obnoxious. Can I stick to just pubmed? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors like DOI as well. If you configure your browser right and have access to the article, it provides one-click access, whereas PubMed is at least two clicks (and sometimes the 2nd click doesn't work...). Also, if the article is freely readable, it's helpful to include an URL and/or PMC; please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Formatting citations for details. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done my best to go out of my way to try and find free versions. I'm not paying $75 to read one paper on one computer for 24 hours, so I only have the abstracts and free material available to me in writing this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the citations in Epidemiology and found problems in nearly every sentence:
  • The citations for the claim "Rumination disorder is historically documented" have nothing to do with historical documentation.
    Sure they do. They are recent, but they still show that it is grouped as an infant/childhood disorder, which almost every reference goes on to say otherwise.
    It's true that the ICD classification groups it under infant/childhood disorders, but I don't see anything in the ICD that talks about "historical documentation" or anything like that. If the point is that the ICD is "historical", then that point needs to be directly supported by a reliable source; the ICD classification itself cannot be used to support the claim that the ICD is a historical document. Eubulides (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation for the claim "affecting infants and individuals with mental and functional disabilities (the cognitively handicapped)" talks only about infants; it does not talk about the handicapped.
    With the exception of very general and brief claims made in papad(...) and other sources, I haven't found anything on the disorder in the developmentally handicapped. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird. Who do they cite? Clearly the most that our article can say would be equally brief and general, perhaps so much so that it should be eliminated? Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cited who they cite (Which is why most of the citations do not directly support the sentence they follow - The sentence is contrived from a review, and cites whatever that review cited. I can see why this would make a lot of information appear as OR and SYN (Although I'm sure that in the process of writing this entire article, I could have synthesized some information by reading so many sources and creating my own "review". Anyways, I haven't gone beyond general statements on the DH version of the disorder. Just what appears in the sources: The 6-10%; that the disorder is the same in infants, but different from the one that affects adults/adolescents, that the disorder is usually the result of under- or over-stimulation, and that aversive behavior therapy is the preferred treatment - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need to cite Malcolm et al. 1997 (PMID 9212767) to support the claim "Among the latter, it is described with almost equal prevalence among infants (6–10% of the population) and adults (8–10%)." as the claim is well supported by the other citation already given (Papadopoulos & Mimidis 2007, PMID 17699999).
    Will fix. Was under the impression that relying too much on one ref can raise eyebrows. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations for the claim "Recently, studies have confirmed the presence of the disorder in otherwise healthy adults and adolescents, with a possible equal prevalence." are dated 1995 and 1997, which is hardly recent. The phrase "equal prevalence" is ambiguous: equal in adults versus adolescents, or equal in otherwise normal people versus cognitively handicapped? Papadopoulos & Mimidis 2007 describe the condition as "rare", which hardly squares with the impression given in this section that it affects 6–10% of the population.
    In terms of the overall history of the disease, the recognition and acceptance of it in adults in the past 10-15 years is undeniably recent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the claim "Its occurrence within the general population is largely unknown, due to the privacy of those afflicted, and the improper diagnosis of most sufferers." the cited sources are Papadopoulos & Mimidis 2007 (PMID 17699999) and Chial et al. 2003 (PMID 12509570). I don't see anything in these sources that directly supports the claim. Papadopoulos & Mimidis says it's "rare" and that more investigation is needed, but that's quite a bit different from "largely unknown". Chial et al. is a primary source and doesn't talk about prevalence at all, as far as I can see.
    Tack et al. goes on to explain "The epidemiology of rumination syndrome in the adult general population remains to be carefully defined". Would this be an acceptable reference? I'm just changing "remains to be defined" to "unknown" to simplify it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, saying only "unknown" implies that it could be quite common. It'd be more accurate to say something like "rare, with the detailed epidemiology unknown". Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It now reads "The occurrence of rumination syndrome within the general population has not been defined. (tack et al)
  • For the claim "Studies have shown a mostly female predominance for the condition." but the cited sources (Tack et al. 2006, PMID 16678560) merely says that there is a female predominance (saying nothing about studies) and Chial et al. is a primary source, which shouldn't be directly cited for such a claim. I suggest removing the phrase "Studies have shown" and sticking with something more like the "The overall clinical impression derived from the existing small series of patients, is that rumination is a rare condition that affects more commonly women than men." that is found in Papadopoulos & Mimidis 2007.
    If I copied it word for word from the sources, is it not be plagiarism? I'm taking information from 20 odd sources (Which all agree on the female predominance) and creating a general picture (of the studies), but if it needs to be word for word for word exactly as the sources state then I will make those changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would be plagiarism, and I wasn't suggesting that. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was trying to say that the article should stick with something that is directly supported by the quoted sentence. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the claim "The typical age of adolescent onset is 12.9, give or take 0.4 years (±), with males affected sooner than females (11.0 ± 0.8 for males versus 13.8 ± 0.5 for females)." the cited source is a WebMD page that does not discuss age of adolescent onset at all.
    Those are from Chial et al. I'll add that as a citation there.
  • The claim about "the lack of a large study base" is supported only by a citation dated 1907! The article should not be citing ancient sources, except perhaps for the History section.
    It seems the biggest problem is not the lack of citations, but the correct placement of them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of problems in the one section that I looked at carefully is not a good sign, I'm afraid.
Give me 24 hours and I'll have it fixed - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Past studies of rumination syndrome have described it as benign. However, more recent studies have described otherwise." and cites Chial et al. to support the latter claim. However, Chial et al. says 'In general, rumination syndrome is a “benign” condition.' The wording in the lead misleadingly implies the reverse of what Chial et al. says. I fear (though I have not read the entire article as carefully as I read Epidemiology) that there is a systematic problem in the article as characterizing rumination syndrome more seriously than the sources do.
    I mistakingly cited it from memory. The other reference does say otherwise though. Chial has been removed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a more careful examination of chial brings up "In general, rumination syndrome is a “benign” condition.(ref) However, our study demonstrates significant functional disability related to weight loss, school and work absenteeism, hospitalization, and extensive diagnostic testing in pediatric and adolescent patients with rumination."
    This to me rings of "This study says benign,(ref) however, our results show significant non-benign traits" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And after a bit more searching, I found this journal entry that claims "Originally rumination was labeled benign;{ref: Levine et al. (Rumination, a benign disorder)} however, it is now known to cause such complications as weight loss, malnutrition, dental erosions, halitosis, electrolyte abnormalities,{ref: O'Brien et al.} abdominal discomfort, weight loss,{ref: Chial et al.} choking, aspiration, and pneumonia.{new ref that isn't in the wikipedia article}" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sources are contradictory. They all paint a picture of a syndrome that is generally benign, but which in some cases can cause significant complications. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhpas we get different ideas. I see it as them labelling that it has been described benign by another study (Which every article that says it is benign points solely to that one study from 1983!), but that they have found all these clearly non-benign symptoms (insert long list here).
Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can make the changes necessary. Please change oppose to comment for now, and I will respond shortly when I have made your changes. I placed some responses to some of your points, as they seem to come from the angle that the studies are flawed based on dates. None of the studies have been contradicted by later studies.
Thanks for responding to the comment and volunteering to work on the article. I'll strike the oppose once the article's state improves enough (isn't that the normal way things are done? I'm not up to speed on etiquette here). Eubulides (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea... I'm more familiar with the village pump proposals where comments are made first and then its put to a vote. This is my first FAC actually so I don't know the drills, besides the broad criteria. I think the main problem is that I cited my references pretty casually, assuming that they could just be brought up at the end of long statements. Anyways, I've made some changes/replies. I imagine you will find more stuff in other section. It's odd because the article did go through a peer review. Don't respond right away, I've made a mess and I need to get my bearings straight on what I have fixed and what I need to fix. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've fixed Epidemiology up. If you notice every section has this problem, just say that, and I'll withdraw and open a peer review. I'd ask you to do it... You seem extra, extra thorough, and that's exactly what this needs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Break
I looked again at Epidemiology. But I'm afraid that it still has problems:
  • The lead image is nearly impossible to make out at typical Wikipedia thumbnail sizes. And I'm not sure it's appropriate here. It's from a primary study, and reflects just one study with a not-that-large sample size. The image connotes far more precision than the data actually have.
    That image is from a single patient, it isn't a collection of results made into a single graph. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence, but the graph is a visual representation of something that almost every study mentions (That is, the characteristic R-waves in the abdomen. I'm certain a better image is possible in the lead, but I think that image belongs somewhere in the article at the least. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry... Not sure if you mean the lead photo of the article, or the leaf photo in Epidemiology. If it's the latter, I only added it because there are no useful images. I have no quarrel to removing it. Perhaps one of those Haagstrom(?) diagrams would be good for the article? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead sentence "Rumination disorder is historically documented affecting newborns, infants, children and individuals with mental and functional disabilities (the cognitively handicapped)." appears to be original research, in the sense that none of the cited sources directly support the central claim that RD is "historically documented". To support that claim one cannot merely cite a list of old papers and diagnostic criteria; instead, one must cite a source saying that there's historical documentation.
    Changed to "rumination syndrome was classified affecting only..."
  • Rogers et al. 1992 (PMID 1562309) is quite a dated and limited primary source, focusing on institutionalized adults with severe MR. It cannot be used to support a more general claim about "individuals with mental and functional disabilities (the cognitively handicapped)", a much larger set of people. Particularly when the next sentence makes it clear that this larger set includes children. Let's not be citing ancient primary sources in this article. Better yet, let's not be citing primary sources at all; I don't see the need for them given that we have good reviews.
    As I mentioned, some people have made mention of relying too heavily on one source. If I only include the reviews, there'd be max 6 sources that are each referenced 25 odd times. Rogers et al focuses on institutionalized adults (Which no other source or review does). Every other study makes the claim that it occurs in individuals with mental and functional disabilities. Likewise, I shouldn't cite an ancient (1983) study which studied the disease in 9 patients, 7 of which the study later explains had likely had the disease since infancy (And thus a completely different situation that those who acquire it in adolescence and adulthood).
  • "Among the latter, it is described with almost equal prevalence among infants (6–10% of the population) and adults (8–10%)." The cited source doesn't compare MR infants to MR adults; it compares MR infants to institutionalized MR adults.
    Fixed - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mentally healthy infants, it typically occurs within the first 3–12 months of age and can lead to can lead to malnutrition." The cited source does not talk about "mentally healthy". It says infant rumination syndrome must (not "typically") start between 3 and 8 (not "12") months of age. The phrase "can lead to" is duplicated. Not sure why a complication (malnutrition) is mentioned here.
    It doesn't talk about cognitively impaired infants either. I have to add more sources to that because those ranges are not agreed upon between some study (somewhere), and Rome III - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Studies have confirmed the presence of the disorder in otherwise healthy adults and adolescents." This cites two primary studies. For a sentence like this "Studies have confirmed" we need a review that says that studies have confirmed it. Citing the primary sources directly in order to assert an overall pattern is original research.
    changed to "It has since been recognized to occur in both males and females of all ages and cognitive abilities." citing Papad(...) and Olden et al. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its occurrence within the general population is unknown, due to the privacy of those afflicted, and the improper diagnosis of most sufferers." The cited sources don't talk about privacy or improper diagnosis. One of them says that clinical impression suggests it is rare in adults; this rareness should be mentioned.
    Removed extra stuff. Its mentioned somewhere, but not in connection with the lack of a known epidemiology. That rareness, however, is refuted by fox et al. (2006) And it would be impossible to determine something as rare or not when you've studied about 150 patients, especially in terms of a disorder that is so often diagnosed as Bulimia. It is a flawed generalization. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources do. It's going to be absolutely insane to have to source 6 different papers in order to use each individual word that is used in a sentence. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Studies have shown a mostly female predominance" The cited source doesn't say that studies have shown it.
    I'm just trying to be less absolute. Changed it to a fact rather than a claim. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The typical age of adolescent onset is 12.9, give or take 0.4 years (±), with males affected sooner than females (11.0 ± 0.8 for males versus 13.8 ± 0.5 for females)." These are numbers taken from a single primary study, which may well not be representative; they should not be given as gospel.
    Until another study is released that deals with epidemiology, those are the only results. I will include as much information as possible, but this isn't influenza, so most of it rests upon a single source. Chial et al is sourced by every paper released after it. Primary or not, it is perhaps the most significant and in-depth study done on the subject. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lack of a large study base has produced little evidence concerning the impact of race and hereditary causes in rumination syndrome." This claim is unsourced.
    Fixed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, case reports involving entire families with rumination exist." This claim has just the 1907 source. Is that the best we've got? It's pretty weak.
    Why? It is a familial case report. Thats a pretty good source to backup the claim that "case reports involving entire families with rumination exist." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs #22 and 23 (as of rev 314466306) are invalid. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Totally missed filling those in yesterday. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is created entirely by me based upon a (potentially) copyrighted work, which is perfectly acceptable by our rules I've been told many times. I've released my version to CC 3.0 - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Image check complete. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [10].

Overman Committee[edit]

Nominator(s): Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As one of the few (only?) editors who works at WP:REQ, I often have the opportunity to research some really obscure subjects. The first obscure subject that I actually researched very deeply was the article I am currently nominating, the Overman Committee. It's a bizarre tale of Red Scare xenophobia, and would sometimes be laughable if it wasn't true. Sadly, there is a dearth of sources describing the subject. As Schmidt puts it, "The Overman Committee is only briefly mentioned in literature and there is no comprehensive study, based on the primary sources, on this early forerunner of the HUAC". Furthermore, there is sometimes conflicting information. The most glaring example is the name of the committee. The US Senate website calls it a Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee; others (Lowenthal) give it no name other than "the committee". However, I have chosen Overman Committee because it is the most descriptive and the most commonly used.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe what I have compiled here is the "comprehensive study" of this obscure committee. You might object to how much of the article is in quotes, i.e., how much of it is directly quoted from the Committee. This was necessitated to avoid WP:OR as I skimmed through 4000-whatever pages of primary source testimony. I hope all the images are acceptable; however, only one could be found of the Committee itself in action. I of course will be happy to fix whatever problems anyone can find. I apologize in advance for any typos! Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. It still needs a bit of work, though.
  • "Black and white photo of" conveys little useful info of and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
  • "three members of the Overman Committee" can't be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image (please see WP:ALT#Verifiability) and duplicates the caption (please see WP:ALT#Repetition).
  • The big letters "U.S." in the political cartoon should be transcribed somewhere into its alt text as per WP:ALT#Text.
Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done?. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and so far so good, but now we have more images with more alt text, and there are still some minor comments about the previous alt text.
  • The alt text "A picture of a special section of the New York Times" cannot be verified by looking just at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability) and doesn't transcribe any of the text in this all-text image. I suggest discarding the existing alt text, and replacing it with something that focuses on transcribing the main headline (in all caps) and the subsidiary headline, as accurately as possible, as per WP:ALT#Text.
  • The phrase "A political cartoon" in the alt text repeats the caption, and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. (There are two instances of this).
  • A very minor point: the first cartoon says "U.S." but the alt text says "US"; the alt text should transcribe the text as accurately as feasible.
Eubulides (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I believe I have fixed all three points now. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that did it. I tweaked it a bit more to preserve capitalization and mention it's a clipping, but this was minor. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing those last two bits yourself. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Facts and Fabrications About Soviet Russia is a reprint of a 1920 work (see here. This should be reflected in the bilbiographical entry.
  • The Yeardon/Hawkins ref says "Lulu.com" as the publisher, which is a self-publishing company. Note the World Cat entry gives a different publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting to hear why the second source is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like you said, the World Cat entry said that the book was published by a more reliable publisher - Progressive Press. Furthermore, this is the publisher listed on the second page of the Google Books scan. I hope that makes it reliable enough. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly thinking this is a "more reliable press". Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed both ([11][12]) uses of the reference. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. Apparently the image is a duplicate of the commons version which has proper sourcing. I've tagged it with db-f8. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, most of them minor.

Any particular reason you used European style dates in the references? This is okay, you're consistent in using American dates in the article and European-style dates in the refs, just a little odd. Feel free to keep it this way, just bringing it up. Also on the American vs. European style note... most of the time, you have punctuation outside quoted sections European-style. There are some sentences where you don't, though... is this because the quoted piece also had a period there? Anyway, my personal preference is to stick punctuation within the quotation marks except when this would change the sense of the quote, but it's your call, just be consistent. Only bringing it up to make sure that the sentences with punctuation inside the quotes are in fact intentional.

  • I'm American, but I prefer the European style of dates and punctuation with quotes. I changed all the dates in the article to the American style after I had "completed" the article because the subject of the article is American, so I figured that was more appropriate. I didn't change the dates though. As for punctuation with quotes, I believe most of the time when the periods are inside the quotes that's how they were originally quoted. I'll try to find any that aren't.Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked through again, and there are quite a few inconsistencies. Not sure what to do here. I think I'll make them all American style. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've finished this one. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many American citizens also criticized the Committee for publicizing the names of those alleged to be associated with illustrious organizations.

Was the criticism as specific as this sentence implies, just about naming names, or was is a more broad criticism of the Committee itself with the names just being one complaint? And is "American" necessary here? I might be tempted to try and weasel out of guesstimating just how much discontent was generated and reverse this with "The Committe attracted criticism from civilians for its perceived overreach, especially the publicizing of names of those accused of association with communist organizations." The word "illustrious" is also weird here because it's a positive adjective: were these people (definitely) illustrious yet accused of badness, or did you actually mean "disreputable?" Because technically the sentence means these people were accused of being members of the Rotary Club or the United Way.

  • Yep, I screwed that one up. I've replaced it with your sentence, with minor changes. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others who testified criticized the Committee as "a witch hunt"

Testified to the Overman Committee, I assume? And multiple witnesses used this phrasing? Does Lowenthal have any more details on this? Did they make this criticism during Congressional testimony (pretty cheeky) or immediately afterward to the newspapers or decades later to historians? More details on this would be appreciated, if possible. (I ask because, so far as I know, "witch hunt" became a popular attack on the Red Scare in the 1950s, not the 1920s... if they were using it even in 1919, that'd be quite interesting.)

  • I've tried to clear up that sentence, and yes, the witness said that to Overman's face. Lowenthal mentioned this, and I managed to find it in the Committee records. I chose to use the Committee records instead of Lowenthal as a ref because I prefer primary sources. Lowenthal appears to have exaggerated it a little, as you can see on p. 893 of the transcripts. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell from just the transcript, but I think Robins was gently chiding the committee rather than insulting it. He basically says "You're all wise and smart people and thus you certainly wouldn't do something dumb like a witch hunt, right?" He brings up witch hunts, yes, the Senator says "This committee has been called a witch hunt," and Robins responds "I wish to make no possible sort of criticism of the Committee. I wish to say that I have never been treated more fairly than I have here." It's possible he was even sincere when he said this... don't get me wrong, I see the version where he says this with a big grin on his face, but it still strikes me as a bit bold to say he called the Committee a witch hunt. He brought up a witch hunt to then immediately deny it, which is a cute rhetorical trick, but not directly "he called it a 'witch hunt.'" Dang, what's the name for that? There's gotta be one for things like "I just want to let everyone know that I do not believe Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya out to subvert the United States," where you deny an idea just to raise it. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"OVERMAN:This Committee has been called a witchhunt." I think I'll leave it in there. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This media attention caused the Overman Committee to be a vital factor in the development of the First Red Scare.

This has got a ref, just... the fact that apparently there aren't many sources on the Committee causes me to wonder if this might be a bit hyperbolic? Correct me if I'm off here but it sounds like the Committee was just "riding the wave" to some extent, and it probably pushed the Red Scare hotter, but calling it "vital" (and in the lede, "instrumental") might be a bit much? Murray, who you ref for this, apparnetly wrote an entire book on the Red Scare 1919-1920, yet it looks like he only devoted about 7 pages to this incident from your references. There's a natural temptation to play up the importance of what you're writing about, but would it be reasonable to tone this down as merely an "important" or a "notable" factor?

  • I've changed it to "notable" per your logic. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be tempted to focus more on the media attention being important and say "The media attention generated by the Overman Committee was an important factor in the development of the First Red Scare."

  • I was considering writing a section just called "effect on media" or whatever, but then I realized I would not have enough sources; too few newspapers have (free) archives from that era. I went through many on this list, but I couldn't find much that looked at it from a historical perspective, as obviously that's not how newspapers usually work. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee's final report found that these organizations, through financial support, bribes, boycotts, and coercion sought to control the press, elections, and public opinion.

Do historians have an opinion on the veracity of this? The article makes clear that modern historians consider the Committee's work on communism a load of hooey, and that the initial BOI investigation accused anyone vaguely connected to Germany as being a spy, but were there actually any spies working to bribe the press and swing elections? In other words, was the Committee right about at least a few people (and then wildly extrapolated), or were they just completely wrong from the beginning?

  • It's mentioned earlier in the article that there was a German spy ring that had operated earlier in the decade. I will look for more on this though ASAP. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole "German Investigation" section reads a bit choppily. Not sure how to improve it, though. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's not much info on the part of the final report that was on the Germans, probably because the war was over by then. I'll also try to look for some on this ASAP (i.e. Saturday). Thanks for the review. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Aside from my complaints above, the scholarship seems solid on this, which is the most important thing to me. I'm not a subject matter expert, but from the referenced newspaper clippings I looked at this article seems accurate. It's too bad that apparently not much was written about this.

My main suggestion for improvement is the prose. It can shift abruptly at times, lurching from one factual statement to another. Flip side, if you'd written more "connecting" sentences that explained one event in light of another, somebody else would have attacked it on grounds of "original research via synthesis," so I respect that Wikipedia's guidelines are somewhat problematic here too for topics with light coverage. Anyway, I think it could use a brush-up, but even as is it's a good enough article to be featured to me. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your improvement to the witchhunt sentence and with the quotes (I was unsure what to do with serial commas... shows what I know). Just FYFI, I changed back the sentence dealing with the Seattle General Strike because I thought the original sentence showed how the Senate was reacting to the strike. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brief addendum: Sheerly by chance, I ended up coming across the Manual of Style on punctuation in quotations, and, er... it seems that quotes are an exception to the "use a consistent writing style." They should apparently always be British-style, with punctuation outside unless it was in the original quote (though the stated reason, which is fair enough, seems less relevant here - fear of people editing the sentence structure later and keeping a comma in incorrectly). I already stated my personal preference for American style on this matter, but apologies, didn't mean to encourage you to make a change that turns out not to be with policy. Not that this likely matters much one way or the other. SnowFire (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem because User:Dabomb87 just went through and fixed a number of WP:MOS problems, including that one. Thanks for pointing that out still, I hadn't seen that. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [13].

Fritz the Cat[edit]

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it was recently listed as a GA, and I believe it is ready to be promoted. This article was exhaustively researched, and is factually accurate, neutral, and very detailed in aspects discussing the comic strip, its publication history, the film adaptations and their legacy. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Still no alt text. It's just one image, so it shouldn't take long to add it. Eubulides (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.toonopedia.com/fritz.htm
      • Donald D. Markstein is a well-known animation historian. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
        • Do we have an article on him? Or something to show this is the case? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The site has previously been considered a reliable source and is often found in animation-related FAs. In this case, I can take the citation out, since it is redundant for the statement being cited. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • http://thedailycrosshatch.com/
      • This is an interview with Ralph Bakshi, the director of the film Fritz the Cat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
        • I did notice that, but what makes the site itself reliable for reporting the interview? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The site features a number of interviews and news stories relating to the animation industry. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove these sections, being that this information is covered in other articles, where it fits better. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks reasonably good. Only a few hitches in my quick look-through.

  • Lead: could remove "assorted"; "a worldwide hit" might be slightly exaggerated; "it was a directorial debut", better than "served as".
  • "within" better as "in (early 1960s)".
  • Fritz's personality is "glib, smooth and self-assured," —comma after the quotation unless it's really there in the original (even then, you don't need it within the quotation); please (see MoS).
  • ""I just got into drawing him. [...] He was fun to"—ellipsis after a period is unspaced four dots: him... He was ... (And when not straddling a period, three dots spaced both sides—see "animals ... they're". Please audit throughout.
  • "Anthropomorphic" linked twice; I think the first time is enough (?)
  • The hated "in order to"—I've expunged it ("to").
  • Major cities such as London, New York, LA—not usually linked (WP:LINK). Tony (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how File:Fritz the Cat double feature.jpg is tied to the text. A poster is mentioned, but it doesn't appear to be this poster. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanded rationale. The text doesn't refer to the poster itself, but a presentation that Ralph Bakshi put together for Warner Bros. The image illustrates the animation style and the exploitive promotion techniques used by the films' distributors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • The poster still isn't mentioned in the text, even in passing. I fail to see how a user's understanding is harmed by its removal. Nothing of the text cares one wit for the poster. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review There's only one image left, and it is valid fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - is the Maremaa article available for review? Could you maybe e-mail it to me? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google Books copy ends at p. 25 for that section; I cannot verify this sentence: "Following experiences with LSD in 1967, Crumb began to create other characters, and focused his attention on humans rather than anthropomorphic characters." Where in that chapter is that covered? --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It looks like the nomination got archived this morning. I will leave further comments on the article talk page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [14].

Shojo Beat[edit]

Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the current featured article Critera. It is currently a Good Article and underwent an FAC preparatory peer review last month. All issues from that PR have been addressed. The article is complete, well sourced to quality, reliable sources, and covers all major aspects of the topic per guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~silent scream~ I checked that when I first started, and ended up setting the wrong link at the dab is showed before :-P Fixed now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ICv2 is a well-known, well-respected pop culture-focused news organization that has been around since the 80s. Their news reports and annual retailer uides have been quoted by The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. Publishers Weekly, and of course Anime News Network and AnimeOnDVD/Mania. It used to be a print magazine called Internal Correspondence, a trade publication by Capital City Distribution until the latter was sold to Diamond Comic Distributors and its editor-in-chief, Milton Griepp, decided to continue it in its current online form. Very easily meets WP:RS :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I recognized it... (Once, long ago, we sold comics through Capital City, of all things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a little bit of explanation of the lesser known terms in the lead. Something so people don't have to click on "shōjo manga" and "light novel". We can probably assume that readers (of this article, anyways) know what manga and anime are. Although, if it gets on the main page, they would probably need more or orient them.

"In May 2009, the magazine was discontinued and the July 2009 issue being the last released." Sound funny. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded the sentence. :) I'm not sure what the best way to add explanations would be without messing up the flow? Parentheticals? dash call outs (i.e. shojo manga—Japanese comics aimed at female readers aged 10-18 years—magazine)? or through footnotes? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not a footnote. I don't think many people read them, and it still requires a click. I had to look up dashes, but apparently "A pair of em dashes for such interpolations is more arresting than a pair of commas, and less disruptive than parentheses." I usually use parens, but that might just be because I don't know a lot about dashes. Apparently commas are an option as well, although I'm not saying that's what I recommend. You decide, I don't think it makes a big difference. Wikipedia:Dash#Dashes talks about it of course, but doesn't mandate anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a circulation of 20,000 copies" word copies probably not needed (and in next sentence)

"with half of its circulation came from subscriptions rather than store sales." coming?

"some critics found the initial issues boring" is early better than initial? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"that they were not subscribers themselves" themselves probably not needed.

"magazine" is used 8 times in the lead, including twice in two sentences. You could probably reduce this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all and added the two notes :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted it some. As you mentioned, it's hard to do without messing up the flow. Not sure what to do. We may have to just rely on the wikilinks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...either way its messing up the flow, and its hard to summarize succinctly. I think the shojo part can probably be gleaned from the second lead paragraph, since it does not the audience there...for light novels, I think just let them click over if they want to know the full details? For other manga FAs, I think that's what we did as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start a new paragraph after "featured Nana Komatsu of Nana on its July-dated cover." It seems like the stuff after that is its own idea.

"who would inspire the readers." - Maybe get rid of "the"

"With the first issue, a letter informed subscribers" - Not clear. Sounds like it's the first issue of Shonen Jump.

You may want to think about refactoring the "History" section a bit. The second paragraph talks about a mascot, and then colors. The third talks about colors, then goes back to discussing mascots. Otherwise, the section looks pretty good. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, so are you sure you've included everything you can? I see you've got info from a couple of issues of Shojo Beat. Do the other issues have out of universe info? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man, I'm sorry! I totally missed your last note. All done. :) And yep, it was the first issue of Shonen Jump (for Shojo Beat subscribers) but made clear. And yes, I am pretty sure I have everything. I own every issue start to finish and most of the letters from the editor were just random chatty stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool. I'll look at the rest soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reasoning on not including refs for the table in the series section? Your using the primary source, I guess, and adding 30 Shojo Beat cites for it is funky I guess. Also, it's hard to verify that Absolute Boyfriend (for instance) ended in the March 2008 issue, since it's kind of dependant on the following issue, and maybe all following issues. Anyways, I'd like to here your thoughts on the issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much nailed it. I started to do it early in the article, but basically would just be citing those specific issues (generally two per series as the endings were always noted in those specific magazines - so one for start, one for ending), which seemed a little redundant. I can go back and add, though, if needed, though to have the page numbers. Would add 28 refs or so :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say skip it, but it's good to have the reasoning documented on the FAC page. Other reviewers may have another opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Viz stated that it would continue" - Should it be "will"? Might also be good to put a date on this, in case they don't follow through.

"between the ages of 13 and 19, and more than 84% of readers were at least 16 years old." - These stats are odd, because of the overlap. You might want to use the 12 to 17, and 18 to 34 numbers, since they don't overlap, and cover most of the audience, instead of the over 16 part. I'd keep the "core audience" thing. Maybe even use the words "core audience" and attribute it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed would to will and added date (so far, they are still doing so...better than a certain other company ;-) ) . Reworded the ages a bit...how's that? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good. I added the other stat. Remove it if you don't like it. Also, I noticed the article has hyphens instead of fancy dashes. May want to make sure they're all fancy dashes when appropriate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I think? They look exactly the same for me so I can never tell :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can search for dashes and hyphens using control+f in your browser (usually). The ISSNs have hyphens. No clue as to whether that's correct or not. "under–acknowledged" has a dash, which is incorrect, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super MOS hound. I beleive dashes are for ranges, like the age ones. Otherwise we use hyphens, for combo words or whatever they're called. I guess ISSNs aren't ranges, so they should probably stay with hyphens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ISSNs need hyphens, for proper linking and what not. Other than that, I get confused too. I think you're right, on dashes for ranges...so I think they may be fixed now? I tried to find all dashes used in ranges and fixed...be easier if they were easier to visually differentiate too :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see one dash used to hyphenate a combo word left. Happy hunting. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [15].

February 2009 tornado outbreak[edit]

Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk), Cyclonebiskit (talk)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article meets the FA criteria. It is well-written and documents one of the most notable severe weather events of 2009.Showtime2009 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are fine; they were checked last FAC and no new images have been introduced since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned by the Wichita Eagle.[16]
Being mentioned ≠ reliability. The article was just sending birthday wishes to a writer for the magazine. A better indicator of reliability would be if a major news site used the magazine as a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here the California State University Northridge site uses it as a source.[17]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to comment on. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find it on the CSUNorthridge site...even looking through the archives quickly. The Wichita Eagle citation seems to have disappeared. I'd say, though, that actually the south central golf.com site was fine; it is an on-site source, reporting from the local course, and there are pictures. And it is specifically documenting the damage to that particular country club, providing supporting (collateral) documentation, but not a key point of the article. If it were being used to document the primary damage to a large part of a town, or something like that, no, but as it is, the sentence is only limiting its usefulness to that particular space. No news agency would pick it up, since it's a few acres of damage among thousands. I'm okay with it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its the the official newsmagazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
For the purposes of what's being cited, this should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned by Florida International University.[18]
The link you provided doesn't work. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed source with Storm Prediction Center link.
Fixed. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Prose-wise.
  • link to Tornado outbreak
  • By 2:14 pm CST (2014 UTC), it was beginning to develop a hook echo, and the hook echo was fully developed four minutes later. - wordy
By 2:14 pm CST (2014 UTC), it formed a hook echo, which was fully developed four minutes later.
  • It continued showing signs of rotation on Doppler weather radar as it moved northeast across Oklahoma County. - continued to show
Done
  • At 2:52 pm CST (2052 UTC), the supercell produced its second tornado near Edmond and moved into neighborhoods and subdivisions on the northwestern side of Edmond, produced its most severe damage near the Oklahoma and Logan County line. - grammar
At 2:52 pm CST (2052 UTC), the supercell produced its second tornado that moved into neighborhoods and subdivisions on the northwestern side of Edmond. It caused its most severe damage near the Oklahoma and Logan County line.
  • I did not read over the confirmed tornadoes section.
  • At 6:48 pm CST (0048 UTC), a large wedge tornado touched down near the Red River.[5] - I know what this is, but the general reader wouldn't - Remember to explain jargon, with either a link (in this case it's a redirect) or a parenthetical explanation
Done.
  • Damage was extensive in the community. Buildings were reported to have been thrown off their slabs, the local chamber of commerce office was flattened, a furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.[44] - End is redundant, watch out for redundancy, plz
Damage was extensive in the community. Buildings were reported to have been thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. A furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.
  • One of which, Bar K, contained 40 homes.[48] - Grammar

One of the mobile home parks contained 40 homes.

  • The UPS building was also damaged[44] with its glass lobby being destroyed.[48] - Remove with; there should be a comma between the two phrases
Done
  • Eight people were confirmed dead,[56] though early reports suggested that as many as 15 people were killed as a result of the tornado.[57] ' - Again, redundant, it's obvious that they were from the tornado
Removed as a result of the tornado.
  • The eighth fatality occurred when a truck driver was pinned under his vehicle on Interstate 35.[48] - Suggest you move to end of section, after the pickup truck sentence
Done
  • Allegheny Power stated that the loss of power due to this system was the largest ever experienced by the company. -cite?
Ref 69. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's from a quick, detailed read-over. ceranthor 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - On prose only. ceranthor 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. 04:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding some alt text. There are some issues, though:
  • Three images still lack it. Click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page.
  • The alt text that is present is almost entirely a repetition of the caption. However, alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption. Instead, it's supposed to describe visual aspects of the image that are not present in the caption. See WP:ALT #What not to specify.
Eubulides (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok look at it now. Showtime2009 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considerably better, but I'm afraid it still needs work.
  • Several phrases focus too much on superficial detail and not enough on the essence of the useful info that the image conveys to the sighted reader, and their alt text nees to be rewritten as per WP:ALT#Essence. These phrases include "A Green oval outlines the area under a", "the red oval", "The area where the colors are a dark orange and red", "line of darker orange and red colors show the severe thunderstorms", "Darker orange and red area on the radar shows the severe thunderstorm", "Darker colors near the thunderstorm's hook echo show the location of tornado", "Track, time and location of the Lone Grove tornado". Where was the tornado? The visually impaired reader would like to know.
  • The maps and satellite images typically have alt text that don't tell the visually impaired reader the useful info in those images. See WP:ALT#Maps.
  • Some phrases can't be verifiable just from the image, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "indicate the supercell.", "the Lone Grove tornado"; pretty much all proper names.
  • The lead image (in the infobox) still lacks alt text.
Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any better? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm afraid it still needs some work. The main problem is that the map alt text does not convey the essence of the map's info to the visually impaired reader; please see WP:ALT#Essence. Here are some of the instances I found:
  • "A map of the United States with a series of colored lines depicting thunderstorm forecasts." doesn't convey enough useful information to the visually impaired reader. The only useful info is that it forecasts U.S. thunderstorms. But the point of that map is that the MDT region is in Arkansas, NE Texas, and SE Oklahoma, etc. The "colored lines" is relatively useless info and should be removed. Again, please see WP:ALT#Maps. (Also, interestingly enough, that map does not say that it is about thunderstorms and thus the alt text shouldn't say "thunderstorm".)
  • "A map depicting the tracks, times, and locations of tornadoes." has a similar problem. It says very little that's not already in the caption. Please pretend you're trying to tell somebody over the telephone the useful info that the map conveys.
  • There are similar problems with "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A map depicting the track, time and location of a tornado.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms." The last three entries are nearly identical, which would lead the blind reader to incorrectly assume that the three images are identical. Please describe the gist of how they differ.
Also, a minor point: Appending a period to "A tornado close to some buildings" is just the opposite of what WP:ALT#Punctuation suggests. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a brillianty written article with nice images as well as being well-doucmented on the subject. John Asfukzenski (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, please comment on the queried sources above, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well after looking at it, the institution clearly shows it's getting its info from the south central golf website. I believe it makes it reliable. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. It looks thorough enough, but I found plenty of prose issues just on reading the lead and one random section. A skilled copy editor needs to go through the whole thing to remedy simple grammar issues and excessive wordiness. Some examples follow; use them as a guide to fix the whole article with a helper.
    • I don't have a problem with the use of the South Central Golf site. I wouldn't depend on it for any data, but it only backs up one sentence about damage to the golf club.
    • I ran into a bunch of prose oddities early on. Examples:
      • In the first sentence, moving "primarily" to the right is going to bring you closer to your intended meaning. It didn't "primarily affect", it affected primarily (something), right?
      • "During the ... span" is odd usage. Usually, in the span, or during the period.
      • "proved to be the most active regarding tornadoes" Ick. "proved to produce the most tornadoes"? Something.
      • "while the second brought mainly high wind damage" There you've got it correct where the first sentence got it wrong.
      • "A moist low-level air mass moved to the north" Why not just "moved north"?
      • "Daytime heating of the moistening boundary layer increased through the afternoon across Oklahoma and Texas and combined with cooling aloft in conjunction with the approaching storm system, the air mass began to destabilized, which resulted in conditions supportive of thunderstorm development." This is a run-on sentence.
      • "A strong wind field, increasing with height" What does "increasing with height" mean? Do you mean in height?
      • "The risk of tornadoes was down" The risk was lower, surely.
      • "It killed eight people and injured 46 others, as well as destroy 114 residences in Lone Grove." Tense agreement.
    • I dug into another random section, Lone Grove tornado, and quickly found other problems:
      • Overlinking (mobile home, red link to "chamber of commerce office", etc.)
      • "A furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed." Why not just "A furniture store and two mobile home parks were destroyed."? This is an example of wordiness that needs remedying throughout.
      • Logic problem: "All 40 of the homes were completely destroyed by the tornado, leaving about 100 people homeless. Some mobile homes were completely destroyed ..." Well which is it? All or some?
A lot of work needed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i fixed the suggestions. What else is needed? Showtime2009 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text still isn't fixed. See my comment of 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) above. Eubulides (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Showtime2009, please re-read my opening statement of opposition. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Support Interesting article, nicely illustrated, and informative. In terms of prose, it needs a serious copy edit. It is overly wordy or redundant. The passive verbs don't help it either. There are many misplaced modifiers, which creates confusion in the text. Andy's "list" is only gives examples of the types of problems, so fixing each of the specific instances won't solve the larger prose issue. I can help you fix the prose, but you have to deal with Eubulides issues, and the other issues on images and sourcing. If you want me to help with the prose, drop me a line and I'll do it tomorrow. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing issues (in terms of reliability and formatting) seem to be mostly OK, although your opinion on the unstruck source comment above would be appreciated. Dabomb87
(talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a note above. It's a minor point in a secondary point, and the author has limited the citation to a single sentence linked to the article, so I think it's okay. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


showtime, I did some editing, smoothed out some of the redundancies (big time repetition between lead and synopsis). You need to check, though, to make sure I didn't wreck your citations. Also, you're missing one, and I noted it for you with a template. Very interesting article. When the citations are checked, bing me, and I will review once more, then I expect to support. The other thing that should happen: the section on non-tornadic events needs to be reorganized, from various paragraphs citing damages in whatever state to some kind of geographic organization. I started it -- Oklahoma, Texas, then I think the Central Mississippi Valley, Iowa, Illinois, etc. There shouldn't be a couple of sentences about wind damage in Maryland tacked on to the paragraph about wind damage in Michigan, unless you want to subhead it as what was happened at the extreme edges of the storm front. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Prose-wise, the article flows better. The section on the non-tornadic events needs reorganization into something resembling either a time line or geographic events (Mississippi valley, Ohio valley, New England, etc.). As it stands, it is a chaotic combination of data on various states that has no organization.It rained in Michigan, heavy winds in Maryland, it rained in New Jersey, snow in Massachusetts, wind in Tennessee...etc. I've removed the redundancy of lead and synopsis, but the editors should check it for "science." I would say, though, that unless that big section isn't reorganized into heading/subheading, it is not passable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments the editor did add headings into the non-tornadic events section, but did nothing to organize the material better, or to explain the organization s/he had. I've moved some of the text so that the header and the material go together, but the addition of the headers was not done with any apparent logic (i.e., timeline, as in the events struck at the same time along a squall line that stretched from northern Michigan through West Virginia and Virginia, or geographically, as in western PA, Mid Atlantic, etc.). I'm not sure that my adjustments were correct on this.

  • please check the non-tornadic events section and make sure it is organized CLEARLY either in the timeline or geographically, and that which ever one you chose to use is explained.
  • please break the non-tornadic events section into EITHER a timeline with subheadings or a geographic section, which requires moving text.

Thanks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009 [19].

Traumatic insemination[edit]

Nominator(s): Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


A little something I've been working on for a while. I nominated it 4 months ago and it failed, but I think I've subsequently addressed all the issues from that first nomination. Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's references mix YYYY-MM-DD, Day Month Year, and Month Day, Year dates. It is best to pick one format and stick to that. --an odd name 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. In cases where there is a full date, I use YYYY-MM-DD, and in cases where there is a month and a year, I use Month, Year. Raul654 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice. A very minor flaw: some of the "Month, Year" ones are actually "Month Year" (no comma): to be fully consistent, remove the commas from the rest, or talk with the cite template people about adding them. (I prefer removing the commas, as in most articles I've read here; just adding them in the cite template month attributes would look bad.) --an odd name 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done; thanks. Images need alt text per WP:ALT. Shubinator (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added captions to the second and third images. The first and fourth do not need them, per WP:ALT, because the alt text would be identical to the caption. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Also, is the indefinite semi-protection necessary? Shubinator (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, I semi'ed it when it was on the main page because it was getting quite a lot of vandalism. (Not surprising given the subject matter). I've unprotected. Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Shubinator (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way to mark that any alt text would be redundant is to use something like "|alt=See caption."; omitting alt text entirely doesn't work because a screen reader will then read something not-that-relevant such as the name of the file containing the image. However, I don't see why the alt text would be identical to the caption in the images in question: they both contain useful info that's not in the caption, and the gist of that info can be put into the alt text. Also, the existing alt text could be improved, as a good deal of it repeats the caption. The only useful non-redundant text I see are "A microscopic image of the spiny" and "vagina"; most of the rest of the alt text could be removed, with more visual details added. Eubulides (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've further revised the alt text of the pics. Raul654 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. Your eyes were much better than mine would have been in picking out the gist of thos images. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The phrase "being bred" is used a few times in the article to refer to the act of insemination. Although I've never heard this phrase used in this way, it is apparently an acceptable, though uncommon definition (8th of 8 in the Random House Dictionary). If other reviewers are also unfamiliar with the use of this phrase, perhaps it should be changed to something more straightforward. Is it perhaps a British usage? I've honestly never heard it before.
  • "—Gilbert Waldbauer" Why is this source credit just sitting there unassociated with a quote?

Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In this article, "insemination" implies traumatic insemination; breeding implies non-traumatic insemination. In the case of the bean weavil caption, the latter is correct. (Bean weavils don't traumatically inseminate)
      • I don't see this. Every instance of the phrase in the article refers to some kind of traumatic insemination. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming the phrase you are talking about is "bred" or "breeding" - it occurs four times in this article. The first time, in the bean weavil penis caption, it does not refer to traumatic insemination - it refers to non-traumatic insemination (good old-fashioned penis-into-vagina breeding). The second time, in the interspecies section, it is talking about TI. The third and fourth time, in the "Similiar mating practices" section, it refers to non-traumatic insemination. I've removed the second instance to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I missed the last two instances. I guess I was confused about the weevil caption. Bean weevil sex sounds pretty traumatic, but I guess it doesn't meet the technical definition of the term. Thanks for fixing the other instance. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what the deal is with the hanging credit. It has something to do with the quote template. I've switched over the the more familiar blockquote and removed the citation (there's already a reference there). Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In IE8 and Firefox, it's hard to tell the Waldbauer part is a blockquote because it is close to the squirrel mating plug image and the indent doesn't get applied (in IE8 or the latest Firefox release, at least) where the image juts in (depending on window size). I think the blockquote fonts should be shrunk slightly to show they are quotes and not plain body paragraphs—or their background color should be changed, or some other style tweak—to avoid any (unwarranted) cries of plagiarism. I actually thought they were body paras until I saw the source credit (when it was there). --an odd name 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found an easier solution -- I just re-aligned the squirrel pic to the right side. Raul654 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by NuclearWarfare - The four images are fine to use. NW (Talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Decide if you're going to go "page" or "p." and be consistent.
  • Current ref 16 (B. N. Ruck..) needs a last access date
  • Decide if your references gare going to be last name first or first name first and standardize.
  • What is up with the links and wikilinks in current ref 15 (Rezac)? Surely we don't need to link terms in the references?
    • Fixed.
  • What makes the Holland, Erik ref reliable? iUniverse is a self-publishing company. http://www.iuniverse.com/
    • For the paragraphs from Holland that I cite, Holland in turn cites J. Carayon's "Insemination traumatique heterosexuelle et homosexuelle chez Xylocoris maculipennis" (1974, Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences). I've provided the citation, and requested the article (although I don't speak french so I won't be able to get much out of it) Raul654 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't we be better off referencing the original source then? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not proper academic citation style. If someone gets information from document A, which in turn references document B, that person is supposed to cite document A, not B. Optionally, that person can also state that A references B, so that anyone who follows up on that citation can easily find both documents. In this case, that is exactly what I do - cite both. I'm not going to cite just the original, because (a) that's improper academic style, and (b) possibly a mischaracterization (since I don't know what it says because I don't yet have access to the original - I should be able to get to it after labor day - and even when I do, it won't be of much use to me since I can't read french.) Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm uncomfortable with citing a self-published source unless the guy is an expert in the field. Is he? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've added yet another reference to that section which also cites the french paper, making 4 references for that paragraph total. IMO, that should be more than sufficient. (The new reference is John R. Krebs, Nicholas B. Davies - An introduction to behavioural ecology) Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've now dealt with all outstanding issues. Raul654 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Names of genera, such as Auchenacantha, Citellina, Passalurus, Austroxyris and Pomphorhynchus, require capitalisation. William Avery (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All genera and species need to be italicised. 89.240.41.65 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am beginning a look-over now and will jot down queries below - some of the paragraphs are small and give the text a choppy appearance. I will make straightforward changes, but please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Use in the animal kingdom section could do with some buffing - I note that all are invertebrates and many are worms of some sort, so some overview or covering statement indicating what groups of animals the phenomenon is most prevalent in would be good (if possible). Furthermore, I do acknowledge that the phenomenon has been most studied in bedbugs, but if it were possible it'd be good to embellish some other species.
I note that all are invertebrates - this was already noted in the intro, but I've added a second mention in the Use in the animal kingdom section. It's not a coincidence that they are invertebrates -- TI doesn't work in animals with a closed circulatory system, which limits the practice exclusively to invertebrates.
so some overview or covering statement indicating what groups of animals the phenomenon is most prevalent in would be good (if possible). - there is, insofar as I am aware, no unifying group or characteristic for the taxa I've listed there other than their practice of TI (and consequently their open circulatory systems and lack of a spine, both of which are mentioned in the article).
Furthermore, I do acknowledge that the phenomenon has been most studied in bedbugs, but if it were possible it'd be good to embellish some other species. - can you be more specific please? Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the critters listed could do with a couple of words indicating what they are too.
Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written article about a fascinating and disgusting topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article misrepresents evolutionary theory by its use of the word "reason" in this statement: "... Suggested reasons for its development include...". This implies, or might be interpreted to imply, that evolutionary developments must have a reason or purpose - which is not true. In this case because Traumatic Insemination causes harm, the uninformed reader might be led to believe that there must be a reason why such a behaviour would evolve. Evolutionary development of a population species is random without any purpose, subject to the confines of what is possible as determined by the physical laws of biology, chemistry, physics, the current environment, and the current developmental state of the population. All that is required is that the development does not result in permanent decrease in population over time resulting in extinction. I would suggest the following be used instead: "Suggested origins for its development include...". Other language in the article has similar problems: "counter-adaption", "as a way to overcome". These phrases imply that there is a causal relationship between separate evolutionary developments in a population when there is none. The "mating plug" did not cause the evolution of Traumatic insemination. At most, it can only be speculated that the mating plug "enabled" the evolution of Traumatic insemination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drothmailbox (talk • contribs)

  • Support with comments. It's interesting, and approachable to a non-specialist. I performed some fixes but I have a few outstanding issues I couldn't deal with:
    • In the "Use in the animal kingdom", can we make the Opisthobranchia entry a complete sentence for consistency with the others? I would take a stab at it (har har) but I'm afraid of changing the meaning.
    • Can anything be said in the Gastropod snails entry?
    • Someone went around and changed certain instances of "penises" to "penes", introducing inconsistency. I'm going to revert but not sure what is desired.
    • "Traumatic insemination appears to be another of the evolutionarily stable reproductive strategies that may initially appear questionable or even counterproductive ..." No citation in this para; are we to assume its covered by 22? I reviewed the source and it does not seem to support those statements. Is the para meant to summarize previous sourced statements?
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with the Comment above that the article misrepresents evolutionary theory by its use of the word "reason" in certain sections. I tried to reword the lead but I could not fix the whole article. The article needs to be reworded so that it is not suggested that evolution "evolves" to attain certain goals or for specific purposes, or reasons. Examples:
"The evolution of the mating plug is sometimes cited as a reason for the evolutionary development of traumatic insemination."
"Many reasons for the origins of traumatic insemination as a mating strategy have been suggested. One position is that traumatic insemination evolved in response to the development of the mating plug, a reproductive mechanism used by many species."
The blockquote in the article does not support the view that evolution occurs to achieve specific goals or "in response" to anything. —mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section "Mechanics", why is there a description of the human circulatory system, when the article sources support that traumatic insemination occurs in invertebrates only? The implication seems to be that traumatic insemination applies to humans, but the article sources do not support this interpretation.
I agree with comment below that there are too many long quotations
I have tried to fix some of the wording I objected to above. Please see Introduction to evolution for reasons that evolution cannot be posited to "drive" certain results. I also removed a wikilink to a strategy of game theory article that had nothing to do with evolution. I have added a {{fact}} tag for "appear questionable or even counterproductive" per Andy Walsh's comment above. —mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My most substantive comments from the previous FAC have not been addressed. Repeating them here and striking what has been resolved:

Whole article
  • Overuse of long quotes (esp in the 'Homosexual traumatic insemination' section). I'd get rid of all of them; much better to synthesize what several researchers have reported vs quoting a few in long form. Short inline quotes are fine in an article of any size but long quotes, I think, should be avoided in short articles unless absolutely needed. NOTE: This is better than before.
Lead
  • Every paragraph starts with 'Traumatic insemination' - suggest mixing it up a bit to improve readability and flow.
  • Last two paras are two sentences each. Suggest combining them.
Use in the animal kingdom
  • Just a list as is. Suggestion: Much more discussion about how this method of reproduction is represented in the animal kingdom is needed, citing as examples from the list (hopefully, thematically organized somehow into paragraphs). The flatworm / penis fencing bullet is the only one that I think is currently sufficient.
Insect anatomy
  • Seems to be unnecessary as a stand alone section. Suggest merging into the Mechanics section, perhaps putting much of the general background info in a ref note. Seems like too much of an aside right now that hinders flow.
Interspecies traumatic insemination
  • One paragraph sections, especially at level two, are to be avoided. I think this paragraph would fit nicely at the end of an improved 'Use in the animal kingdom' section.

-- mav (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing concerns I have found no concerns, and the use of sources is rather strong (from the pages I could check). 1. There are many quotes that are not directly attributed. This is an easy fix to add some in. 2. In "Similar mating practices", there is a quote that is not cited after the quote. This should be addressed. The quotes should also be attributed to a source for clarity. The one is from TimesOnline, so this should be identified. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I'm afraid this is an impossibly shabby article. When it appeared here in April, it was the merest of stubs. It has since grown, but there is almost no narrative and little coherence to the ideas presented. Consider the lead. Is traumatic insemination found only (or even mainly) among organisms with open circulatory systems? If so, why is that fact not mentioned right away? Instead, why do we have a convoluted first sentence that distracts the reader with words like "wound," and "abdominal cavity?" Why not a sentence like, "Traumatic insemination is a mating practice found (mainly) among some species of invertebrates/arthropods with open circulatory systems in which the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis in order to deposit sperm into the hemolymph for further diffusion to the ovaries." After this you should be telling us something directly related to that first sentence, such as, "Although the open entrance wound in the abdomen usually heals, it can sometimes be infected and endanger the female's health." Instead you have a disconnected sentence, "The process is detrimental to the female's health," and it is only in the next sentence that you begin to lay out the reasons. Next, consider, "The injection of sperm and ejaculatory fluids into the hemocoel can also trigger an immune reaction in the female." Why "sperm and ejaculatory fluids?" Why not "seminal fluid," which contains sperm? In other words, why not, "The injection of seminal fluid into the circulatory system can also trigger an immune reaction in the female?" It is best not to overload the first half of the lead with too many technical terms. You then have two sentences, which seem completely out of place in a lead "perspective." Why do we need to know this special mechanism in the bed bug at this stage, when we are really wondering, "Which arthropods (or other organisms) have adopted this practice? "
Pretty much the entire article has this sort of disconnectedness of narrative. It is not an issue of tweaking of prose here and there (or even everywhere), or improving the section on evolution or some other section. I'm afraid you need to think about this article at a higher level first. What is it you want to say, why it is important, and how do you want to say it. Even your nomination note seems halfhearted, hardly an invitation to the reader to go on an amazing ride. I'm not convinced that you are excited about this topic. Yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 21 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 14:51, 15 September 2009 [20].

Émile Bouchard[edit]

Nominator(s): BashBrannigan (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is comprehensive, clearly written and fully documented with citations. It is also about a significant figure in the history of hockey, not just to Canada and Quebec but also to the NHL. I have ensured the accuracy of everything provided using multiple sources whenever possible. There are also 2 photographs. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The references need publishers; here's a sample edit for you to go by. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done BashBrannigan (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: Copyrights OK. Alt text needs to be improved; see WP:ALT. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed, added alt text BashBrannigan (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see no alt text for either image. Which edits added it? Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I re-read the wiki about the purpose of alt text. I was confusing it for caption. I think I've done it properly on the team photo, but not 100% sure. I'm not sure how to add it to the infobox photo, but I'll keep reading about it. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the infobox template you can use the image_alt parameter. Thanks for the alt text for the team photo. It still needs a bit of work, as it contains two phrases a phrase ("1942 Montreal Canadiens" and "Bouchard is in back row far right.") that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and which needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You quite right, I simply identified Bouchard myself from the photo, which I understand isn’t sufficient. I'll remove the specific reference to Bouchard if necessary. However, I did some googling to see if I could find some external confirmation. I came across this website, which is a tribute to Clifford Goupille who was on the team. It uses the photo and identifies Bouchard along with Goupille:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~girouard/cliff.htm
The website is in french, but the caption translates as: “Canadiens 1942-43. Top row starting from the right: Emile "Butch" Bouchard, Maurice "Rocket" Richard and Cliff Goupille.”
I know English websites are preferred on English Wikipedia, but we’re dealing with French-Canadian players. To me this seems like possible confirmation. What do you think? BashBrannigan (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just I noticed that the wikipedia source for the photo itself IDs Bouchard: "Montreal Canadiens hockey team, October 1942. Back row (left to right): Portland, Lee, Bibault, Laforce, Coupille, Richard, Bouchard. Front row (left to right): Carragher, Harmon, O'Connor, Heffernan, Lach, Demers, Adams" BashBrannigan (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources can be cited in the caption, to support claims in the caption. However, alt text cannot contain references (it's pure text; no wiki markup like "<ref>") and as a practical matter it can't cite sources; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. I suggest moving the phrases in question to the caption and citing the website there, leaving the alt text to focus purely on the visual aspects of the image that are obvious even to a non-expert. Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Says he was born 1920, has a 1919 category. Hekerui (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Internet Hockey Database and Hockey-reference.com give his birthdate as 1920. However the family's website give his birthday as Sept 4, 1919. I assume the family website is considered the authority. Actually, I just checked and one of Hall of Fame articles also give it as 1919. Making the change. Thanks! BashBrannigan (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Numerous prose problems throughout, among other issues, and I'm unsure if the amount of work necessary can be undertaken during an FAC. Here are a few random examples:

  • "A member of the Hockey Hall of Fame who won four Stanley Cups (please link for non-hockey fans), was captain of the Canadiens for eight years and elected to the NHL All Star team (link needed again) four times." This sentence has no subject. Considering that this is the second sentence of the article, I'm concerned.
fixed. I guess I assumed the subject would be take for granted, but I suppose that's not proper. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bouchard arrived at all his NHL training camps in peak condition." The source says nothing of the sort; it states that he was in good condition for the 1941–42 season.
Fixed. I had seen a reference that he arrived to all training camps in peak condition. When/If I find it, I'll add and then revert. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read this, I sense that his accomplishments are being puffed up in a point of view way. I can't pinpoint one exact sentence that makes me feel this way, but there are a few too many "cut an impressive figure" and "became a formidable force"-type phrases for my taste.
Not sure what i can do about this. These are my words, but the references a filled with such superlatives. It would be POV to manufacture mediocrity. However, I'm open to suggestions of alternatives. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was key to the Canadiens first season in several years without losing more games than they won." Apostrophe after Canadiens is needed.
  • "A respectable 19 wins and 19 losses with 12 ties to finish in fourth place." Sentence fragments are a no-no in prose that meets FA standard.
  • "Richard was not just an exciting player who put fans in the seats he was the added offensive ingredient which made the team a power." Entire sentence consists of informal writing that will inevitably confuse non-sports fans.
  • "Canadiens proceeded to dominate the regular season...". "The" missing at start of sentence.
  • "In 1948 Bouchard became the first Quebec born captain of the Canadiens a position he retained for 8 years until his retirement." This sentence should have a comma after Canadiens, and is but one example of numerous missing punctuation in the article.
the above 5 fixed BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1952–53, Bouchard had his third Stanley Cup." "had" needs to be replaced, and the sentence is awfully stubby. Who did Montreal beat?
Change "had" to "won". However, I had deliberately made the sentence short for emphasis of importance of the event. The significance was he won another Cup, not who they defeated. I did link the season to the wiki article for that season if that helps. BashBrannigan (talk)

Much copy-editing is required here. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To meet your other overall concerns, I'm by no means a grammarian, but I can try to take another look-through. thanks. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments -
  • Current ref 3 (Hunter..) lacks a page number
This can be fixed, but not immediately as the book is in a library I will not have access until next week. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Website written by by Joe Pelletier. His website gives his qualifications as: author of two internationally published hockey books: The World Cup of Hockey (2 editions) and Legends of Team Canada. Pelletier has also contributed articles to The Hockey News, Hockey Digest, Sports Illustrated.com, Canadian Hockey Magazine and Total Hockey. He has worked on various projects for Hockey Canada, USA Hockey, the Buffalo Sabres, TSN.ca, CTV NewsNet and the National Post. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It produced by Ice Hockey Annual, which is an annual publication for European Hockey published since 1976. their website is:
http://www.graphyle.com/IHA/index.htm
Also, an award is given out by Ice Hockey Annual which has it’s own wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Hockey_Annual_Trophy BashBrannigan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I reluctantly oppose on a fundamental issue: the article's name. To quote from WP:NAME, "Name articles in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize – usually the most commonly used name in verifiable reliable sources in English." Bouchard is, of course, most widely known to English speakers as Butch Bouchard. Butch has twice as many hits as Emile on both regular Google and Google News. Fischler's Hockey Encyclopedia lists him as Butch, Total Hockey lists him as Butch, the NHL Official Guides list him as Butch, and so should this article.  RGTraynor  15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I can see the logic in this. After all, George Herman Ruth's wikipedia page is under Babe Ruth. I don't think I would oppose changing it to Butch Bouchard, but I would like to get other's opinions on this. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've always known him as Emile, not Butch. While Butch may have been the more common name in the past, I am not certain it is so prevalent as to require renaming this article. Resolute 14:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, even if you limit your search to the past year or two, "Butch" is far more common in Google searches, both for the Web and for news articles. Eubulides (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 14:51, 15 September 2009 [21].

Ruby (Supernatural)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria for featured status. User Peregrine Fisher and I worked hard on the article to bring it up to Good Article status, and I think it is good enough to be featured. Ophois (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical points: The image needs better alt text (it should describe what the image looks like, rather than what is in the image). Ref #18 is a dead link. Image meets copyright policy. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand how I can do that with a close-up image of the character, but I have altered it. Hopefully the new alt text will work. Ophois (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The alt text should be something like "A split image, with a top half shot of a blonde woman wearing a black top and jacket..." Stifle (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that even necessary for a character article? I've looked through about half of the featured media articles, and - while most don't even have alt text - the ones that do either merely repeat the caption word for word, or do what I did, which is list the character and/or portraying actor. Ophois (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, alt text is a fairly new requirement, and the truth is that most editors—me included—struggle with writing high-quality alt text. Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on alt text; you might consult him. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stifle's correct and made a reasonable suggestion (thanks!) for what how the alt text should start. (It should be brief, and shouldn't take much work to write; see WP:ALT#Brevity.) The existing alt text uses proper names and talks about budget cuts and seasons, all of which fails to conform to WP:ALT#Verifiability. Briefly: alt text needs to be verifiable by a non-expert who's looking only at the image. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - lacks sufficient detail with regards to development, portrayal, reception and in particular critical analysis which is sorely lacking. Could do with some Google Books/Scholar research and some more commentary information. Certainly it's a very well-written article, it's just on the small side.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not an uninvolved editor, since I helped with the GAN. But, I think Hitfix can be considered reliable for the statment "Kripke has said that Ruby's goal of separating the brothers and turning Sam to the "dark side" was intended from the beginning." While they're not a no-brainer as an RS, other RSs seem to believe them for interviews and such.[22][23][24][25][26] I would say based on that and that the statement is non-controversial that it's an acceptable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the deadlink, I've ordered the Season 3 companion guide, which hopefully will have the same info in it so that I can source it. If not, I will remove that data. Ophois (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? Ophois (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to read WP:ALT#Verifiability? The alt text still fails to conform to that guideline, as it contains claims (proper names and season numbers) that cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image. Eubulides (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It now says "A split image. On the left is the head of shoulders of an attractive blonde woman in her early twenties. On the right is an attractive brunette in her late twenties with her arms crossed." Hopefully that works. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could describe their hair too, and which direction they're looking. Not sure if that matters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)
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 Dabomb87 21:55, 14 September 2009 [27].

Black Hawk War[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently an GA and I feel it is now ready for FAC. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present; thanks. It needs some work, though:

  • The alt text "Painting of Chief Keokuk" needs to be reworded to describe the visual appearance of the image. "Painting of" is one of the phrases to avoid, and "Chief Keokuk" both repeats the caption and is not verifiable by a non-expert just by looking at the image.
  • Other phrases also have verifiability problems and need to be removed or reworded: "during the Black Hawk War", "Winfield Scott", "where the Spafford Farm massacre occurred", "at Horseshoe Bend", "replica of", "at Apple River".
    • Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last three phrases are still there, I'm afraid. I struck the rest. Eubulides (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed last three. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 46 images lack alt text; to see them, please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Almost all of them are tiny images that should be marked with "|link=" so that they do not need alt text, as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. You'll need to edit Template:Black Hawk War Map. The main image of that map should have alt text that gives the gist of what the map says; please see WP:ALT#Maps.

Eubulides (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has about 12 images, how did you get 46? Will work on the rest of this....We're supposed to put in alt text for dots and x's? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the issue. Fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says there are still three things that need "|link=" but I can find them. Can someone help? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is confusion on |link=. This should be blanked only for decorative images such as flag icons and the like. If you blank the link on regular images, then you can't bring up the image page and check the attribution. The only place it should be blanked in this article is in the flag icon template, which already has it blanked. And the use of the one flag icon makes the infobox unbalanced. And the {{Infobox Military Conflict}} does not have an |alt= field as it uses full image syntax (it was a bad description to boot).
Alt text otherwise needs more work. Alt text consists of words that evoke the image. For example: "Photograph of a Major Isaiah Stillman in a suit with a big bowtie and large sideburns." It should be "Man with long sideburns wearing an old-fashioned suit and cravat." There is a new Altviewer tool to help with this.
The infobox shows the Ho-Chunk, Menominee and Potawatomi on the U.S. side and the Sauk, Fox and Kickapoo with Black Hawk. The content is rather confusing— the Ho-Chunk appear to be belligerents on the Black Hawk side.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Ho-Chunk confusion. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the Stillman alt. This alt tag stuff is all new to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget850 is correct. The "link=" should only be used on images that are PD, otherwise we violate the image license. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the 3 images with missing "link=" and also tweaked the alt text capitalization for consistency. Thanks for writing the alt text, and we're almost done with it, I think. Some remaining problems that I noticed:
  • There are still some phrases (noted above, and not struck out) that fail the verifiability test for alt text. One new phrase with this problem is "American Army general".
  • The alt text for the locator map should give a brief big-picture summary of where the battles are, as this summary is not in the caption or adjacent text. Something like "The battles are clustered in northeast Illinois and southeast Wisconsin." perhaps.
  • It would be helpful for the File:Black Hawk marker.jpg alt text to transcribe what's on that plaque, as per WP:ALT#Text. The text is all legible to the sighted reader, after all.
Fixed all three. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tweaked a couple more WP:ALT#Verifiability problems I saw with the result. It looks good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Ruhrfisch (more to come in the next day or two). Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower (the lead image and map images are exempt from this). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and removed pixel widths from several images, also made three upright, and change old "Image:" file names over to "File:" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for jumping in, but the WP:MOS#Images does not say that all images should be set at default. In fact, it says: "A picture may benefit from a size other than the default.". Non-editors generally do not have preferences set. Madman (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MOS:IMAGES lists several cases where it may be appropriate to use a non "thumb" or "upright" width and I did not see that it applied to the ones I changed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I actually just read this article last week, because of the Sufjan Stevens song I'll admit, but I saw it was very well written. One thing I wasn't sure about, like was just said, were the image sizes. Be sure to use the "upright" tag for ones like Isaiah Stillman. There's also a one sentence paragraph before "Cholera epidemic" that could be combined into the one before it.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check:
  • That's the only problem I could find. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because what they say is supported by other refs. But rather than hash that all out, I deleted them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments not quite the ancient history I prefer, but very interesting!
    • The info box image looks rather funny as it's a portrait in an infobox designed for a landscape picture. Perhaps an battle image could go there, with Black Hawk's picture moved to the body?
I have to disagree. It's named after him so I think it's appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is common placement for such templates. See the FA Boshin War — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The land ceded in the treaty included the village of Saukenuk, but Black Hawk did not sanction the sale of this land and was determined to remain in his village." Maybe it should be made clearer early in the sentence that it's black hawk's village?
fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The war would see a number of small skirmishes and "massacres"." Since massacres is in scare quotes, it's obviously showing some bias, but it's not made apparent. Perhaps a footnote explaining this styling?
fixed by removing the quotes, good catch. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The massacre was most likely perpetrated by Ho-Chunk warriors unaffiliated with Black Hawk's band.[20][28] It is also unlikely they had the sanction of their nation.[20][28] " This is one of a few areas in the text where the citations are unnecessarily doubled.
Just saw that on my own and fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The second half of June 1832 brought more battle; this time the militia would be dominant. " It could just be me, but this sentence sounds rather strange (more "battle" instead of "battles", and the militia being "dominant"? What does that mean?)
Cut that sentence entirely, it's not really necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Battle of Waddams Grove, also called the Battle of Yellow Creek occurred on June 18, 1832 near Yellow Creek in present-day Stephenson County, Illinois.[37][44] The fight became a bloody battle with bayonets and knives. " Another curious wording. We know it's a battle, so why should it be mentioned as becoming a "bloody battle". What makes it any more bloody than others? The fact that it became a close-quarters fight? We aren't expressly told that.
Did a copyedit. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some places where alternate names slow down the flow of the text ("The Battle of Waddams Grove, also called the Battle of Yellow Creek", "The Battle of Bad Axe, also known as the Bad Axe Massacre,") which I think could be safetly cut.
Disagree about Yellow Creek as it's a totally different name, but agree on Bad Axe Massacre so I cut that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess leading off on my earlier nitpicks it just seems like theres not unnecessary wording that's perhaps a bit too colored to be useful. I'm afraid I dn't have the time to fully go through the article, but these are just some general comments I hope you might be able to use. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reference issues
  • <ref name=lewis3>Lewis, "Introduction."</ref> uses a duplicate name and no template
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ref name=jung5> uses a duplicate name
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mixes the standard footnote system and shortened footnotes— it should use only one system.
This is called hybrid and perfectly legit, see FA William D. Boyce — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NP. Hybrid uses harvbn for books and cite for others. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works by James Lewis are defined as a reference in six instances. This results in the same HTML ID, which makes the HTML invalid.[28]

This is a technical issue that I am looking into fixing, but not a showstopper for FA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that last edit you made generated an extra set of }} at the end of each footnote. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah— ain't cut & past grand? Anyway, I fixed it by using the |ref= parameter (which isn't documented). Every cite has an HTML id associated with it, and you can't have duplicate ids in a document. {{citation/core}} generates the id, then {{cite web}} "simplifies" it, leaving us very open to duplicate ids. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oppose. I notice that the two modern academic histories (books by Jung & Trask) are very sparsely cited, referencing only a handful of pages towards the end of each book, which may raise suspicions that the books were not actually read, but only glimpsed through Google Book Search. By comparison, the brief overview of the war on the Abraham Lincoln website is far more frequently cited. This does not appear to me to be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic", as required by 1c. Should I worry that the article has not be thoroughly researched? —Kevin Myers 04:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I tried use a multitude of sources to cover the many subtopics of the article. Note others have commented here and on the article talk it's well covered. The Lincoln site is currently used 9 times, Jung 8, and Trask 4; I don't consider that "far more frequently", certainly not in Jung's case. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count about 30 citations for the Lincoln site.
Your response gives me no confidence that the modern academic histories were read. Having some other Wikipedians say that an article is well-covered is no substitute for actually reading the scholarly books on the topic. Presumably, those editors haven't read the books either. So we really can't be sure what revelations or controversies are covered in the apparently unread pages of the books I mentioned. Similarity, a "multitude" of web sources is no substitute for a thorough reading of the modern academic histories. This is especially true when the subject is Native Americans, a topic that has seen a revolution in scholarship in the last 30 years. Therefore, I'll have to oppose for falling short of 1c, "well-researched". Sorry, and best of luck. —Kevin Myers 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have to agree with Kevin Myers on this, and made a similar comment that the Jung book is not cited much about a month ago on the talk page. While I have not read the whole Jung book, I have read the chapter on the Bad Axe Massacre and it included material not in this article (or the Bad Axe article). I also note that this article needs to be consistent on whether or not British Band is in quotation marks. In the interest of full disclosure, I have made some edits here, mostly related to the map I made. Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this nom. I added several Jung refs and you didn't even notice and opposing because one particular favorite ref of you two wasn't used? I regret wasting my time on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 14 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 16:22, 14 September 2009 [29].

Samba school[edit]

Nominator(s): Quintinense (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because is a traduction of article escola de samba, featured in Portuguese Wikipedia. I'm not speak english very well, but littles erros of gramatic or traduction can be easily repaired.

I think this article perfectly explains the details of the carnival, in addition to sources for quse has all the information. There are still minor errors of syntax in the wiki markup due to differences between the codes of pt.wiki and en, but I understand that vcs how to easily and even a bot can fix broken refs. Quintinense (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest withdrawal No offense intended, but you can't expect to just run an article through a translator and expect "brilliant prose" to result; indeed, many sentences don't even make sense:

  • "Were Sambistas of Estácio, with the founding of Deixa Falar (Let Speaking) in 1928, who organized the foundations of current schools of samba, including Ismael Silva, in his idea of creating a carnavival block different, he could dance and move to the sound of samba."
  • "In writing of the newspaper - which also housed a successful composers (such as Antônio Nassar, Armando Reis and Orestes Barbosa), the idea of holding the organization of a Carnival parade"
  • "It is a kind of orchestra with percussion instruments, to accompany the singing and lead the pace of the parade." I assume this is referring to the section header "Battery", but these type of references are very confusing.
  • "It is the name by which may be called the president, the president of honor and patron of the school. You can also refer to this way of carnival directors."

Just a few examples of why this is not close to FA quality at the moment. I suggest withdrawing and working with an English speaker to work out the problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • While the prose may not have as many grammatical errors as one might expect, it requires a thorough copy-edit for the prose to be "brilliant".
  • Images need ALT text.
  • Non of the sources are in English. It's OK to have some non-English sources, but too many makes the article unverifiable.
  • The obvious formatting issues.

I'm sorry to say so, but I suggest you withdraw this and take it to peer review. Mm40 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - in addition to the obviously non-FA quality of the English prose, some image captions and headings are not even in English at all (what does "quesites" mean?), four images in the lead is three too many and makes it look a right mess, various other formatting issues. Strongly suggest withdrawal as per the guys/gals above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 16:49, 13 September 2009 [30].

24th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it is an A-class article and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both issues. —Ed!(talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nice job. I tweaked it a bit for punctuation, and so that details can be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. Eubulides (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • In the lede, what are the "other disbanding units" it was formed from? No units are listed to be others from, if that makes sense.
  • In the lede, you might want to clarify from where and to where it was withdrawn during the Korean War.
  • According to my copy of Webster's, "post-war" should be written as one word, no hyphen.
  • The assertion that the Americal division, etc. were the last named divisions isn't covered in the Globalsecurity cite.
    • Removed that detail since I couldn't find a ref for it. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that the information about the "one post" concentration is copied directly from Globalsecurity. Even with the citation, it bothers me.
  • For the phrase "manned at higher levels", is that rank or numbers of personnel?
  • Triangular Division TO&E really needs to be explained, either in a footnote, parenthetical aside, or child article like the other TO&Es.
  • In the fourth paragraph of the Hawaiian Division section, were all three regiments from the Hawaiian National Guard, or just the last one?
  • Phrases like "July of 1942" should be "July 1942" for simplicity's sake. There are a few of these.
    • Are there any more of these? I think all of them are gone. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got tense shifting going on between past perfect and simple past tense ... in the first paragraph of the World War II section, forex, you switch from "would be" to "was" and back (fixed now, see diff). For simplicity's sake, I'd suggest just using "was" or "were" throughout the article.
    • Is there anywhere else where the tense isn't consistent? —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the Leyte map caption isn't a complete sentence.
  • The article alternates between using a comma after years. Forex, there's things like "October 4, 1944," and "October 4, 1944" throughout the article. Pick one and stick with it.
  • I know what the expression "mopping up" means, but it's a bit jargony. Can you wikilink it, explain it in a footnote, or a parenthetical phrase?
  • In the sentence "Divisional elements effected a landing on Marinduque Island", is that elements of the 24th or another division?
  • "under the hot sun on a well-defended Rock" is poetic, but pretty unencyclopedic. Did the heat affect the unit's performance, and/or can it be cited?
  • The "Five days later" in Task Force Smith doesn't say what it's five days after ... I assume after the president's order, but no date was given in the preceding paragraph.
    • The first sentence of the preceeding paragraph states "June 25." —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain the "Kansas Line and Utah Line"?
    • Clarified that they are just lines of defense. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "above Osan" isn't really precise ... which direction "above" the town?
  • I'm unclear about the phrase "for the first month" ... when does that month start -- with the arrival of TF Smith, the main body of the division, or something else?
  • Citation 82 looks like it's doing something funky with the external link.
    • I can't seem to figure out what's wrong. Any ideas? —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for the duplicate ISBN identifiers in the sources section?
  • What sort of equipment did the division use before the Gulf War? Even if it's only the standard U.S. Army stuff for each period, stating so would be helpful (if a citation can justify it, of course).
  • In the infobox, it's mentioned as being active through 1970, but the article mentions a deactivation in 1958.
    • Clarified. The division was only deactivted and reactivated in an organizational sense; in reality it was only moved. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation No. 2 doesn't appear to cover the assertion that the division was inactivated in 2006. It only shows the 1999 reactivation.
    • Replaced with a better ref. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking active duty, Army Reserve and Army National Guard in the training command section is odd, since all three appear earlier in the article. What's the reason?
  • Nicely cited, illustrated, and structured. I'll give the article a full readthrough when I get a chance. I've given the article a readthrough and made some changes. Don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions, concerns, comments, or just want to let me know that I screwed something up. (That happens quite a bit. The screwing up part, not the letting me know about it part.) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed all of your points. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff. Three more comments:
  • On citation 82, I tried fixing it too, but couldn't get it to work. Looks as though the template is misfiring. I suggest just killing the template and using a plain-text solution formatted like the end result of the template.
    • Actually I just figured out what was wrong, the link ommitted the "http://" so the software didn't recognize it. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide page numbers for citations 27 and 28 and an ISBN/ASIN for No. 28?
  • I'm not clear on citation 86 ... is a title missing from that?
  • That's about it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent article with adequate prose and high-quality citations that appears to cover the subject in detail. All of my concerns and questions have been addressed, so there's no reason I can't support its listing as a featured article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:MOSDASH, indeed the MilHist style guide, for the spacing of en dashes in date ranges (infobox).
  • "... driving Japanese forces from them at the end of the war. The division then participated in post-war patrol operations ...". Which word has to go?
  • Link to "Chinese"—can you find a section or more specific article to link to? Or perhaps no link. Same with "North Korean"—the readers shouldn't be diverted to stuff about Kim Il whatever that fascist is called, in modern times. This is historical stuff. Is there a history section in North Korea? And instead of [[Japan]]ese, perhaps a section of History_of_Japan? And here's a disambig. page for Japanese_military, including Military history of Japan, which might give ideas. Please make the links as specific as you can; the added utility for our readers is significant.
  • Gulf War—first or second? Readers shouldn't have to hit the link to learn which.
    • Switched to Persian Gulf War, as the article says that it has been called both the First and Second Gulf wars, according to different sources. —Ed!(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you audit for "then", which is often unnecessary.
  • Comma before "but" at the end of the lead.
  • The red links aren't a deal breaker, but they don't add to the visual appearance in the Hawaiin Division section. You could stub them to turn them blue, or unlink them ... or keep them.
    • I feel strongly that each of the four redlinked units at the beginning of the article are notable and deserving of their own articles. I will create them when I have time. —Ed!(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Te Leyte map will send me blind. Can it be bigger please? In fact I've lashed out and boosted it; please see whether it's too big now. Could even be 400px and centred. Why not? Shock us with the pic of the soldier, please. It's important to the impact of the article.
    • The resized images look good to me. Thanks. —Ed!(talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's rather well written. Nice. I'll try to return in a day or two. Tony (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I'm crazy, but the information on the division's creation seems a bit thin. Why was the Hawaii Division reformed? Staxringold talkcontribs 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing comments - before that, why is there a 55k article with only a 2 paragraph lead? ;/ That first "paragraph" needs expansion before it can count as one. :P Also, that info box is overwhelmingly wide. Is there anyway to trim the width by 5 pixels or so?
  • That's not my infobox. It's a standard Military Unit infobox, so I have no control of its size. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. "It was activated under the Square Division Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) on February 25, 1921 as the Hawaiian Division at Schofield Barracks, Oahu." Was not found in This source. The source does cite the first sentence in the section. Also, this source says "Activated 1 March 1921 at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii", which is 4 days after what our article says. This should be fixed or found in a new source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "As the US Army withdrew from Vietnam and reduced its forces, the 24th Infantry Division and its three brigades were inactivated on April 15, 1970 at Fort Riley" This is a lot more detail in the source, and a better source could probably be found to cite this line. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. "as part of the program to build a 16-division US Army force." This justification is not found in the source, and, like for 2, could probably be cited to a much better source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "As part of the Army's reduction to a ten-division force" - same as 2 and 3. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "but with no subordinate divisional units" Not in the source, as the source doesn't mention subordinate divisions. You might want to just cut the end or cite this last clause to another source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the end out. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. "The 24th Infantry Division was awarded five campaign streamers and two unit decorations in World War II" The five campaign streamers I can see. I don't see two unit decorations for WWII (only one from what I can see - "Philippine Presidential Unit Citation for 17 OCTOBER 1944 TO 4 JULY 1945"). Perhaps one of the others is something for WWII and I just can't tell, if so, then ignore this as it would all check out (the total math checks out). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. "The entire Hawaiian Division was concentrated at a single during the next few years, allowing it to conduct more effective combined arms training. It was also manned at higher personnel levels than other divisions, and its field artillery was the first to be motorized" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Source - "Unlike most divisions in the continental United States, the 24th was concentrated on one post during the interwar years, which enabled it to conduct more effective combined arms training. It was also manned at higher levels than other divisions, and its field artillery was the first to be motorized" - A few things. The article ends at "a single" and is missing a word. The "which enabled it to conduct more effect combined arms..." needs to be rewritten to distance it from the source. Simple fix. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Its brigade headquarters was disbanded and the 27th and 35th Infantry regiments were assigned to the new 25th Infantry Division" I could not find this in the source. Move the current citation forward and add a citation for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. "replacing the 11th Airborne Division in a reflagging ceremony" - that makes it sound like the 11th Airborne was just performing reflagging ceremonies. :) Perhaps "replacing... after a reflagging ceremony" or something else to that effect. By the way, I could not find a reflagging ceremony in this source. Please cite it to one that discusses it. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. "The 24th was organized under the Pentomic Division TO&E, in which its combat forces were organized into five oversized battalions" I could not find this in the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Article - "Targeted for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) role, the 24th Division was reorganized as a mechanized division in 1979"
11. Source - "Targeted for a NATO role, the division was reorganized as a mechanized infantry unit in 1979." Please rewrite this to distance it from the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Article - "In fall 1994, Iraq again threatened the Kuwaiti border, and two brigades from the division returned to southwest Asia" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Source - "In the fall of 1994 Iraq again menaced the Kuwaiti border, and two brigades from the division returned to Southwest Asia. " Please rewrite this to distance it from the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Article - "From 1999 to 2006, the 24th Infantry Division consisted of a headquarters and three separate National Guard brigades; the 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team at Clinton, North Carolina, the 218th Heavy Brigade Combat Team at Columbia, South Carolina, and the 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Macon, Georgia" Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Source - "On June 5, 1999, the 24th Infantry Division [...] consists [...] headquarters at Fort Riley and three enhanced separate brigades: 30th Heavy Separate Brigade at Clinton, North Carolina, 218th Heavy Separate Brigade at Columbia, South Carolina, and the 48th Separate Infantry Brigade in Macon, Georgia." I know this is a list but it would be nicer to try and get this further from the source. Perhaps just mentioning how many Brigades without the location and without their numbering? Or just end it at "three enhanced separate brigades" with a small mention of it being the first to integrate National Guard units. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust you to make the above changes and to go through and try to summarize and paraphrase better. I will check back by the end of the week and see how the work goes. I hope to be able to support. By the way, I merely spot checked some of the sources. I will spot check again with additional sources checked when I look back in to see how everything has progressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that the work has gone so slowly, but I haven't had a lot of spare time lately. I will strive to make all of the improvements that you have suggested. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pending resolution of above-mentioned image issue. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (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 14:12, 8 September 2009 [31].

A Place With No Name[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This little article has already had a busy few months here: it has been the subject of three AFDs (1, 2, 3), which themselves have been topics in two Signpost reports (here and here). Despite initiating the first debate and pressing for deletion in the two subsequent ones, I have cleaned the article up and feel that it meets the FA criteria. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Pyrrhus16 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - its, a little, broken up in terms, of the, amount of commas. Let me have a read through and see if I can improve matters. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - on reading through (its a short article) I'd say that it fails the FA criteria on 1.(b). There simply isn't enough detail yet for this to be (IMO) considered a featured article. Matters may be improved with time, when more information becomes available, and if the song is released, but I would have at least expected commentary in the similarities between the two songs, and short audio clip of one or both. The article is also missing a citation for the blockquote. My suggestion is, wait a few months until its released and garners some reviews, and add that to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (1) The body of the text appears to "borrow" from this article to the point of plagiarism, and (2) It reeks of bullshit ("It has been reported that the singer and America shared a manager in the late 80s"? Michael Jackson's manager in the late 80s was Frank DiLeo, who as far as I know had no connection to America). Sorry, but I'm more inclined to AFD this than to promote it to FA. – iridescent 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would recommend a peer review and then maybe GAN but some articles will never be FA. I have been proved wrong though. Spiderone 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with preceding three editors. JN466 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not deleteable, but not featureable either. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that this article could never be featured, but given the relatively sparse currently available information about it, and (!!!) the fact that it is unreleased but has the potential to be released someday, it won't be ready for a while. This is around where an article on "You Know You're Right" would be in 2000. Give it time, wait for its release, then go through WP:GAN and WP:PR. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per above and fails 1(b). Possibly wait until further developments. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2009 (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 18:13, 6 September 2009 [32].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Georges[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article thoroughly covers the topic and meets FA standards. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and mostly good (thanks), but the alt text for the lead (infobox) image is merely "Track of Hurricane Georges", which doesn't convey much info to the visually impaired reader, and also contains a claim (that this is the track of Hurricane Georges) that can't easily be verified by a non-expert. Please reword it to not use the name, and to briefly describe where the track goes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text for the track wasn't there, I added it using what was put for the track in another article in the Georges series. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding alt text to the lead image. I also added support to Template:Infobox Hurricane History to make it all work. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to see some non-NHC/HPC sources. While I don't doubt the topic's notability, it's generally best to have a variety of sources. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Echoing Julian's comment, this article is not comprehensive. Here's a small sampling of some scholarly articles about the subject, that are not mentioned in the article. Ping me when these (and others) have been consulted and included, and I'll be happy to reconsider my oppose. Sasata (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title: Currents and sediment transport in the Mississippi Canyon and effects of Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Ross, C. B.; Gardner, W. D.; Richardson, M. J., et al. Source: Continental Shelf Research Volume: 29 Issue: 11/12 Pages: 1384-1396 Published: 2009
  • Ecological correlates and short-term effects of relocation of a rare epiphytic orchid after Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Tremblay, R. L. Source: Endangered Species Research Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Pages: 83-90 Published: 2008
  • Title: Adaptive use of research aircraft data sets for hurricane forecasts. Author(s): Biswas, MK; Krishnamurti, TN. Source: METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS Volume: 99 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 43-64 Published: 2008
  • Title: Damage and recovery of riparian sierra palms after Hurricane Georges: Influence of topography and biotic characteristics. Author(s): Zimmerman, JKH; Covich, AP. Source: BIOTROPICA Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Pages: 43-49 Published: JAN 2007
  • Title: Observation of ocean current response to 1998 Hurricane Georges in the Gulf of Mexico. Author(s): Zheng, QN; Lai, RJ; Huang, NE, et al. Source: ACTA OCEANOLOGICA SINICA Volume: 25 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-14 Published: 2006
  • Title: Effects of Hurricane Georges on the resident Avifauna of Maricao State Forest, Puerto Rico. Author(s): Tossas, AG. Source: CARIBBEAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume: 42 Issue: 1 Pages: 81-87 Published: 2006
  • Title: The behaviour of a hawksbill turtle data-logged during the passage of hurricane Georges through the Caribbean. Author(s): Storch, S; Hays, GC; Hillis-Starr, Z, et al. Source: MARINE AND FRESHWATER BEHAVIOUR AND PHYSIOLOGY Volume: 39 Issue: 4 Pages: 307-313. Published: DEC 2006
  • Title: Observed boundary layer wind structure and balance in the hurricane core. Part I: Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Kepert, JD. Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 63 Issue: 9 Pages: 2169-2193 Published: SEP 2006
Most of these don't apply to this article which is about the Meteorological history of the storm, not impact. At least two of these do apply though and I'll read through them and add information where needed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources (what there are of them) look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 1 September 2009 (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 18:13, 6 September 2009 [33].

Boys in Red accident[edit]

Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this is one of the best disaster related articles on Wikipedia and as such exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. If people disagree than I will quickly change minds. All comments are much appreciated. Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The lead is lacking. It was the deadliest since 1989, but when was it? The lead can be expanded to summarize the article better. Reywas92Talk 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reywas I changed the lead slightly in order to make it more clear when the event occurred and it's consequences. It's a brief touch up tonight as I have some limited time right now. Tomorrow though I will try to fully fix the lead to make it more engaging. Thanks for your comment! --Kuzwa (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::I have a general idea of two new possible leads. However the one I prefer does not meet the WP:Lead rule of putting the article subject as soon as possible, usually in the first sentence. I think a better opening can be made putting the subject in the second sentence but I'm not sure if that is common place or even allowed in FA's. If requested I could make a draft and link here. Does anyone know if I could do this? --Kuzwa (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the above comment I've changed the lead and I hope it is now up to your satisfaction. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present; thanks. However, the alt text for the lead image, "Wrecked white van on snowy terrain" is a bit too terse, as it fails to capture useful info in that image that is not present in the caption or in nearby text. Please modify it to briefly describe the appearance of the wreck, e.g., the fact that the right side and rear of the van is sheared off. Eubulides (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn support - Interesting read, only one small nitpick.
  • The civic centre could only contain 3,500 people, so many mourners filled the adjacent rink to observe the service on a widescreen television. - cite. ceranthor 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your support. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't take this offensively, but I am withdrawing my support based on another read of this article. I think it could use a copyedit, so I'll run through. The reason I am withdrawing this support is the prose. ceranthor 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha no problem, care to point out what needs an edit though? :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences are a bit choppy, try to make them more varied in sentence structure. There is nothing wrong with the current prose, just that it is a little boring. ceranthor 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it when I have time and am a bit more focused. Thanks for the suggestion. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to Weak support - The prose flows well, I think, and gets the job done, so I'll give it a shot. Please ask a copyeditor to run through, particularly one who does work with FA's. ceranthor 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceranthor I'm still a bit busy and am fearing I may be somewhat inactive until the weekend. I have placed a request to the Guild of Copyeditors so that hopefully one of the members reviews it. As soon as I'm fully back I will pursue any major issues. Shouldn't hinder my ability to combat minor ones however. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Thanks for your comments. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I did some copyediting, and found a couple of things that make me feel this isn't quite ready. A more detailed run through by a good copyeditor would address quite a few things. I found (and fixed) a statement in the lead that was cited but not supported by the source given, and I also tried to improve the precision of some of the statements. The content appears to be all here, and the structure is fine, but the writing is not quite there yet. If I have more time I will try to take a pass myself. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike thanks for your time you put looking into the article. I have already requested a copy edit as mentioned above so I'm currently waiting on that. I'm currently busy getting ready for a rather hectic year in school so pardon for my inactivity! --Kuzwa (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2009 (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 18:13, 6 September 2009 [34].

Bubbles (chimpanzee)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to nominate this rather unusual article for Featured Article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I think it is comprehensive and engaging, although the latter is probably due to the interesting facts within the article, as opposed to extremely excellent writing on my part. With that said, I welcome any comments or suggestions. Thank you. Pyrrhus16 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ... This is one of the more unusual articles around, yes? It is nicely written, modestly illustrated. There were a few punctuation inconsistencies, which I simply fixed. I hope that's okay (some punctuation outside the quotation marks, some inside, stuff like that). Two of the links were firewalled, but I had no trouble getting through when I clicked on them directly (not using the aides provided above).
Writing. Nicely written. Clear sentence structure, no major grammatical errors, and in fact no minor ones either. The portions on the maids and the previous chimps was a bit unclear. It probably should be clearer that Bubbles didn't throw his feces on the wall, but some of his predecessors did.
Notability. Uh....well anything about MJ is notable, I suppose, and since Bubbles' autobiography is coming out, there will be some interest in his life.
Images. I'm not qualified to check these. Someone who understands free use mumbo-jumbo will have to do that.
Comprehensiveness. Do we know anything about Bubbles' life before his years with Michael Jackson? There is also that chimp in Ohio who went wacko and tried to rip someone's arm out. Is this a pattern when male chimps get to be a certain age? Is there something that the experts have to say about that?
Last Question. Is this for real? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is what for real? This nomination? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I've tried to find more on Bubbles' life before Jackson, but to no avail. I'll see if I can find anything on other chimps being aggressive, and perhaps add it to the article as you suggested. Pyrrhus16 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. We need more information, assuming it exists, about Bubbles before and after the Jackson years. Unless Jackson was a closet ALF activist, he probably didn't "rescue" Bubbles as such, so what did happen? Also, the suicide attempt afterwards sounds implausible. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I've tried Google Books, Google News and the Jackson books I own. I couldn't find anymore on his life before meeting Jackson. 2) I've changed rescued to adopted. 3) There has been no scientific evidence to rule out animal suicide, which is why it's presented as a possibility in the article, but not an outright lie. Pyrrhus16 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found a couple of potentially useful news articles. I can email them to you if you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be great! I have wiki email enabled, so you can send it from here. Pyrrhus16 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outdent) A note on where Bubbles was born has been added, as well as some additional info. Pyrrhus16 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Is there a link missing in current ref 6 (Huey, Steve..)?
  • There was a link to the article, but following Jackson's death it redirected to an MTV tribute page for Jackson. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware you're referencing "When Jackson's longtime friend Elizabeth Taylor attended the opening of the Whitman-Walker Clinic's Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center, she was accompanied by the singer and Bubbles. Jackson and the ape wore matching military uniforms." to a book classified as fiction??? http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A080217048X
  • Lol. I didn't notice that; I only read the one page on Google Books. I have removed it. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, nicely illustrating why it's not wise to rely on Google books for sourcing, what'd you replace it with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't replaced it with anything. I've removed the two sentences. Pyrrhus16 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with the article is that it buys into the tabloid perspective that Michael Jackson rescued some poor animal, gave it a home, loved it, then sadly they had to part. But from a cursory reading of some of the stories, it seems that Bubbles was born into an animal lab, then was removed from his mother and sold to Bob Dunn of Bob Dunn's Animal Services, [35] a Hollywood company that trained animals for movies and commercials. At some point, Jackson seems to have purchased Bubbles, though the animal continued mostly to live with Dunn, being borrowed by Jackson when the latter wanted Bubbles around. The larger Bubbles became, the less that happened. Dunn reportedly decided to retire in January 2005, [36] and Bubbles was sent to an animal sanctuary, along with Dunn's other non-human primates: 11 chimpanzees and six orangutans in all. The "attempted suicide" story is almost certainly nonsense. (Though Dunn said he was retiring, his website still exists. [37])

The United States Department of Agriculture has criticized Dunn a few times for unsanitary conditions. A PETA investigation in 2004 led to further criticism. [38]

Many of the newspaper stories about Bubbles adopted a tone of mockery, which the WP article copies. I think it needs a rewrite, more sources to pin down where Bubbles was born and who purchased him from the lab, if that's what happened — or at least to report the discrepancies — and generally a more neutral tone and perspective. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that Bubbles was purchased by Jackson through Dunn, the middle man. I couldn't find any more sources to shed light on his early life. Suicide in animals has not been ruled; it is believed to be a possibility. I doubt there will ever be a position on the topic that people agree on, and there probably won't be a conclusive answer to the debate on it. Pyrrhus16 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few questions: do you have any reliable sources that offer evidence of non-human primate suicide? Do you have any that seriously suggest Bubbles did this, not counting mockery? What is your source that says Dunn bought Bubbles on Jackson's behalf?
Also, here's a link to the Washington Times story so that you don't need to link to a subscription-only site. Note that it says Bubbles wasn't visited by Jackson at the sanctuary, that's he's being maintained by public donations, that he could live until he's 60, and he was born in 1983. That probably belongs in the article. You might also want to research whether anything was left for Bubbles or the sanctuary in the will. Note also the discrepancy between the W/Times and a Telegraph article that says Jackson did visit him at the sanctuary.
There's a clip here suggesting that Jackson used sign language to communicate with Bubbles, which would be interesting to explore. [39]
The problem with the article is that it simply repeats the news sources — many of which were in turn repeating press releases from Jackson's staff, which were designed to make him look good — rather than using the news sources as a way of getting deeper into the story. For example, you repeat the claim that Jackson taught Bubbles to moonwalk, but there are clips on YouTube of Bubbles doing this, and he is simply walking backwards. [40] Do chimps tend to walk backwards anyway, or is this likely to have been mimicry? You may not get to the bottom of it, but an FA needs to explore it briefly, assuming the sources exist.
If I were writing this article, I would e-mail Bob Dunn (his address is on the website I linked to), and get as much information from him as I can. Then I would use what he tells me to find articles about it. He may even have an archive of articles he can direct you to, though bear in mind that he may not direct you to anything negative. Try some of the animal-welfare organizations to see if any of them wrote about the Jackson-Bubbles relationship. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is this profile that makes it sound like Bubbles was bought by Jackson through Dunn. I'll certainly add some of your suggestions to the article, and note the discrepencies about Jackson visiting Bubbles. I'll also look into emailing Dunn, to get some details from him. Pyrrhus16 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, animal suicide has been reported for many years, as seen in this article. In the Bubbles article, it is not presented as something he definitely attempted, but notes that it has been alleged as a possibility. Pyrrhus16 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your suicide source is from 1884. You'd need something more recent and rigorous. None of the sources you're citing are reporting it as a serious thing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any rigorous recent sources in my search. However, it doesn't change the fact that the suicide attempt claim was made, which is what is reported in the article and the references. It does not state that Bubbles did attempt suicide, but that the media reported an allegation. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sentence "The center for apes, where the care for each animal costs around $17,000, also houses 41 other chimpanzees and orangutans." needs to state the time period that the $17,000 figure applies to. JN466 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. I've written to the Center to ask if they could release some images of Bubbles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what the external link right after the birth year is supposed to be. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must have been added with the intention of using it as a ref. I've removed it, along with the date, as Bubbles couldn't have been born in 1983 if he was adopted at the age of three by Jackson in 1985. Pyrrhus16 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Big problems with the tone and the prose.

  • Opening sentence: "... Jackson. Jackson ...". Why not "... Jackson, who adopted ..."?
  • Erky-perky, not a good sentence (third one): "Despite the pair enjoying a close relationship, many media sources mocked what was reported as a friendship." There's noun plus -ing in a very awkward guise. The logic (based on "despite") is unclear—there was mockery and reporting of a friendship in the press, yes? Which bit is despite the "close relationship"? My head is spinning.
  • "The association"—that refers to this "relationship/friendship"? Now we have three words for the same thing; very confusing for the poor readers. "The association—along with other factors—led the public to think of Jackson as a bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood, and he was subsequently dubbed "Wacko Jacko"." Are the other factors the child sex allegations? May as well not be coy about it. The giggles at the subsequent sharing of a two-bedroom hotel suite are already palpable.
  • "Thoughout" is odd.
  • It's all looking very bizarre; perhaps you could warn the readers before they get to the private toilet bit and the suicide attempt that this relationship was part of Michael Jackson's highly eccentric persona? The place to do it is in an expanded text around where you talk of the mockery. Needs a careful foregrounding right there. Tony (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the pros-and-cons of the prose, the "other factors" aren't the child sex allegations, which came much later; they're undeniably weird but not particularly interesting tabloid claims - "He sleeps in a pyramid!", "He bought the Elephant Man's skeleton!", "He lives in a hyperbaric chamber!", "He lobbied Spielberg for the role of Peter Pan in Hook!", "He tried to file a patent on leaning backwards!" (those last two were true) and so on. They all built up the gradual "Whacko Jacko" figure, and deserve a mention in Michael Jackson (as indeed they are), but aren't significant enough in and of themselves to warrant listing here. – iridescent 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was several years before the first set of allegations that he was named "Wacko Jacko". I've altered the lead per your concerns, and am working on your last request. Pyrrhus16 17:26, 4 September 2009 (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 18:13, 6 September 2009 [41].

Aliso Creek (Orange County)[edit]

Nominator(s): Shannon1talk contribs 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed GA, received major cleanup, received a peer review, and received another major cleanup in and after the process, and received highly positive opinions on the WP:RIVER talk page. I feel this article is now referenced over enough and of a standard enough to reach FA. I know most of the river FA's are very small streams - this is the first one that flows directly into the ocean. Shannon1talk contribs 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Shannontalk SIGN! 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. The existing alt text is a good start, but there are some problems:
  • Sorry, the alt viewer is currently busted where it looks at an old (cached) version of the article. However, it is currently (correctly) showing that 7 images lack alt text. Of these, 4 (the highway sign shields) are purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images; the other 3 need alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Image:AlisoCreekReliefMap.jpg the alt text "Topography of the creek's watershed" doesn't convey much useful info to the visually impaired reader. What does that image say about the topography? The alt text should tell us that. (done)
  • Similarly, for Image:Alisocreek orange map.png the alt text "There are 8 cities in the Aliso Creek watershed." is a bit terse. Some cities should be named at least, perhaps the ones at either end, and the role of Sulpher Creek in that illustration should be mentioned, shouldn't it? (done)
  • The alt text "A large storm drain outlet on the right side of the creek" is mostly a repeat of part of the caption. Alt text should avoid repeating the caption, and should say what extra useful info the image tells you. (done)
Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on it. Aside from the images missing alt text, as noted above, I currently see these problems:
  • In maps, please replace phrases like "upper right (northeast)" with "northeast". The "upper right" is a relatively unimportant detail, whereas the "northeast" is the gist of the image. Please see WP:ALT#Maps. (done)
  • "The beginning of the canyon the creek cuts through the mountains." is not a sentence. There's a similar problem with "The end of the canyon the creek cuts through the mountains, with the ocean beyond". See WP:ALT#Punctuation. (done)
  • "Large view of the creek's watershed" repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition), and doesn't convey the gist of the image well (see WP:ALT#Essence). What does that large view look like? (done)
  • The word "hued" is redundant and can be removed. (where?) Image:Laguna Niguel Lake.jpg
  • The word "anadromous" is not something that one can verify from the fish's visual appearance, right? So it should be removed from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Verification. (done)
  • Similarly, the "polluted" in "polluted water" is not something that one can verify by looking at the image, and should be removed or moved to the caption. The resulting alt text doesn't convey much useful info that isn't in the caption, and should be reworded to do so.
  • The word "the" in "An artificial concrete waterfall built on the creek" can't be verified just by looking at the image, and needs to be reworded. (done)
  • "Juaneños' to the southwest". Surely that should be "southeast"? (done)
  • "watershed - including". Please use a comma here, or if you must use a dash, please use WP:EMDASH. (done)
  • "Sulphur Creek, at the lower right" should be "Sulphur Creek, in the southeast". (done)
Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recently-introduced phrase "Drawing of" is not that useful here and can be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most of the above items have been fixed, and I've struck them; the only remaining item that's a real problem is the "polluted" one. Can you please fix that? Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the alt text for File:Aliso Creek heron and ducklings.JPG. I see no pollution visible there. Eubulides (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working... Shannontalk SIGN! 23:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using these sites for extreme claims or much information in the article; most of the article's info comes from the USACE, Orange County Watershed, Orange County Flood Control Division, and LA Times. As I mentioned up there, most of these are just for one figure, such as a distance or a date. Shannontalk SIGN! 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much or how little has little bearing on whether they are reliable. We need to use high quality sources, it's part of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FA criterion 1c states that "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" (italics mine for emphasis). Featured articles are our best work. Therefore, we expect that FAs use the highest-quality sources, just as we expect "brilliant" prose, professional-standard presentation (adherence to MOS), and complete coverage of the topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article I've actually started to add other citations to reliable sources after the ones mentioned up there... Shannontalk SIGN! 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the nominator still responding ? There are many old, unstruck items above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intend to copyedit this and will leave questions here as I work through the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see Finetooth has pointed out most of the issues I planned to copyedit in the first two sections (thanks). I still have one major concern with something in the lead. The second sentence reads The stream rises in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, near the unincorporated city of Portola Hills, ... then the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead says Pollution, floods and development of the watershed and surrounding Orange County have blighted the water quality and wildlife of the creek since the 1960s,[6] when urban and suburban development of the eight incorporated cities[5] .... The File:Aliso creek map.jpg also shows only eight cities, one of which is Portola Hills, but that is not incorporated. Reading the Portola Hills article, I see it was a Census-designated place (CDP) that was incorporated into the existing city of Lake Forest in the year 2000. The Geobox however does not refer to Portola Hills for the location of the source, but instead places the source in the Cleveland National Forest. The "Course" section of the article mentions both Portola Hills and the National Forest. There are several issues here - some are relatively minor (in the lead I would use the full link Portola Hills, California, and not the redirect Portola Hills, in its current state I would also refer to it as a CDP and not an "unincorporated city") but the most important by far is that the article does not accurately reflect the current state of the creek. It now rises (and has done so for the past nine years) in the city of Lake Forest. Now I think it would be OK to say something like The stream rises in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest, near the Portola Hills area of the city of Lake Forest, ... but as it currently stands this second sentence is incorrect and contradicts the later lead sentence about 8 incorporated cities. I also note the "Course" section and map would have to be updated to reflect the proper city.

Hope this helps, I can be this nitpicky for the whole article if desired, just let me know here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought I'd pop in here too. You've done a lot of work to get the article this far, and I'd like to see you succeed. I've done a close reading of the lead and the first section and recorded my thoughts below. If you'd like me to go on with this, I'd be glad to. Just post a note here.

Lead

  • "The name, of Spanish origin, was given to the creek by Spanish conquistadors in the 1700s, although there are now many places in California that use the name." - Delete "of Spanish origin" since you've already explained in the first sentence that it's Spanish? (done)
  • "As of 2004, the 30.4-square-mile (79 km2) watershed... " - If you round to the nearest tenth in miles, shouldn't you round to the nearest tenth in square kilometers? You can do that easily by adding a rounding parameter, in this case "|1" to the template. (done)
  • "that dates from the late Eocene to the Pliocene eras" - Would it be helpful to readers to add date ranges? Also, these two are technically epochs rather than eras. I think it's OK to avoid that complication by saying "that dates from the late Eocene to the Pliocene".
  • "The creek's watershed then became a major portion of the 1842 Rancho Niguel Mexican Land Grant, granted to Juan Avila and later purchased by Lewis Moulton." - Tighten slightly by deleting ", granted"? (done)
  • Lewis Moulton. He is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see him in the main text. (Yes, he is, in the 20th century section.)
  • "and its watershed as a municipal water source date back to the early 20th century" - Tighten by deleting "back"? (done)
  • "Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek, which has received many water quality and feasibility studies, but in similarity to many other Orange County streams, little work has been done to correct pollution in the creek." - Suggestion: "Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek, the subject of many water quality and feasibility studies, but, as with many other Orange County streams, little has been done to correct it." (done)

Name

  • "The Native American name of Aliso Creek has almost for certain been lost. The time of origin of the current name of Aliso Creek is not known, but it is certain that the name was given by Spanish conquistadors sometime between the 1750s and the 1800s." - What is the source for these claims? (done)
  • "Other derivatives for Aliso Creek's name have arose since then - including "Los Alisos Creek" and "Alisos Creek"." - This should be "have arisen" rather than "have arose". Also, the spaced hyphen should be replaced by a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash, thus: "then – including" or "then—including". Ditto for all of the other uses of the spaced hyphen in the article. You might also consider using a comma rather than a dash in at least some of these cases. (done with derivatives, will work on hyphens eventually)
  • "One road, Aliso Creek Road, is named for the creek, although ironically it only crosses the creek once and does not parallel it." - Delete "ironically" since it is an editorial comment that would be hard to verify? (done)
Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Thanks for your attention to many of the suggestions above. Here is another set of comments that apply down through the "Water quality" subsection.

Etymology *Nitpick. It would be better to flip the order of the refs [8][4] to put them in ascending order, [4][8]. (done)

Course

  • "The creek crosses under Trabuco Road and Jeronimo Road; the latter was once the site of a stream gauge." - Wikilink stream gauge? (It's linked in the "Discharge" subsection but should be linked on first use.) (done)
  • "The southeast-flowing Dairy Fork was once a prominent canyon that followed the present-day form of State Route 73, until it was flattened in the 1960s and 1970s to build the city of Aliso Viejo." - I find this a bit confusing. Would this be better: "Southeast-flowing Dairy Fork once flowed in a prominent canyon that was filled in the 1960s and 1970s to build the city of Aliso Viejo; State Route 73 runs above the former canyon"? Or something like that?> (done)
  • "After receiving the fork, Aliso Creek passes into four massive culverts that cross under Pacific Park Drive, whose fill nearly bisects the valley." - Delete "whose fill nearly bisects the valley"? It sounds like original research, though it might not be. In any case, it's a bit hard to imagine and probably isn't needed. (done)
  • "which is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) in length... " - Nitpick. Tighten slightly to "long"? (done)
  • "Flowing almost due south through a valley with slopes dissected with many deep side canyons... " - "By" rather than "with"?
  • "as it enters private property less than 1-mile (1.6 km) from the mouth" - Delete hyphen? (done
  • In reviewing the changes you made, I noticed a couple of other problems. You describe Dairy Fork as southeast-flowing, but the watershed map in the geobox shows it as southwest-flowing. In another place, you say the main stem "makes a bend to the southeast then veers back south". Should this be "southwest" as well?

Discharge

  • "The former received runoff from about 95% of the watershed, while the latter received runoff from 7.91 square miles (20.5 km2)... " - Rounding? (done)
  • Caption. "Due to tides and erosion, its mouth is ever-changing and never the same." - Delete "and never the same"? (done)

Geology

  • "The Santa Ana Mountains, which now bound the creek to the north and east... " "Border" rather than "now bound"? (done)
  • "It also happens that the uplift of the hills changed the course of Aliso Creek's largest tributary, Sulphur Creek,... " - Possibly tighten to "The uplift also changed the course of... "? (done)
  • "Wisconsinian glaciation" - Would Wisconsin Glacial Episode, linked directly to the relevant subsection of the the "Last glacial period" article be better? (done; originally tried to do that, but wouldn't work)
  • "During the Wisconsinian glaciation, when the San Joaquin Hills had begun to uplift, the climate of Southern California changed radically. From an arid, semi-desert climate, sea levels dropped as water became locked up in ice during the Wisconsinian ice age, as it is now known. At that time, Southern California's climate changed to become reminiscent of that of the Pacific Northwest. Suddenly, prodigious rainfall turned the ephemeral streams of the region into large and powerful rivers." - Tighten for clarity? Suggestion: "During the Wisconsin episode, after the San Joaquin Hills had begun to uplift, the climate of Southern California changed radically from arid to wet. Prodigious rainfall gradually turned the small streams of the region into large and powerful rivers." (done)
  • "The drop in sea level also helped in the process, allowing the rivers to flow steeper and faster and thus to possess more erosive power." - Suggestion: "A drop in sea level during the glacial period allowed rivers to flow more rapidly and to erode with power." (done)
  • "It is estimated that at that time period, Aliso Creek was a 16-mile (26 km) waterway... " - Delete "period"? (done)
  • "By then, the rivers and streams had slowed down to their original volume." - "dwindled" rather than "slowed down"? (done)

Geography

  • "The ridge at the headwaters of the creek (see Course) separates the Aliso Creek watershed from Santiago Creek." - I'm not sure it works well to embed a "jump back" link (see Course) like this in the text or that you need to do it. I'd be inclined to delete it. (done)
  • "Surrounding Interstate 5, which can be said to bisect the watershed, is the primary urban area in the Aliso Creek watershed - consisting of Lake Forest, Laguna Woods, and Laguna Hills." - It might be useful to say whether I-5 cuts across the watershed lengthwise or crosswise and in what direction. (done)
  • "bordering a broad alluvial valley which Aliso Creek has deposited many sediments in." - Move "in" to the left in the sentence? Suggestion: "bordering a broad alluvial valley in which Aliso Creek has deposited many sediments". (done)

Water quality

  • "adversely effecting the ecology and wildlife of the creek by means of elevated flow level (urban runoff)... " - "affecting" rather than "effecting".
  • "The creek is part of the Clean Water Act list of impaired waters, which is defined as "impaired by one or more pollutants that do not meet one or more water quality standards" - Compress to "The creek is part of the Clean Water Act list of waters 'impaired by one or more pollutants that do not meet one or more water quality standards' "?
  • "This is sourced from pet waste, fertilizer, manure, and other organic pollutants that are washed into the creek. This results in a bacterial level 34% higher than levels declared safe under California law." - Maybe combine these to avoid starting three sentences in a row with "This is"? Suggestion: "This comes from pet waste, fertilizer, manure, and other organic pollutants that wash into the creek and raise the bacteria level 34 percent higher than levels declared safe under California law."
  • The quote is too short to set off as a blockquote, and the paragraph could nicely be attached to the bigger one above it. Suggestion: "A local activist commented that the water pollution problem has long been ignored by the county: " ...we're sick and tired of it. It's nothing but a cesspool stew, full of pigeons and pigeon droppings and nearly 90-degree water, right at the beach!"
  • "after having been bitten by coyotes that had drank" - "that had drunk"
  • "Also in 2002, tests in November of that year detected small amounts of the virus that causes... " - Delete "of that year"?
  • "It prevails in urban runoff because this source of runoff is created by tap water, whether used for irrigation, car washing, or other daily activities, flowing down storm drains." - Suggestion: "It prevails in urban runoff, which consists largely of chlorinated tap water used for irrigation, car washing, and other daily activities."
  • "Ironically, carp... " - Delete "ironically"?
  • "to exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius)" - Wikipedia's standard format for this is 90 °F (32 °C).
  • "warned in a 1997 study that up to $4.2 million USD in damages" - No need to specify USD in a US-centric article.
  • "Spectacular events have also occurred at English Canyon Creek, an upper tributary of Aliso Creek,... " - Delete "also" since the preceding sentence describes a possible spectacular event but not one that has actually occurred.
Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (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 18:13, 6 September 2009 [42].

No Line on the Horizon[edit]

<e Horizon}}</noinclude>

I am nominating No Line on the Horizon for featured article because I believe it meets all of the current FA criteria. A lot of work has been put into this article and I think that shows in the present result. It's been copyedited several times by other users and undergone a peer review which is now archived; all of the concerns raised by the PR, the GA review, and other users have, I believe, been addressed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There were a few dead links, they're now fixed. Suede67 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U2Gigs is the most reliable and reputable source when it comes to data on U2 performances; the only other that exists is U2tours.com. Neither of these are affiliated with or run by the people who run U2.com. As far as I'm aware there has never been any questions or concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the U2Gigs database, and I think just about every active member of the U2 WikiProject has used it in articles at some point in time. It's always been an invaluable resource when building U2 articles. If you're referring to this source, the reason it was used is that I am unsure of how to source radio broadcasts (or even if Wikipedia allows them to be used a source, given that once they've been heard once they will almost never be heard again). It was the only source I could find containing that information with the exception of U2France which hosted the broadcast on their webpage. U2France is another fansite, and given that French is not my first language I thought that the U2Gigs page, which contained the same information, was a better selection given that it's never been questioned as a reliable source before.
ExploreMusic also tends to be a very reliable source when it comes to breaking music news. The host of the program, Alan Cross, is one of the most prominant Canadian musical journalists, and the actual ExploreMusic radio program, syndicated across Canada, often contains newly released information regarding upcoming releases, etc. Their articles contain essentially the same information as in the broadcasts.
Though I know blogs are not usually accepted as a reliable source, there are some exceptions (per WP:SPS: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert...) I remember of a time when a New York Times blog was accepted as a reliable source, and I think that Mojo, a forefront musical publication, is as well (especially given that both instances are exclusive interviews with band members, containing information on the album sessions that is unavailable from any other source).
Checking the MOG ref, I see that the information was originally taken from an article by The Independent. I've therefore updated the reference in question (#27) to the original article. I don't use Consequence of Sound often as a source, but I've found them to be accurate; normally I would prefer to use a source such as Rolling Stone, but as with the U2Gigs article it is the only reference I have found for this piece of information; the only alternative I can see to using this is removing the information from the article, which is something I would prefer not to do. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in regards to how U2Gigs gets their information, all performances since at least 2004 have been through live streaming or their own attendance. Performances from actual tour concerts are also posted up on U2.com and the two are always identical; the difference between them being that over time, the U2.com entries are removed while the U2Gigs entries are archived. Older information is taken directly from archived newspaper reports when it is added. In the case of articles, the operators state where there informaton is from (as in the linked entry above). Most of the content is generated by the operators, but there is a submission form for others to use here. I don't know that they have been mentioned in the press before, but I do know that one of the operators is also a Wikipedian. He has had no involvement in the creation of this article, so he may be able to demonstrate their fact-checking process better than I can. I'll try to contact him.
Mojo is a very well-known and prominant music magazine. I'm not really sure how I can demonstrate that the online version has any differences in reliability from the printed version. I don't think it's too far behind Rolling Stone in terms of quality, and I've never seen any doubts about their reliability. If it helps, Mojo is backed and distributed by the Bauer Media Group. If I can find the entries from the printed version, would that be preferable? Consequence of Sound I can't find much on, but on their "About" page here, they list some of the publications they or their articles have been in, including BBC.co.uk, MTV.com, USA Today, Pitchfork, and the Chicago-Sun Times. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axver from U2gigs here. I haven't been around Wikipedia much at all the last few months (funnily enough, I was in Europe to see U2), but User:MelicansMatkin brought this discussion to my attention so I hope I can help. I've been a Wikipedian for quite some time and am familiar with verifiability requirements, though I rarely touch the U2 articles to avoid any questions about conflict of interest (I focus on New Zealand topics for the most part). On the U2gigs FAQ, we have an answer that details our sources which I hope clears up any problems. Any of our information can be independently verified. For news articles, I cite my sources; for live U2 appearances, we have either attended in person (at which we take notes by hand or produce our own recording) or listened to it - live for contemporaneous concerts and interviews, or to recordings for older shows. As far as I know, I have listened to every single live U2 appearance for which a recording exists. I am a professional historian, and I apply the same standards to my work on U2gigs - if I do not believe information is verifiable and could be defended in peer review, I do not publish it. We've been cited by Billboard and other publications; I think the highest affirmation of the reliability of U2gigs is that we were referenced as a reliable source in "U2 & NL", an official publication that came with the Dutch edition of No Line On The Horizon (we were the only web-based source; the rest were from the media and from Propaganda, U2's now defunct official magazine). Hope this clears things up and I'm happy to answer any further questions. - Axver (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems.

  • It contains several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and should be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include almost all proper names such as "U2" (most people don't know what U2 or its members look like), "Riad", "New York City" etc. Proper names that are in the image itself are OK (e.g., "U2 Way") since they can be verified from the image. Other phrases such as "hotel" should also be removed: one cannot tell simply by looking at the image that it's a hotel.
  • The alt text entries, by and large, are too long. (The alt text for the album cover is particularly long; that simple image should be summarizable in two dozen words tops.) Please make them briefer, about the length of a caption. I suggest moving the current alt text entries into the description field of the image pages, as they do contain useful info.

Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the alt text entries per your suggestion; they're now shorter, more concise in their description, and both proper nouns and information unverifiable from the image alone has been removed. Alt text entries have also all been moved into the appropriate description sections on the image pages. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks pretty good, and I'm leaning towards supporting. I'd suggest moving the sections on the tour and Linear though, as both seem out of place. I think the section on Linear would be better off as a subset of "Recording and production", and the section on the tour would be better off as part of "Promotion". Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I agree that Linear looks better where it is (makes more sense too given the location of Songs of Ascent), but I'm not sure about the tour information. Though that's undoubtedly where it belongs, it seems a little... "off" (for lack of a better word) as a subsection of Promotion. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at it again, it still doesn't look right. Maybe if Promotion was split into a seperate section from Release? That way Release would include the release date, the cover art, and the format, while Promotion would include the brief appearances on TV and radio, and the tour. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks a bit odd as is, and I'd be fine with either your solution or just getting rid of the section header for the tour and making it the third paragraph of the promotion section. There's not a whole lot there, after all, and according to the article, the tour is entirely based around promoting the album. But since I'm fine with either solution, I'll go ahead and Support. Good work! Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have TUF-KAT return and address the outstanding reliable sources issues above vis-a-vis this support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 has contacted Tuf-Kat, and I have sent them an email; I've left messages on Ealdgyth talk page twice since my last reply on 16 August ([43] and [44]), but the user has not yet returned to see if their concerns have been addressed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried the split, and I think it looks a bit better. Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this FAC should get moving now.

1. User Axver from U2Gigs has said, plus showed the guidelines of how content makes their website. Personally, I think that is fine.
2. About the site "ConsequenceofSound being reliable, here is the link to the "about us" page; About Most sources that have covered it are notable and reliable, which in turn should make CoS reliable(?) If not, this source, which has the same content cited, can be used. Will it be fine? this one
3. Mojo seems reputed. It also has an article on wiki, which can be found here.

I personally feel this is enough, what do the reviewers think? Suede67 (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Times Online source. Otherwise, I'll leave the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I'm not persuaded that they are reliable. Personally, I'd replace the other two sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mojo should be considered reliable. The nominator has mentioned its a "big" reputed magazine in the UK, as the Rolling Stone is in the US. They print the physical magazine, and additionally have an online version. The print version carries a CD every month. Bands like U2 and Red Hot Chili Peppers have compiled CD content in the past (link link link) Additionally, if you scrolldown on the MOJO website, you'll know it's owned by "Bauer Media" (example). There's an "About" page on their website here; "...is a division of the Bauer Publishing Group, Europe’s largest privately owned publishing Group. The Bauer Publishing Group is a worldwide media empire offering over 230 magazines in 15 countries, as well as online, TV and radio stations." I'd say notable! Also, here's more; the magazine had a radio station (which was shut down some time ago, and had many listeners) link; "...The station is one of the most high-profile digital radio closures to date..." provides notability. Will that do? Suede67 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consequence of Sound reference replaced by The Times (good catch Suede67), all but one U2Gigs reference replaced (to the best of my ability) by ones for the French Radio and TV shows, Rolling Stone, and the BBC. Two of the Mojo references have been changed, but the exclusive interviews (thus the only source for the information) have been kept, though I still feel Mojo in general is a reliable source. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MelicansMatkin just took care of the refs using U2gigs as a source. I have struck it out above (also CoS as it has also been replaced). Suede67 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Should only be struck out by the original commenter. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Oh, sorry. Suede67 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will not have internet access beginning 3 September 2009 as I am moving into a new apartment for the forthcoming school year. Since I won't be able to respond to any queries or concerns that arise within the next week or so (hopefully less), I would appreciate any editor responding to them in the interim. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments
  • I don't think there's a strong enough rationale for the inclusion of File:U2NoLineRecording.jpg. The only real commentary in the article is about how it was a makeshift, open air recording environment, but you can't even tell that from the above shot. It's eye candy.  Doing...
  • File:U2nloth.ogg and File:U2whiteassnow.ogg need more than just boilerplate rationales; why do these clips significantly increase understanding in compliance with NFCC? How much has the quality been decreased from the source? Just how much of the song has been used?
I added more specific rationales and detailed summary, do you find it satisfactory now? Suede67 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images are free or have proper information and rationales.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [45].

Economic history of China (pre-1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Over the course of the last 8 months, I have expanded this article from a stub to a GA and have extensively worked on it, adding sources and text. With a successful GA nomination and three copyedits, I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and would be a worthy addition to the list of wikipedia's featured articles.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the uppercase P in Pre-1911 should be lower. If others agree, please do not just change it; let someone knowledgeable get all the pieces in the right place and correct the name on the FAC page at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. In spite of my request not to do so, someone moved the article without correcting the FAC pages. Does anyone have time to fix all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Way too many headers
  • At least 15 one-, two-, or three-line paragraphs. Can you either expand or may be, merge and flow them properly
  • The lists have long sentences and so theymust be made into prose.
  • "See also" looks redundant
  • All ALTs are faulty with wikilinks, full similarity to captions and unwanted details like dynasties, painters, painting and other raw material, years, places, war, museum, engineering stuff, useless facts (world's first paper money - was introduced during the Song dynasty), technical words (taotie motif).
  • Warring states map has the worst ALT.

Hometech (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the above issues by converting the lists into prose and pruning the see also section. Another editor is responsible for the alt text(I didn't do most of them) and soon they should be fixed. This article has a very broad subject, so it must address a lot of subjects in each dynasty. Therefore, I believe the number of headers is justified. I've identified and merged many smaller paragraphs as well. Feel free to suggest more changes.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done now; thanks. As far as I can see there is no alt text anywhere in the article. It needs to be added, as per WP:ALT. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbax at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added ALT text to every image in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. The alt text is done now; thanks. pretty good, but with all those images there are some problems that need fixing:
  • For File:China 2c.jpg the alt text focuses on irrelevant details (e.g., the colors used on the map). These details should be replaced by the useful info that the map conveys to the reader, e.g., north central China is highlighted and contains several names ranging from YAN on the north cost to YU on the central coast, and then inland on the rivers (or perhaps you can think of a better way of communicating the gist). Please see WP:ALT#Maps.
  • For File:Chinese Boddhisattva statue.jpg the alt text says only that the statue is a buddha. A bit more detail should be given about the visual appearance: I noticed that it's the Buddha standing, and that the focus is on his hands, and the alt text should probably mention that. Please see WP:ALT#Essence.
  • Similarly, for File:China coin1.JPG the only useful info is "numerous coins", which is too terse. What do the coins look like? Omit the backdrop; that's not important here.
  • Similarly, for File:Yuan Dynasty - waterwheels and smelting.png. By the way, its alt text is missing the leading "alt=", which means it isn't working.
  • The following phrases are redundant, either with other parts of the alt text or with the caption, and should be be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT#Repetition: "A glazed figurine of a camel and a bearded merchant" (this is the worst case: the alt text conveys no useful info that's not already in the caption), "a painting of two women", "in the foreground", "A painting depicting", "Portrait of", "A drawing of" (actually, it's not a drawing; but just remove the phrase since the caption says what it is), "A painting depicting", "A painting depciting" [sic],
  • The following phrases can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability: " signifying its origin from the Kaiyuan era"
  • There are two images of banknotes, and they look different, but one cannot tell the differences from the alt text. A bit more detail would help the visually impaired reader know the difference.
  • The phrase "A black and white photograph of" isn't that useful and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all the changes mentioned by User:Eubulides.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I patched it a bit more to catch most of the remaining gotchas I noticed. However, the alt text for the waterwheel and blast furnace image is still a problem. It still mostly duplicates the caption, and it's not accurate: the workers are not operating the waterwheels or the blast furnace. Suppose you're blind and want to know how they hooked up that waterwheel to that blast furnace: what info would you want to know about that image? Please write that down. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that it's been fixed. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: For now, due to the issues raised above. Additionally, the occurence of a reference before punctuation doesn't fill me with confidence about the rest of the article; the "Economy History of China" needs to be in bold. The critical problem with the article is the depth to which it explores so many issues. An Encyclopedia must be able to be both concise and comprehensive. Unfortunately, though the article has a wealth of good content, it tries to cover everything in equal measure. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the capital P should be lowercase. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P has been changed to lower case. Also, can you please kindly point out where you find a "reference before punctation"? Cause I can't see it. As for other issues, see above.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed now, if you look at the revision of the article prior to my comments you will notice it immediately, I certainly did. That still doesn't address my primary concern (see my last point). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MasterofHisOwnDomain, this article is actually only about 113Kb, which is very small considering the scope of its subject. For example, the "Ming Dynasty" article which covers just a single Chinese dynasty, has a total size of 141KB, which is larger than this article who covers all Chinese economic history! As for the article covering too much content, this article is after all covering all of Chinese economic history, some 4,000 years, and in order to satisfy FA Criteria about broadth of coverage we must include many things. Effort has already been made(see previous copyedits) to address the salient parts of the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the size of the article, I'm disputing the conciseness and comprihensiveness of the article. For example, from the first header, the economy is not even discussed until the fifth sentence. It discusses the formation of Chinese civilization and then the government system. If I was reading this and wanting to know about the economic history of China, I would expect it to start with the economic history of China and start as it means to go on. A sizeable portion of the content is redundant. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, the first few sentences establish that early China was a feudal system, which is very important for the reader to be put into perspective. Feudalism was an economic more than a political system; it meant that peasants were self-sufficient, didn't produce for the market, and there could be no land exchange with violent force. This lays a very important foundation for the rest of the section, as the economic progress of the era is discussed with this context. In order to discuss the economic history of China(or any other country), other thing such as history, wars(they damage the economy) and government policies have to be discussed as well as they affect the economy. Do you not think that this article covers all the relevant facts about the premodern Chinese economy?Teeninvestor (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: there are lots of content issues to address. For a start, let me summarize here a message I put on the article's talk page on August 10. My points are about the first section on the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties.
  • Speaking of the "Xia dynasty" is controversial. Some historians (mostly Chinese) accept its existence, but many don't, and say instead that it's a myth. A good Wikipedia article should mention this controversy instead of presenting one side of it as self-evident. Instead of saying that a Xia site has been found at Erlitou (not "Erli"), the wiki should discuss the economy of the "Erlitou culture" and then say that some historians have identified this site with the possibly mythical Xia dynasty.
  • The chariot appeared in archeological records in 1200 BC in the tombs of the Shang kings at Anyang. There is no archeological evidence for the existence of any kind of wheeled vehicle in Shang territory prior to that. Saying that "The first chariots were invented during the Xia dynasty" is complete fantasy. (Incidentally, at least five scholars I've read agree that the Shang adopted the chariot from outside peoples who lived either to the north or northwest of the Shang, so even saying that the chariot was "invented" in such-and-such a dynasty is inaccurate.)
  • Agriculture in "Xia," Shang, and Zhou times was based on millet, not rice. Rice dominated the Yangzi River valley, not the Yellow River valley, where "Xia," Shang and Zhou were mostly based.
  • Domesticated animals included the dog.
  • Even the historians who believe that the "well-field system" (jingtian 井田) existed (another controversy that should be explained) never say that it existed under the "Xia dynasty." They say it existed a thousand years later, under the Western Zhou (ca. 1045-771) and into the Eastern Zhou (771-256 BCE).
  • Nobody knows anything specific about the social and economic organization of the "Xia dynasty." Saying that "Xia agriculture relied on a feudal system where the landowner gave 50 mu of land to his serfs in exchange for cultivation of 5 mu of his own land" is far too specific to be based on archeological evidence, the only kind of evidence we have for pre-Shang times.
  • It's not completely clear when bronze swords became obsolete, but they were still widely used in the Spring and Autumn period. They were thoroughly replaced by steel weapons at the very end of the Warring States period.
All these errors are fairly basic, and they show (once again) how unreliable "Li and Zheng" are. The Cambridge History of Ancient China provides much better explanations of all the processes described in this page.
The general structure of the article is problematic. The "Feudal-Absolutist-Mercantilist" structure smuggles a strong POV interpretation of economic development into the article without grounding it in reliable sources. Until we can think of a more justifiable structure, we may have to revert to a boring chronological outline that goes dynasty by dynasty.
Madalibi (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (on references, this time). As a reader, I'm immediately turned off by the claims made in the first lines of the article, and especially by the references that are cited to support these claims. The first six endnotes send the reader to a church website (note 4), 4 magazine articles about recent economic development in China (notes 1, 2, 3, and 6), and one factsheet (note 5).
  • Note 1 is an article by an Indian author concerned with "Ensuring China's peaceful rise." Nothing tells me why I should trust this author about the size of the Chinese economy before 1900.
  • Note 2 leads to an abstract on "China and the Knowledge Economy" in the 21st century. Same comment as for Note 1.
  • Note 3 is an article on modern economic issues that cites The Economist as saying that "China was the largest economy for much of recorded history." The reference is to page 5 of "A Survey of the World Economy - The Real Great Leap Forward," which was published in the Economist in October 2004. If we want to keep this note, we should at least cite the article in the Economist, where the original claim was found. But as with Notes 1 and 2, I see no reason why we should trust the Economist on historical issues.
  • Note 4 sends to a site that promotes "the mission of the Worldwide Church of God." Clearly not a reliable source.
  • Note 5 refers to a factsheet that cites "Financial Times" (no author, no date) as claiming that China had the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries.
  • Note 6 is an editorial in the Financial Times by former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten claiming that China had the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries. This article is clearly the article that is cited so vaguely in note 5. Note 5 is redundant and should be deleted. The claim that China had the largest economy for 18 of the last 20 centuries therefore rests on the sole authority of Chris Patten, who is not a scholar in the field of Chinese economic history and who cites no data or scholarship to support his claim.
In other words, none of these sources is from an authority on the economic history of China. Magazine articles can sometimes be considered as reliable sources (especially in wikis that discuss current affairs), but why rely on current-affairs magazines when writing about 4000 years of Chinese economic history?
I'm ready to accept that China had one of the largest economies on Earth for most of the last 20 centuries. This claim could even be considered common sense. But in my opinion an encyclopedic article cannot rely only on a few magazine articles to claim that China had the largest economy on Earth for most of world history, or that its economy was the largest for 18 of the last 20 centuries (i.e., from 1 CE to 1800 CE). To justify this kind of claim, we need scholarly works on Chinese economic history.
Madalibi (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes addressing Madalibi's concerns. Statements have been added that include the alternative viewpoint that Xia didn't exist, and removed several references to chariots and agriculture during the Xia. As well, mentions to domesticated dogs and millets were included. In addition, I changed absolutist to early imperial era and mercantilist to late imperial era, to address madalibi's concerns. I've also changed largest economy to one of the largest eocnomies per Madalibi's concerns.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: Thanks for solving some of these problems quickly, teeninvestor! I've crossed out the issues that have been resolved. Here's more on the remaining ones.
  • I don't think the Xia issue has been solved yet. The article still poses the Xia as having existed for sure (see lead paragraph), and says that Erlitou may have been a Xia site. The point should be instead that there were organized polities before the Shang, that traditional Chinese historiography claims that this period was dominated by the Xia dynasty, and that some modern historians accept this identification, but that many also doubt it and claim that the "Xia dynasty" is mythical.
  • How about replacing the "Feudal Era" with the "Pre-imperial Era" to match the new sections on the "Early Imperial" and "Late Imperial" eras? "Feudalism" is a huge can of worms. Most Chinese historians call "feudal" everything from the Western Zhou (1045-771 BCE) to the Qing (1644-1912)! They use "feudal" to refer to a mode of production. Some Western historians like Derk Bodde have instead argued that the Western Zhou had a political system akin to that of feudalism in medieval Europe. Most Chinese historians call the Xia a "primitive society" and the Shang a "slave society," not feudal societies. Western historians usually ignore these vague terms altogether. Because of this, I would say get rid of the name "feudal" in the section title and be very careful how you use it in the text.
  • For the reason just outlined, a statement like "Early China had a feudal society similar to that of Europe in the Middle Ages" is far too vague. Bodde made this point about the political system of the Western Zhou, not about its economic system. "Early China" could refer to any time until the Han. The wiki cites Chinese historians who use the term "feudal" in an economic sense, yet defines "feudalism" in political terms with lords and vassals.
  • For the article to be comprehensive, it should probably address the Chinese argument (inspired by Marxism) that the Shang was a "slave society." Many Chinese historians disagree with this characterization, and so do most Western historians, who agree that there were slaves in Shang times, but that productive activities did not rely on them for the most part.
  • Another point that could deserve mention is that the Shang already traded with distant regions to their north and northwest (we know that from objects found in tombs).
  • "Jintian" (the well-field system) should be Jingtian throughout. The "well-field system" would be even better, since this is English Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica has a brief article on the "well-field system" that explains the basics of what we know about it. This could be one more source for our wiki.
  • The reader should be reminded that the Jingtian system may not have existed at all. As the Encyclopedia Britannica claims, the well-field system was first mentioned in the works of Mencius (4th century BCE) as an ideal production system. Some evidence from bronze inscriptions supports its existence, but the jingtian system shouldn't be given so much presence in this wiki without at least a mention of its contested existence.
  • A mistake should be corrected: the character tian 田 did not appear under the Zhou, but under the Shang. It is attested in oracle bones.
  • I just realized that the whole Xia-Shang-Zhou section is organized by themes. It goes back and forth in time as new topics are addressed. This can be very confusing. I think this section would be clearer if it were re-organized into three parts: "pre-Shang" (with discussion of the possible existence of the Xia), "Shang," and "Western Zhou." This arrangement would make all the above issues easier to discuss. The Xia would be explained in one place instead of four. You could discuss Shang "slavery" and distant trade, as well as its bronze and silk "industries" together. The section on the Zhou would then address the possible beginning of the "well-field system," the growth of cities, etc. Recurrent themes like cities and millet-centered agriculture would also belong to the section's introductory paragraph. What do you think?
  • Finally, watch out for typos and incomplete words when adding text! I see a "whta" that should be "what" and a "How" that should be "However" (or should disappear altogether). "Millet" is capitalized in the middle of a sentence, and so is "Alcohol" a little below. Another typo: "recirds" (should be "records").
Ok, I'll stop here for tonight! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of the issues above except for seperating the section into three sections. The reason for not doing so is that there si so little material in the entire section(it is the smallest section), that seperating it would cause three sections with little to no content, and massive repetition. Three seperate sections were tried before(See about 4 months ago) but it didn't work out too well. I also fixed note 5 and 3 as well.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the structure. The section on the Warring States should now be placed under the "Pre-imperial era." One possible issue with the new content: Hao was a capital of the Western Zhou. There may have been a Shang capital of the same name, but I don't know about it. Teen: could you insert the character for Hao in the text so that we can judge (or correct the pinyin if necessary)? And why keep relying on "Li and Zheng" - who have been proven wrong countless times - when you can use the Cambridge History of Ancient China on Google Books? Try keyword searches (well-field, millet, slaves, etc.) and you'll get all the references you need! More comments later. Madalibi (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a detail: the claim (now deleted) that the character tian 田 originated in the Zhou period was referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 98" (see here, for example). Now the correct claim that this character originated in the Shang is referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 63" (note 14). If Li and Zheng are making such contradictory claims, then I have lost the little remaining trust I had in Li and Zheng. If the mistake is from an editor, then I don't know what to think... Madalibi (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on references to the Cambridge History of China. All the references to "Twitchett et al." (six different volumes of the Cambridge History of China) should be changed to the names of individual authors. Ebrey, Walthall and Palais (2006) is collectively authored, so we can just say "Ebrey et al." But the Cambridge Histories are made of individual articles by distinct authors. Twitchett is the general editor of the series, not the author of the statements that this wiki is citing. For a good example of how a reference should be made, see "Atwell 1998" and "Ebrey 1986" in the bibliography. Madalibi (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I may be wrong about this, but weren't cowry shells first used as currency in the Western Zhou dynasty rather than the Shang? As I said, I'm not sure, but we would need a reference (not from Li and Zheng, please) to support the claim that cowries were used as currency (not just decorations) in Shang times. Madalibi (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address all of the above claims:
  • I've replaced Jintian everywhere with "Well-field".
Great! This looks much better.
  • The early Shang capital in question is actually pronounced Bo in Pinyin, so I've changed that.
Point cleared, then.
  • The claim about the origin of the character Tian has been removed entirely. The original reference in Li and Zheng shows that the character originated during the Zhou, but I moved it without adding a reference. I've decided to remove the claim entirely.
Removing it was probably the right decision. This claim was not important anyway.
  • After sacrificing my breakfast, I was able to change all the references to individual essays.
Do a keyword search for "Twitchett" and you'll find there are still a lot out there. Each original essay should be noted in the bibliography so that each reference can remain in the form "author (year), page number." I know this is grueling work, but this is how FA reviews often turn out. ;) At the end of it, the article will be really great, so keep up with it!
  • I've added a new reference showing cowries were introduced during the Zhou.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! I can also add a reference to an article in the Cambridge History of China if you want. Madalibi (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason some titles are in there is because they are the "introduction" to the entire volume so part of the encyclopedia. I will not add "introduction" to the sources section but I will change the references to mention they are the introduction section.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All references referred to either intro or essay. Have all your concerns been addressed, Madalibi?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teen,
  • There are still a few mistakes in the references. "Hebert Franke" should be "Herbert" throughout. The complete reference to CHC articles (including introductions) should all appear in the bibliography and referred to as "Twitchett and Mote (1988), 4" in the notes, so that all inline citations can be in the same format. In the bibliography, only book titles should be italicized; article titles should be put between quotation marks. Check Ebrey (1986) in the bibliography to see how it's done.
  • As for content, I still have plenty of issues! The first section (the one we've been working on) still looks messy and patchy. The wiki discusses the Xia dynasty and the well-field system as if they existed, and then we hear that they may not have existed. The two statements should be integrated better. You modified What the first section said about the feudal economy has been modified, but the lead paragraphs still use that term as vaguely as before as if the Xia, Shang and Zhou were all "feudal." I also agree with MasterofHisOwnDomain that the article tends to give more info about politics and war than on the economy. (And I'll talk about the Qing dynasty later.)
  • I've prepared a well-referenced new draft of the Xia-Shang-Zhou section that is chronological but not repetitive, focuses on the economy, and does not rely on Li and Zheng at all. Tell me what you think, and let's see if we can integrate it into our wiki. I have replaced the original text with the new draft and then reverted it back to the original version. You can look here to see what the new version looks like when it's integrated into our wiki. If you like the new draft, you can always revert back to that version and go on from there.
  • I went through Dieter Kuhn's volume on "Textile Technology" in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China (it's Volume 5:IX) and found no trace of the "spinning machine" mentioned in the wiki and referred to "Li and Zheng (2001), 67" (note 20). Kuhn is the foremost Western historian of Chinese textiles. He says clearly and repeatedly that Shang workshops used spindle-whorls operated by hand and mentions no controversy concerning this issue. The spindle wheel was only invented in the late Spring and Autumn period but it was also hand-operated. The earliest evidence for treadle-operated spinning wheels (some kind of "spinning machine") is from stone reliefs of the Han dynasty. So Li and Zheng are wrong again.
Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished fixing all the refs and adding all the references to individual articles; Should have no more problems with refs. I've adopted your version of the Xia Shang Zhou section. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—overlinking. And here are a few other issues.

  • Could you drop the first sentence?
  • "Until the 18th century, China enjoyed the highest material living standards on Earth."—Do we trust Ebrey as the sole source for such a major claim? Does it depend on how material living standards are measured? I'm not saying it's wrong; but I'm wobbly on it.
  • Why is "Europe" linked? Doesn't the subsequent link suffice? And the article on "Europe" is hardly focused on this context, is it?
  • Links to "iron", etc, are inappropriate (possibly "jade" might be linked, but not other common materials); unless there's a very focused section of the currency article you could link to, why at all? (And there it is linked again further down ...). Why is "bureaucracy" linked? Please audit throughout for this, so the high-value links are optimised in visual appearance. Too much choice and the readers will click nothing, believe me. GDP—readers should know it, but if you think not, link to a specific section of that article, or a daughter article. Do we really need "Xia dynasty" linked twice in two sections?

Please let me know when the link audit has been done, and I'll return to do more substantive reviewing. Tony (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we need "being"? "Large cities were being built during the Shang period."
I've reduced the number of links in the lead and some other sections. It seems that the overlinking only exists in a few sections. In other sections there is no overlinking. As to Ebrey's claim, note this article did not endorse it; it mainly signalled that ebrey had made such a claim.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but it's right up there in the structural "theme" of the article, second sentence. It gives great weight to the claim. To what extent to Ebrey provide supporting evidence or reasoning? Tony (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose This paragraph needs reworking:
    The Zhou developed the well-field system for agriculture, where eight peasants cultivated nine plots of land and the central, communally cultivated plot belonged to the lord. However, some historians question its existence.
    • First of all, it's many historians - the history of the Zhou (before the Warring States) is a handful of primary documents, eked out with the assertions of Chinese historians from centuries later. This should be acknowledged; one would think from the tone here that we were talking about the Ptolemies or the Hanoverians, on whose economies we have actual records.
    • Fixing this should also make the writing better; this is not how to deal with conflicts in the sources: To assert X existed, tell its history and then acknowledge that its existence is open to doubt is the wrong order; complare William Tell.
  • People who use feudalism outside of its proper context in Europe should be required to read Sir Moses Finley on its unhappy extension. It is a token for almost any pre-capitalist society, and therefore meaningless; I have even seen it used of the upper-class capitalist agriculture of the Elizabethans - and of the capitalism of nineteenth century China. Using it for the appanages of the Han is a characteristic abuse; appanages can be made, as in Bourbon Spain, in a kingdom long past feudalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, the viewpoint of this article is that the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming Dynasties were decidedly NOT feudal. As you can see, this article does not adopt a marxist viewpoint, the only ignorant viewpoint under which the advanced market economies of the Chinese dynasties can be called "feudalism".Teeninvestor (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will observe that I am citing the objections to "feudalism" as a term-of-all-work by an eminent classical historian, who happens to be a Marxist. The passage that caught my eye is
The founder of the Han Dynasty, Liu Bang, briefly reinstated feudalism during his reign. Under the belief that the Qin's fall was partially caused by disregarding traditional feudalism, he gave several kingdoms to his relatives.
This will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't very familiar with Chinese, aren't you? The relevant character in Chinese is Fengjian (封建) which translates to "feudalism". This was the system carried out by Liu Bang who then gave his sons kingdoms, and this is what they called it. Of course, the economic system was not restored; but this is "feudalism" in a very narrow political context, in that the king gives land to his "vassals"(In this case his sons). Of course narrow meaning of Fengjian can be translated as "giving land" but the general translation has just been "feudalism". Appanages would be more like the "thousand-household marquess" in later times, which only gave income; the kingdoms given by Liu Bang actually conferred onto the princes military and other powers, and would not be well described as "Appanages".Teeninvestor (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to know Chinese. I know English, in which this is an ignorant abuse of language (so is appanage, which (unless explained otherwise) is a grant of territory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this has a far more serious problem; it abounds with sentences like Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader, which are monuments of national vanity. This is meaningless; if it had a meaning it would be doubtful of the Warring States, which overlap the Gupta Maurya Empire, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Archimedes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

  • Alright. To reflect consensus, the second paragraph has been modified completely to reflect the rewritten section that Madalibi wrote a day ago.
  • Regarding the claim that Agriculutral and military achievements made China a world technolgoical leader, first of all, I didn't write that, it was copyedited into that position and two, that was actually mentioned, I'm going to add two citations for it. This statement was made in a source I had. The reason for this claim was the advances made in agriculture and cast iron during the warring states, such as Steel tools, hoes, Agricultural rotation, etc... that made agriculture and iron production in China much more than elsewhere. Also, its pretty ironic that you mention the Gupta Empire as overlapping the warring states, considering they were founded five centuries after the warring states had ended.
  • Regarding the Han-era "Appandages"(分封) in Chinese, the paragraph has been revamped to reflect the views on this page. Because of unsuitable terms like appandages and others, the section has simply been titled "decentralized administration of early Han"(which is what it was).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies; I should not have typed from memory, out of my field; take what glory you can in picking on the error, now fixed.
    • I don't care who wrote it. We are evaluating the article, not the nominator - which should be more remembered around here. But it is a public embarrassment; we are an encyclopedia, not a Chamber of Commerce pamphlet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new second paragraph is an improvement; but the distinction between the Xia(not supported by written evidence) and the Shang (which are) seems dubious. Is this an effort to claim that only some of the Classic of History counts? Is it an enthusiastic reading of oracle bones? In either case, such discussion is off-topic here; try "supported/not supported by archaeological evidence", which is uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody. Just to clarify a little bit: we know that Anyang belonged to the Shang dynasty because the oracle bones that were found there describe in great detail the activities of Shang kings who were mentioned by name in the part of Sima Qian's Shiji (91 BCE) that discusses Shang history. The key point is that oracle bones allowed to match archeological evidence with the received historical tradition. Before about 1200 BCE, no written evidence of any kind allows to identify archeological sites with named polities, and this is why the existence of the Xia dynasty is only hypothetical. I agree that Teeninvestor's addition was unclear, but "archaeological evidence" is also too vague, because pure archaeological evidence is not sufficient to identify a dynasty by name.
Teeninvestor's new sentence in the lead paragraph came from materials that I added to the Neolithic-to-Zhou section. PmAnderson: could you read the relevant passage (first sentence of this section) and let me know if you find it clear? If not, I will reword it.
In any case, I don't think the lead paragraph should mention the controversy over the Xia and Shang, because these are not issues in economic history. The Shang can be mentioned as a matter of course, and the Xia can wait until the first section before we mention them.
Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two pieces of advice, which - if thoroughly acted on - might change my mind:
    • Read WP:PEACOCK until it sinks through.
    • Have the piece reviewed by a monoglot English-speaker - preferably two, one that knows Chinese history and one that doesn't. Most of our intended audience does not speak Chinese, and failure in idiom and meaning "justified" by Chinese usage are soleicisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you wrote:

But this has a far more serious problem; it abounds with sentences like Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader, , which are monuments of national vanity.

This I find very troubling. In placing statements in this article, I am simply reflecting the consensus of the myriad of scholarly sources I have found in this issue. There is nothing "vain" or "nationalistic" about this. This is telling it like it is. If a nation had advanced agricultural techniques, this is a fact relevant to the economic history of the nation and you would note it in the article. There is nothing POV about this any more than saying American astronauts landed on the moon(unless you are a moon landing conspiratorist). So are you arguing that whenever I mention from my sources that the Chinese were the first to invent a technique, I should write immediately afterwards "But they were filthy barbarians who didn't know any thing, and were 2000 years behind Europeans in all other aspects?" Cause this seems to be the basis of the above argument. And as to your comment about evaluating the article- you are right. We are here to decide whether this article is FA-quality, Not to impose our own historical views about either whether Liu Bang's system was feudalism or the warring states were advanced. That's for scholarly sources to decide..Teeninvestor (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read WP:PEACOCK. There is no need (and it is less convincing) to make such claims at all. Talk about cast iron by all means; but don't make airy vague statements about technological supremacy; they are less informative, and will be read as nationalist puffery and dismissed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as another point of detail. Anybody who claims to know whether the population of the Roman Empire was more or less than 58 millions is making assertions without evidence (we don't have Augustus' census), possibly through not consulting more than one actual work on demography. It may well have been somewhere in that range; but where is pure conjecture. (One conjecture, sourced in our article on the Empire, is 88 millions.) The way to deal with this is not to mention the subject, and let the interested reader make his own conclusion; it's off-topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular claim is made by Ebrey in her book Cambridge illustrated history of China. I've noticed a pattern of questioning sourced facts in the article that the particular user doesn't agree with; this is completely off topic. We're here to discuss whether the article is FA-quality, not whether Erlitou was Xia or Han was more populous than Rome. As to your assertion that making claims of technological superiority is "national vanity", it has every relevance. This article needs to give information to the reader about the premodern Chinese economy, and this includes its technology compared to other contemporary economies. Would you consider that saying "the Us has been a technological leader in the world since the 19th century"(which is a statement I quote in full from the USA article), a peacock term?Teeninvestor (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? I am sure that if you read classicists on China, you would find equal slipshodness - and I hope you would point them out when they crept into our articles on Syria and the silk trade. Part of writing an FA is knowing what sources are reliable for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you consider that saying "the US has been a technological leader in the world since the 19th century" a peacock term? Yes, and I have no doubt it was written by a guileless patriot just trying to explain things, too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • So you are absolutely that no reader, ever, would need to know that about the productivity of different techniques contemporary nations produced? Guess we better remove all mention of GDP from wikipedia then- they are peacock terms. We should also remove any references to large economy, or huge economy as they are peacock terms too. Finally , skyscrapers are not "Tall"; that is a peacock term as well, I guess. Teeninvestor (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [46].

History of the United Kingdom during World War I[edit]

Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria (duh). It is my intention to the put the article to the some reviewers live on Wikivoices, and see what emerges. I am going to note a few of the unstruck concerns of the A-class review team below (they may or may not still be accurate) and we can work through them. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-class review "pointers"
  • Whether or not the references are to the best available sources
  • I see both unspaced emdashes and spaced endashes; while these are both acceptable forms per MOS, please pick one for consistency within the article.
  • Nonbreaking spaces should be used between values and units of measure (1.4 million).
  • Capitalization needs some attention. Why do we have "Prime minister" even when used as a title, yet "World War I Recruiting poster", "Women and the Suffragette movement", "Ration books", etc? Other iffy uses: Government, Navy, Army.
  • Comments: I reviewed this for GAN and was incredibly impressed with the quality. At the time I considered it very close to FA standard, and so I'm glad the intentions of the author(s) was to take it this far.
  • I edited out one occurence of "Prime Minister" in my GA review, after seeing the uncapitalised alternative as more frequently occuring. I thought this might initiate some sort of consensus, but you reverted it with the edit "Brevity is the sole (sic) of wit". As highlighted in the A-class review, there needs to be consensus and I would suggest uncapitalised.
  • Call me picky, but I think the % should be replaced with per cent. The MoS gives the use of % as more common in scientific articles, and this is a stance I agree with.
  • Not overwhelmed by: "Meanwhile, the country faced other challenges; plans to rescue the King's cousins in Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were largely unsuccessful and the civilian death-rate rose due to food shortages and Spanish Flu, which hit the country in 1918. Military deaths have been estimated at a figure exceeding 850,000." For a couple of reasons.
    • "The country faced other challenges" for me appears to read as "other challenges [as well as the dissolving ties between the royal families of Germany and England]", and I didn't think that the dissolving of ties was a national problem particularly. Further, is the rescuing of the King's cousins a national problem? If it is, I question whether it is of the same category as the death of civilians and military personnel. I think there needs to be better distinction between the problems faced by the Royal family (though they may be of national significance) and the country.
    • "plans to rescue the King's cousins in Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were largely unsuccessful". It goes on to say that him and his immediate family were murdered. Is there no better way of wording it? Largely unsuccessful leaves incredible ambiguity.
  • Government: "when several thousands of men were sacrificed for gains that were were perceived as meagre.". The example seems arbitrary, especially considering there is not one for the shell crisis.
  • Monarchy: "Writer H. G. Wells wrote about Britain's "alien and uninspiring court", and George famously replied: "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien.". A date would be appropriate here, was this before or during the war?
  • I would consider the "Women and the suffragette movement" to come under "Social change".

Queries

  • The Conservatives were probably no longer the second largest party by 1915 - United Kingdom general election, December 1910 was practically a dead heat and I think they may have picked up the odd byelection afterwards.
  • The Old contemptables were formed from the territorials, the reservists and regulars left in the UK. Many of the regulars serving overseas were needed there including in campaigns such as East Africa.
  • the lead says that "the civilian death-rate rose due to food shortages" but the main body reports improved health under rationing.
  • there is far more detail on the doings of various royals than on the impact of the Easter Rising - the demise of the Irish Home rule party seems to have been overlooked.
  • I can't lay hands on the source, but I'm sure I read somewhere that the welsh speaking area contracted due to welsh speaking men serving in the war and coming home speaking english.

ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

Sorry for not posting everything immediately, but I'm just going to throw what I got for right now and come back with a thorough pass when I had the time. Thanks for your feedback on the 'cast!

  • Prose: Like I said on Skype, just look through my (coming) revisions for pointers. I'm not going to make you do a bunch of hunt-and-pick fixes, because the important thing is you learn from them and weed them out (from your own writing at least). When I've performed my copyedit, I'll list what I went after; User:Tony1's 1a criterion guide should be your bible.
  • Images: Jappa has already proscribed licensing issues, so I'll cover some general comments with the alt text (Eubilides will probably stop by and offer better stuff at some point.) In general, you have to think about what a blind person wouldn't necessarily connect with. For example, File:Tsar Nicholas II & King George V.JPG currently says "A photograph of two men, very alike, standing next to each other. Both are in full military regalia; one uniform dark, the other white". "A photograph" is wasted text, and what is "full military regalia"? Better to explain that they're wearing clothes festooned with ribbons, medals, and cords, for example.

I'll try and copyedit ASAP. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Altviewer tool is currently offline due to file server problems, so for now I'm deferring routine alt text reviewing. Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the alt text and overall it was quite good; thanks for writing it. I tried to improve it a bit; that edit removed the "A photograph of", added a bit more description of the visual appearance of the prime ministers, tried to mimic the text of the original images more closely, and did some minor punctuation and copyediting for brevity. But this is mostly just icing on the cake. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments
  • Can we not use the term "First World War" over "World War I", the former seems more British than the latter.?
First World War or World War I - Both the Great War and First World War redirect to World War I. I can not see any problem with using World War I unless there is a ground swell of opinion against it ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a couple of photos/pictures that still need alt text adding.
  • "There were three British Armies during World War I," - is there any way this statement can be reworded? I say this as Four British field armies fought in France during the war, i know thats different to what is being stated but i think it may be a tad confusing.
Changed wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""In German terms Jutland was a victory" as they had suffered fewer losses in men and ships" Isnt this a bit Point of view-ish? Considering this article is about the UK during the war i would imagine the British version of events should be noted - that the German main fleet returned to port and did not rupture the blockade
Changed wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1916, the High Seas Fleet tried another similar operation and was "lucky to escape annihilation"." - do we have a link to the article, if it exists, about this engagement?
There does not seem to be an article for this --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a, both on the clause level and more broadly extending to unsafe political/social generalisations (even if they seem to be uttered by secondary sources).

  • Some great pics.
  • WRT Enigma's comment ... "World War I" seems natural to me, and I'm not American. Do UK speakers not like it?
  • As Awadewit said on the WikiVoice review, "developed as a nation" is a problem. "In order to". And whose goal in the UK was it to defeat Germany? I think that is a ticklish political/social issue. Some historians see it as a conspiricy against the undertrodden in both countries. Who were the "Central Powers" (would love not to have to divert to that link target to know)?
  • Remove "On a military level".
  • Patriotism spreading? Again, complex and not safe to generalise about.
  • Lots of howevers, furthermores, meanwhiles, neverthelesses et al.
  • Is it useful to link "declared war" (targeted at "Declaration of war"? We all know what it means. "Cabinet" linked? It's a common word. Like Australia and Canada. And if "British Empire" is to be linked, let it be to a relevant section of that target.

And much more.

Can this be thoroughly copy-edited? It is several hours' work, probably best split between a number of users who are skilled at this. I wonder whether Colin is interested? I would withdraw it and resubmit in a month or so. Tony (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I've gone over one section, and my earlier hunch that the lead was the hardest part to write were confirmed. The article may well be within reach of FA standard with tender LC, and perhaps a somewhat reconceived lead might come more easily once the rest is ok. Tony (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's less of a divison over World War I/First World War than there used to be, but as I understand it historically British and Commonwealth sources have favoured First/Second World War, whereas World War I/II was more common in US sources (and some might say thst it looks more like a film title). Of course, to most of those who lived through it, it was imply the Great War. David Underdown (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David that’s a pretty good outline.
Another general comment would be to this sentence: "...'moral commitment' to France was another matter; extensive secret talks between the nations had been going on since..."
I have just recently completed a uni assignment on the raise of nations and the basic point is that the nation is the "soul" of the country, the state is the government etc. From that very basic definition the use of nation throughout the article appears to be bob on except on the above occasion, would anyone object if this is changed to "states"?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks again to Jarry for appearing on our Wikivoices podcast! Most of what I'm outlining below, I already said there.

Sources:

  • Spartacus Educational - This person's books all seem to be self-published and he writes about a lot of different topics. He does not seem to be an expert on WWI, so this does not appear to be a high-quality RS.
  • Digital survivors.com (1839 treaty) – This is not a RS – Note that it says on the about page "Scott Manning is a business analyst working for a software company in the Philadelphia area. He has a passion for history and is currently working on a Bachelor's degree in Military History."
  • Election.demon.co.uk appears to be a SPS.
  • Kent Sole Romanov article – Kent Sole doesn't have a PhD. Considering there is so much published on the Romanovs, I would go with a book here. This isn't a high-quality RS.
  • History Learning Site – This is not a RS – Note that the about page states: "Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA set up www.historylearningsite.co.uk in 2000 as he felt there was no easily accessible and comprehensive website on World History on the web. The site has grown in popularity and is now viewed by hundreds of thousands of people each month from around the world. Chris has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000." This is a SPS and not a high-quality RS.
  • Learning Curve – This is teaching plan and although it is assembled by the National Archives, it is not a high-quality reliable source for a topic like WWI, on which so much good scholarship has been published.

Spot fact-checking:

  • "although the act itself did not refer to the death penalty, it made provision for civilians breaking these rules to be tried in army courts martial, where the maximum penalty was death." - I did not see this in the source.
  • "In the early stages of the war, many men, fuelled by promises of glory, decided to "join up" to the armed forces: in August 1914 alone, half a million signed up to fight.[53] Recruitment remained fairly steady through 1914 and early 1915, but fell dramatically during the later years, especially after the Somme campaign, which resulted in 500,000 casualties. As a result, conscription was introduced in January 1916, for single men, and extended in May to all men aged 18 to 41." - I did not see the information in the source.
  • Entire Yarmouth and Lowestoft section is sourced to a 1916 newspaper – This is a primary source. Considering this raid is an important event, we should use secondary sources, not the propaganda-ridden newspapers of the time. :)
Changed to book ref --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”There was also a notable group of war poets who wrote about their own experiences of war, which caught the public attention. Some died on active service, most famously Rupert Brooke,Isaac Rosenberg, and Wilfred Owen, while some, such as Siegfried Sassoon survived. Themes of the poems included the youth (or naivety) of the soldiers, and the dignified manner in which they fought and died. This is evident in lines such as "They fell with their faces to the foe", from the "Ode of Remembrance" taken from Laurence Binyon's For the Fallen, which was first published in The Times in September 1914.” - I've added a fact tag for this information. The only source was the September 1914 newspaper, which can't possibly be a source for all of this information, as it can't summarize the works of all of these war poets just as the war is beginning.
  • "She took an active role in promoting the Girl Guide movement, the Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD), the Land Girls and in 1918, she took a nursing course and went to work at Great Ormond Street Hospital.' - This is sourced to the National Portrait Gallery. Not all of this information is in the source and we should really be using a different source for this information – the NPG is an expert in portraiture.
Changed to book ref --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness:

  • The article's title is “History of the United Kingdom during World War I”, but there is very little about Scotland, Ireland, or Wales. I think more needs to be added about these areas. Two examples:
  • This legislation did not apply to Ireland, despite its then status as part of the United Kingdom (but see Conscription Crisis of 1918)." - This crisis was obviously a big deal – I think it deserves more of an explanation.
  • The Easter rising of 1916 also seems like it deserves more than a sentence.
  • The lead mentions that "At the outbreak of war, patriotism spread throughout the country, and it has been argued that many of the class barriers of Edwardian England were diminished during the period. " However, the article does not really explain this in any detail. A paragraph in the "Social change" section would be a good idea.
  • The "Music" section is a little thin. Can this be expanded?
  • I believe this was the first war with war photographers – perhaps that could be included?

Prose: - The article needs a thorough copyedit. Here are some examples from the "Government" section.

  • ”Asquith declared war on the German Empire on 4 August 1914, in response to the demands for military passage that were forced upon Belgium by Germany, and the expiration of Britain's own ultimatum at 11 p.m. that day.” - What does “military passage” mean here? This sentence is also confusing because the reader doesn't even know that Britain gave Germany an ultimatum. Perhaps expanding this to two or three sentences and adding a bit more information would help.
  • "Britain's reasons for declaring war were complex; the 1839 Treaty of London had committed the United Kingdom to safeguard Belgium's neutrality in the event of invasion,[14] but the Foreign Office had already concluded that it might not apply.” - The “it” no longer refers back “treaty”, so “it” should be replaced by “treaty”.
  • ”Britain's 'moral commitment' to France was another matter” - What is this moral commitment, exactly?
  • ”This lack of proof that war was unavoidable had led to disagreement within the cabinet as late as 31 July." - Confusing beginning of sentence.
  • ”in keeping with the Liberals' historical position as defenders of a laissez-faire style of government” - Isn't laissez-faire usually an economic term?
  • "This coalition government lasted until 1916, when the Unionists became dissatisfied with Asquith and the Liberals' conduct of affairs, particularly over the battle of the Somme." - Perhaps a brief explanation of who the Unionists were?
  • " For the first time, the government could react quickly, without endless bureaucracy to tie it down, and with up-to-date statistics on such matters as the state of the merchant navy and farm production." - Unnecessary words: "endless" and "such".
  • The success of his government can also be attributed to a general lack of desire for an election, and the practical absence of dissent that this brought about." - What is "this" referring to?
  • There are two “this's” in a row in the last paragraph that are confusing – what are they referring to? I would replace them with or add a word “this policy”, etc.

Media: I would like to suggest adding a film clip from The Battle of the Somme – it is in the PD!

I hope these comments are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review See Talk:History of the United Kingdom during World War I#Image review (FAC-style) (provided by Jappalang)

Weak oppose, based on a review of the lead and the first section. There's a lot of fine material here, but there is some fuzziness in the prose.

  • “developed as a nation”: not clear enough, especially for the very first sentence. I think you mean that Britain rapidly added infrastructure and changed socially, but this phrase is rather muddy. I had a couple of tries at rephrasing this but I’d like to be sure what the intent is first. The phrase in the dab header, “effect of the war on civilian and military life”, is admirably clear; perhaps some paraphrase of that would work.
    Yes, that's what I meant (though I didn't like it when I wrote it) -- Jarry1250
  • “war-related industries grew rapidly, and production increased, as disparate groups of people pulled together”:
    • military production increased, but overall production fell, according to the body of the article. To avoid ambiguity I think “and production increased” should be cut; if it refers to military production it repeats the previous phrase.
    • “pulled together” doesn’t seem supported. The body of the article says that there was resentment at the some specifically named other groups: the Belgians and the Irish; and the use of women caused “initial” trades union resentment, though perhaps that changed. In any case “pulled together” is a bit vague – do you mean that the traditional labour force welcomed the new groups that helped the war effort? How was the pulling together evidenced?
  • “demands for military passage”: I presume this means that Germany insisted on the right of their troops to pass through Belgium, rather than that Germany invaded Belgium? Or is the distinction moot? The article you link to, Causes of World War I, doesn’t seem to mention military passage, so I would just like to check that this is supported by the reference. It could perhaps be made more specific too, since this is a phrase many readers won’t know, and you provide no further context.
    The distinction is largely moot, but in theory they demanded (as you say) "the right of their troops to pass through Belgium" and only "invaded" when this offer was rejected. Of course, in Belgium's eyes, it was an invasion either way. -- Jarry1250
  • “was by necessity replaced over the course of the war” doesn’t quite work: “replaced” implies a change at a specific time, but “over the course of” implies a gradual process. If this refers to the changes made when Lloyd George became prime minister then perhaps “lasted until 1916”; if you mean that the policy changed during Asquith’s tenure, e.g. under the coalition government, then how about “was modified over the course next two years, and ultimately abandoned in 1916.” I am not sure about “of necessity”; you don’t seem to say what the necessity was. What exactly does the source say about the reason for the change in policy? Was the criticism of Asquith specifically associated with the “business as usual” policy, so that one could say it became the common political view that the policy was causing the war to go badly?
    • I'll have to think about that one -- Jarry1250
  • “designed to take total responsibility for the war, regardless of its outcome”: what does “regardless of its outcome” mean?
  • Why did total war give the government access to up-to-date statistics unavailable to Asquith’s governments?
    " Highly able young men were appointed to collect and collate data and to bypass slow moving government departments." -- Jarry1250
  • “This ultimately heralded the collapse of the Liberals and the rise of the Labour Party during the 1920s”: the source doesn’t make this connection: it mentions the 1918 suffrage act and the following paragraph says that the war heralded several seismic political shifts. I agree it’s a reasonable construction but I think you should find a source that makes that construction if you want to say it.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2009 (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 Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [47].

Otomi language[edit]

Nominator(s): ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I've recently expanded it drastically with the FA criteria in mind. I have asked for comments from multiple linguistic knowledgeable editors who have only found minor copyediting concerns. I believe the article is at such a stage that the only way for me to improve it more is by having it undergo the FA process. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I can not continue to take part in this nomination process as it has proven too stressful. If this is interpreted as a denomination then so be it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Materialscientist:
    • I find it confusing when double (Harvard) citation is used for short journal articles, and advise to cite those directly. This will also sort out existing problems with "same author, same year" citations (see below).
    • Please provide page numbers for all book references.
    • I don't understand ref "Lastra 1998, 2006: 54–55" - there are two Lastra 1998 refs. It is highly unusual that same pages could be used for two different books.
    • Please arrange references in chronological and alphabetical order; whenever two refs have same year for same author, use a,b (e.g. Smith 1990a; Smith 1990b).
    • Please provide alt text for images per WP:ALT.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments:

  • I don't understand this could you give an example of what you mean by double Harvard?
  • I don't provide page numbers when a cited fact is the general point of an article, such as Palancar's assertion about active-stative alignment or having no adjectives. Probably some page numbers have been left for sloppyness I will amend those.
  • I inserted lastra 1998b after the first one was cited so I will change that reference to Lastra 1998a and Lastra 2006:54-55. These refs should be split since the cite to different facts - this is a clear mistake.
  • Images have Alt text. Is there problems with the Alttext it has already?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken care of page numbers and sorting of the bibliography already. And yes that double citation was a mistake I have split it out into two separate citations. I have disambiguated Palancar 2008 a and b, 2006a and b, and Lastra 1998a and b throughout the text.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the double references although I don't agree that this should be a problem.
There are still refs without page numbers but that is because the cited fact is not something that occurs on one page but throughout the cited work, or which is the main argument of the work - for example orthographic conventions used, analysis of adjectives as stative verbs etc.
I do not want to put short articles into the footnotes instead of the references - I would rather then switch to a harvard citation style with inline citations in parentheses instead of ref tags. It is very important in my view that the entire bibliography remain in one place - it is a major feature of the article that it represents so many sources at once - it is currently the most exhaustive bibliography of sources related to the Otomi language in print or on the internet - i would be very sad to split that up.
I respect that, but please do not abuse referencing system. Be sure, most readers come to read about Otomi language rather than references on Otomi language. Create a separate article with a list of references on Otomi language if this is so important. Unresolved issues are (i) many refs in Bibliography are never used in the text (examples are too many 3xWallis; 2xAndrews, most of Bernard, etc.) (ii) it it hard to understand why some references, supporting specific claims, do not have page numbers and others do. (iii) "This usage is preferred by Palancar (2008)" which Palancar 2008? Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is abuse, to me it is standard practice which I have used in other FAs. I also disagree that using the refname function is necesarry - I don't use that in any of my articles only citeshort and I don't believe there is any rule that refname is necesarry for FAs. Pr MOS the citation style of the main contrbutor should be respected as long as it is consistent - I wish you would revert your changes to named refs. I have disambiguated the ref to Palancar 2008(b). I also don't think it is a problem to not have page numbers for all refs - it is standard academic practice in my field to only have page numbers for specific claims that are citeable to a specific page number.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. You may use various citations styles. "Abuse" was a somewhat harsh word of mine on the i-iii issues above, none of which you have addressed. Unfortunately, conventions of your field do not apply to WP:FA. My "named refs" are a standard WP practice to avoid repeating identical citations in the list, which we all have to follow. Materialscientist (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show mw where in the MOS it says that named refs are a requirement? I would appreciate if you revert you change to refname untill others have commented on this.
Also the reason there are works in the bibliography that are not used in the body of the is as I said that this is made as an exhaustive bibliography which again is quite standard practice in encuclopedic articles - especially about topics where there is no general familiarity with the sources. The Bibliography is a section that is there to inform the reader about the scholarship on the topic - it is not just a section of references it is part of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA would redirect you on Harvard referencing here, which explains "named refs". The rule here is basic - do avoid repeating identical references in the reference list. Comment (iii) is minor and beyond discussion - you have to re-read and fix it. It is your right to oppose other comments, which I would put below as
I have of course disambiguated that refernce to Palancar 2008b.
Argh.. No you have not. Search the page (press <CRTL-F>) for "This usage is preferred by Palancar (2008)" Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right. Now I have and I caught one more.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using the system given in here I am using WP:CITESHORT.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Naming refs to avoid their repetitions is above any individual referencing system. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where policy based in consensus among wikipedians says so please. The mediawiki link does not state that this is a requirement, and if it did the mediawiki page is not a result of a consensus among wikipedians.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request third opinion on the following comments:
(i) many refs in the Bibliography section are never used in the text (examples are too many: 3xWallis; 2xAndrews, most of Bernard, etc.) (ii) it it hard to understand why some references, supporting specific claims, do not have page numbers and others do. (iii) The nominator disagrees with the usage of <ref name=xx> and then <ref name=xx/> to avoid duplication of references. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar request was made at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates #Question about references and citations and several comments have been made there. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • re (i), even if some reference sources are not currently directly cited for some specific statement in the text, they are all directly relevant to the topic at hand. I can think of a number of good reasons why maintaining them in the article's bibliography makes sense and is beneficial—it's good practice to acknowledge relevant materials one has reviewed and considered when determining what to write (even if ultimately another source ends up with the direct citation); particularly in a specialised topic like this one listing influential works provides a good background to the field; makes it easier to validate whether the directly cited sources are representative of opinion in the wider field; it helps future editors who may come along looking for good source materials to use in expanding the coverage. But given that these are now being broken out into a 'further reading' section the point may be moot now anyway.
  • re (ii), I'd say it's ok to refer to a source in toto if the statement being cited is a general theme of that source, ie the discussion in the source permeates throughout. Or, if the statement is essentially a summation of the source's main argument(s) or position, which are rarely confined to specific page(s). However, to avoid the impression that the page no's have simply been forgotten for these, perhaps it would be useful to explicitly indicate this is the case, either by citing it as <ref>Smith 2003, ''passim.''</ref> or discursively with something like <ref>For the arguments in favour of position X, see those detailed in Smith 2003.</ref>
  • re (iii), I don't think 'named references' / combining "duplicate" citations is mandatory per any MOS, and (IMO) for bibliography-based referencing systems like the one used here, naming/combining citations doesn't really save much on space & make it more complicated not less to cite something. To my mind this is just one of those editorial decisions best left to consensus of editors working on a given article, and WP:MOS#General principles would apply. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (i), a logical solution is to separate "Bibliography" (sources cited in the text) and "further reading" (other relevant sources). A half-step has been made in this direction, thus I expect it to be finalized, i.e. to have references sorted out. Regarding (ii), I have to repeat, I do not take general answers to a specific point - there are specific facts in the articles where a whole book will not do as a reference. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not mentioned any specific facts - it might make it easier for us to adress your concerns if you told us which refs you believe require page numbers.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest all further discussion regarding reference style be taken to the article's talk page. Materialscientist's concerns are valid but this is not the forum for them. The featured article criteria require a References section (which this article has) and a consistently formatted citation style (which this article has). The details of the citation style, such as whether the "name" attribute is used, whether there are additional references, and how specific they need be, are not covered by the featured article criteria or any other policy. I urge the closing admins to assume the citation style is sufficient for the purposes of the FA decision. Noisalt (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General issues are already taken to talks. Specific comments: Arguably, those specific facts need page numbers: 5a, 23, 43, 44, 63, 74a (74b and 75?) Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 is a short article the entire topic of which is the different endonyms of the various Otomi groups - page numbers would be from the first page to the last. 23 is not a citation for a fact about the codex it is a citation for the published and translated codex itself. 43 and 44 are two medium sized articles about the reconstruction of proto-Otomi the entirity of which presents arguments in favour for the reconstructed inventory given - page numbers would be from the first page to the last. I will provide page numbers for 63 although it is a short article. 74 and 75 definitely needs fixed - thanks for noticing.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I variously tweaked the cites for 5a (a 1-page paper), 23, 43 & 44 to make it clearer reference is to the whole source. Hope that will suffice for those specific statements. Note in doing so the citation auto-numbering has changed, so these are now offset from the no's mentioned above.--cjllw ʘ TALK 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Some images have alt text (thanks), but there are problems:

  • File:Mezquitaltones.png lacks alt text, and the alt text for File:Artesania otomí (El Arenal, Hidalgo).jpg is simply the two words "alt text", which surely is a typo.
  • File:Bienvenidos a Ixmiquilpan.jpg is an image of a sign that contains text which is important, so that text should appear in the alt text.
  • Some of the phrases in the alt text repeat information that's in the caption and should be removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "sixteenth century", "Huichapan codex", and "Spanish and Otomi".
  • Some of the phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and should be removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include the "Otumi" in "manuscript text in Otomi" and "Otomi warrior", and "welcoming visitors to the Town of Ixmiquilpan, Hidalgo" (we shouldn't assume readers know Spanish or Otomi).
  • The alt text for File:Otomimap2.png doesn't convey much useful info about what that map says. Instead of mentioning irrelevant details like "red", please rewrite it so that it focuses on what the map says that nearby text doesn't, e.g., the geographical locations of the various Otomi speakers. The visually impaired reader should know from the alt text that these speakers live in a band that stretches roughly from Mexico City east-northeast to the highlands south of Veracruz (you can use the words in this sentence as a prototype for the alt text, and improve it as you see fit).

Eubulides (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have tried to improve the Alt text as per your suggestions. Please check to see if that adresses your concerns. This is the first tme I use Alt text in an article - nmy other FA's were reviewed before that was obligatory.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's much better. I tweaked it a bit more by removing some phrases like "Otomi" that can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, removing a few more phrases to avoid repetition with the caption and for brevity, and reproducing the typography of that sign more accurately (including that underscored "U"). Perhaps the underscore should be mentioned in the section on orthography? Anyway, thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly thus far. Very interesting topic; not well-enough written yet. Please locate serious copy-editors with a little distance from the text.

  • "Chain" link in "indigenous languages of Mexico" (which will have "Mexico" linked prominently itself) and "Mexico". The latter could be unlinked as redundant.
  • On the other hand, do we have a focused link for "dialect continuum"? Perhaps not ... "The language is spoken in many different dialects, some of which are not mutually intelligible, and the language can alternatively be labeled as a dialect continuum." This is not, in any case, a good sentence—it seems to swerve back and forth: many different dialects, then some not mutually intelligible, then we find that it can all be labelled as a continuum. I'm confused, and we need to be clear for non-linguists. (You can remove the second "the language".)
  • Is the Mezquital Otomi the main dialect? If so, please tell us when you introduce the term, or we won't know why it's privileged in the text. "]; speakers of other dialects use similar-sounding terms."
  • Word order slightly uncomfortable: try "who would later" and "and by the eve of the Sp. con. had become". Can you audit for this throughout?
  • Comma after "period"? It's not a short sentence. But now I notice "In the colonial period," and "During the colonial period", close together. I'd use a different wording second time (or remove it).
  • "Literary" means more than just that the language was now written too. Sure it shouldn't be "written"?
  • Why "However,"? I see no contradiction or turning away from the previous statement. You might instead consider a paragraph break there.
  • Another "However", five seconds later, also without proper justification. Do check that but, however, etc, really do turn away in meaning.
  • Challenging these adversities is slightly unidiomatic.
  • Do you need "same" and "also"? I'm unsure I understand the meaning, anyway. I haven't read further than the lead yet. Tony (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in to this tonight - there are already several "serious" (whatever you mean by that) copyeditors who are working on the article and some of the things you mention have been introduced by them.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text has now been completely rewritten by two serious copyeditors (one of them a little too serious in my opinion) who have not contributed to the article at all (therefore: distanced from the text). And the lead has been improved according to your suggestions.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've only re-written some sections of the article. Haven't had the time to get to the entire article, but plan to. In my view, the copyediting shouldn't be rushed. Will report back here when I'm finished. User:Dale Chock is also copyediting, so the prose will get a good overhaul. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initial pass at copyediting finished. Will respond to and fix additional and specific comments re: prose in the rest of the article. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Could content notes be separated from mere references?
    • I'm really iffy with the idea that this article could get promoted with IPA marking that is completely nonstandard. I don't know whether the use of hooks is standard in the Otomi-related literature, but could you please at least consider using the standard nasalisation mark?

(I'll probably form a fuller opinion once I've read the article fully). Circeus (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I would rather change to using standard Americanist notation since that is what the sources use, would that be acceptable?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's a completely different issue. Upon further reading I can see the problem is not quite a nonstandard transcription as the improper use of the language's spelling system (as noted under "Practical orthography", which comes too late to relieve confusion) where phonetic notation is to be expected. The consonant are just fine (I personally loathe Americanist notation), it's the nasal vowels that cause problems, not only because of their non-standard notation, but also because that diacritic is similar to the IPA retracted tongue root mark. Circeus (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not really a valid point for example Lakhota orthography also uses hooks to denote nasal vowels (as do all other orthograpghies based on americanist notation).I don't know what you mean by "improper use of the language's spelling system". The system used by Lastra and in the article heres is as close to an official spelling system as the language has - None of the orthographies suggested by Bernard or Bartholomew gained any currency. This transcription is used in the vast majority of published texts in Otomi. The only difference is that it should use š instead of ʃ which i don't really know why I didn't do in the first place. The only works in Otomi that use IPA are those by palancar because he was publishing in IJAL whose style guide prefers it. (and possibly because he is educated in Europe and not by Americanists as Lastra, Bartholomew and Bernard)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it was when I commented, the anomalous feature where solely the vowels, so it is normal for to assume the problem comes from the spelling (which is weird, though, given that higher up you actually used tildes...). I also do not believe that using the Americanist notation is appropriate merely because American linguists use it. IPA is clearly the standard on en:WP (as strongly implied by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) and the {{IPA}} templates), and is also the system used in your previous FA, Nahuatl, so I honestly do not see any good reason to use what is essentially an egocentric variant with the potential to exclude a majority of users accustomed to the IPA. Circeus (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus to change to IPA instead of the transscription used by the sources then so be it. My reluctance to use IPA is not because the linguists who use it are american but because it is used by the majority of the linguists who work with the language. As for the MOS this could be considered a defacto orthography rather than a phonetic transscription - and the guidelines for pronunciation would then not apply - we also do not use IPA for writing french except when dealing specifically with pronunciation. I find changing transscription to verge on OR so I will not advocate it myself - and I also don't want to execute the change if it is decided that it should be changed. I don't think i use tildes - maybe a copyeditor have inserted some. to me changing the orthography to IPA implies problems of interpretation that do not arise when using the transccription used by the sources - I would be afraid to introduce errors because of mistinterpretation the closeness or nearness of transcription that may vary between sources. In my view it is not merely a change of one symbol for another but also involves making guesses about the original researchers intents.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious in conception and focus. Here I will address the issue of unclear rationale. People can go to the article's talk page to see my copious comments on the specific content and on the editors' scholarship (I have also edited the candidate article massively, see bottom). But I must interject one content problem: the Otomi language article has almost no content about syntax (as opposed to morphology, i.e., word structure), a deficiency which I find academically unacceptable for an FAC.

What are the scope and the intention of this article, Otomi language? It was in effect developed to its current state by appending a long discussion of grammar to an existing article, Otomi people: as of yesterday, the "language" and the "people" articles have all the same illustrations and (by perusal) almost the same upper half text. The "people" article has a brief paragraph on grammar near the bottom.

One of my first criticisms of the "language" article was it went on too long about the history of the people without direct relevance to the language. Since making that criticism (which was dismissed out of hand, as have been other of my criticisms), I have looked at the "people" article, and now I'm beginning to "get it". Meanwhile, the driving force behind both the "language" and the "people" article has created a stub, Otomi grammar. That was eleven days ago, and of yesterday, it hadn't been touched since 15 minutes after its creation. Readers should know, at Wikipedia there are many cases of paired "X language" and "X grammar" articles, this is not in general inappropriate.

Recommendations. The Otomi language article currently has excessive content about the Otomi people. It also has excessive content about the grammar. Either put some of it in the Otomi grammar article, or delete the Otomi grammar article. Although I myself am a linguistics enthusiast, I find that some of the current content in the grammar section of Otomi language is too trivial for anyone except me myself and one or two of the main contributors.

(I have edited this Featured Article Candidate massively in the last three days or so; so much so that I could almost be called a contributor, although that was not my intention). If you're curious about my impact on the prose, it should be easy to ascertain because I only have ten page saves not marked "minor edit".) Dale Chock (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on all accounts. I have created the articles on Otomi language and Otomi people. Three weeks ago I started expanding the article on otomi language because I had gotten acces to a lot of new sources. At a point in editing I realized that the section about history of the language was better than what already existed at otomi people so i moved that section there so that readers o wanted a good overview of the Otomi peoples history could read it there. Then i expanded the article more - and irealised that i had gone into too much detail about the grammar of the language and I decided to create a separate spinnout article about grammar where I would move the entire section on grammar and only keep the parts of the decription of grammar that were relevant in order to give the reader interested in the language a brief overview on the grammar. While I were busy writing all this what were you doing Dale? The article on Otomi language does NOT have excessive content either about the peopl or about the Grammar. Look at other featured articles and you will get an idea about how they are written - they are not substantially different form this one. You obviously haven't got much of an idea about how language articles are written at wikipedia - or what the FA criteria are. I suggest that you start contributing content and reading articles in stead of harassing content contributing editors. Now, have a good day Mr. Chock.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask the closing admin to close based on the merits of this article alone and not based on Dale Chocks irrelevant musings about which parts of the content is repeated in other articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two rejoinders. First, to elaborate on my objection about the lack of content about syntax. Here — in less than 25 words — is what "proper description of syntax" means: the description of syntax in grammars of languages has gotten fairly standardized since about 1980; there is a menu of topics to address. OK, given that, when an article about a language doesn't describe that language's syntax, that's like an article about the moon not describing the moon's monthly phases. At the talk page of this candidate article, it has now been claimed that the deficiency reflects a deficiency in the literature on the Otomi language. If so (and it may not be so), then it would follow that an article on the Otomi language is not deserving of Featured Article status. Find a different language to write about if you want to garner an FA award, a language that someone can properly describe. Second point (which I didn't first raise here, I did first raise it on the talk page of our FA candidate article, Otomi language): Maunus says he created an Otomi grammar spinout article to which to "move the entire section on grammar", etc. But he never followed through: he spent 15 minutes on the spinout article and eleven days later, still no new edits to Otomi grammar, during which time massive editing of grammar facts continued at Otomi language. No transfer of content was performed. I suggest that a more deserving target for a FA campaign would be the Otomi people article. Look past the hand-waving rebuttal to me, "your objections are irrelevant": between the three articles, Otomi people, language, grammar, there is a confusion as to conception and focus. There is also unsatisfactory execution. Dale Chock (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"he never followed through" have you considered that this might be because I have been busy with another article? Anyway it is irrelevant how much time I spend on any article, as I am not under accountable to you or any other editor at wikipedia for how I choose to spend my time. And furthermore you cannot see how long I have spent writing or reseraching from time stamps on the edits - there is such a thing as external text editors. I suggest you read up on the FA criteria - there are FAs with less material on syntax. Possibly the world just isn't how you'd like it to be - I suggest you deal with that. Now I have spoken the last I am going to communicate with you - and further comments from your part will be ignored.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Bartholomew, Doris (1963). In refs but not notes or text
  • Bernard 1969 in text but not refs; Bernard 1967 in refs but not text. Typo?
  • Bartholomew 2001 in notes but not refs
  • Garibay 1971 in notes but not refs
  • Bernard, H. Russell (July 1973) & Bernard, H. Russell (April 1974) both in refs but not notes or text.
  • Lastra, Yolanda (1989) in refs but not text.
  • Palancar, Enrique L. (2006a) in refs but not notes.
  • You have notes to Palancar 2008 & Palancar 2008b, but only one ref for 2008b. Is the unadorned 2008 supposed to be “a” or “b”?
  • I think some of your Lascars were out of chronological order...
  • I added a few {{fact}} tags, which you can either cite or defend against.
  • It's often difficult to separate the language from the people and vice versa. I too feel there is a bit too much overlap between this article and the one about the Otomi people. However, I caution against sudden, wholesale slashing and deleting. First, the decisions regarding "what goes where" should be undertaken judiciously, with proper care and deliberation. Second, the Language article, by virtue of being at FAC, has received numerous copy edits and is grammatically far superior. If any duplicated text is to be removed from the language article, the "kept version" should be that of the FAC (i.e., the language article), and should be moved over to the People article. Carefully. I suspect that the total amount of text removed from the language article need not be too large...
  • Not wanting to clutter this page, I have temporarily placed some suggestions at User:Ling.Nut/page1. I s'pose I could move them to article talk as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ill take care of those before leaving.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose spot-check:

  • "namely: the person ..."—consider dropping "namely".
  • "Suffixes on verbs express grammatical number of the participant(s)."—where there's an "of" to the right put a "the" to the left.
  • "innovative dialects"—remind the readers what "innovative" means here? Is this standard terminology? Do you mean "unstable"? Or ... "distal"?
  • "noun words" ... sounds clumsy. Consider "nominal items" or just "nouns".
  • "widespread throughout" might be tautological; "widespread in"?
  • "Person, Number ..."—sentence case, please, throughout for titles.

The grammar section is all a bit trad.—word classes that I'm sure don't really fit the way the language is used. Have you read Halliday? But that's neither here nor there—the article has chosen to source a trad. frame. Tony (talk)

I suppose an encyclopaedic entry on its grammar can only cover descriptions and schemes appearing in those sources that analyse this language; Halliday is not among those that do. The sources used are all the major published authorities on Otomi, and are fairly reflected in the text. And it'd be a fair reflection of the way the language is used. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have made some tweaks to address the points under Tony's 'prose spot-check' section above; pls review. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this: there are only seven Good Articles in the area of Language and Linguistics and no Featured Articles. Why couldn't the promoter of this article have aimed for Good Article instead? You can always try to improve a Good Article later. Anyhow, as I will explain, this is the wrong language to try to make a GA or FA off of. But first an aside: the FA nominations page seems like NOT the place for detailed copy editing! Take that to the article and the article's Talk page.
This language, Otomi, is just insufficiently researched: even mere description of it is still relatively scanty, and there is less of analysis of the data and even less still of theorizing. How can Wikipedians make a Good Article or a Featured Article out of a topic that is poorly researched? (I mean poorly researched by the professionals who research such things, not by the Wikipedians.)
This nomination was not just premature, it was fundamentally misconceived because the promoter's strategy for developing an article of FA quality was, "let's take an article, an article that isn't even close to ready, and undertake to edit it into shape". For goodness' sake, the nomination was made BEFORE thorough reference checking was performed by editors knowledgeable in linguistics. With only two hours of Internet searches plus checking three pages in sources pulled off a shelf, I confirmed misquotes, gaps, and absences of "context" (one of the FA criteria is providing scholarly context). The contributors did not report (they were apparently unaware of it) a significant divergence between investigators: it concerns the very consonant inventory of Otomi. I was able to document the existence of the divergence in about ten minutes of Internet searching. That's just yet another example of how this article did not come close to meeting any of the FA criteria. Aside from that, the Peer Review was rushed — the Peer Review archive for this article is blank.
I am dismayed by some of the comments made above, but not because I find them erroneous. The problem is that they don't recognize that the article was marred by a tedious attempt to provide exhaustive grammatical detail — which by the way violates one of the FA criteria. You commenters need to examine one of the seven Good Articles in Languages to find a model for writing such articles (let me suggest Mongolian language). By the way, I second Tony; the grammar discussion read like one of the grammars from the 1950s or 1960s "structuralist linguistics" era (some of which I like, but many of which were dull and uninsightful). Dale Chock (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2009 (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 Karanacs 15:50, 1 September 2009 [48].

Intimacy (Bloc Party album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Rafablu88 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. After the success of Fantasy Black Channel and Silent Alarm, I bring you some Intimacy. I have followed my FA album's templates, so this one copies Silent Alarm but due to its rush-release and minimal promotion is more similar, content-wise, to Fantasy Black Channel. I hope you won't find anything to complain about, but if you do, I'm sure it'll be minor stuff. I've followed the previous advice down to a tee on this, including the detailed comments from Karanacs and Steve. As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article (unless you oppose the nom) if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance and apologies for any future awesome/awful banter. Rafablu88 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Update Fixed dead links and disambiguated. Rafablu88 01:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Update There's been 2 supports, 1 object, and all sources cleared. WesleyDodds is mostly happy but will revisit and make any necessary changes to one of the sections before changing his verdict. Dabomb87 has promised to visit the article. I'm off for a few days and will be incommunicado if anyone wants specific changes made. I'm sure the editors themselves can handle general and/or formatting changes. Cheers. Rafablu88 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment You really are very diligent in your article work, Rafablu, and much more so than I am. I must say this is very good work, not that I've come to expect anything less from you. :) I just have one question. Is there any particular reason you have the UK, Irish, and US chart positions listed before all the others? Timmeh (review me) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I like common sense and my common sense tells me that seeing as we're on English Wiki and a British band's two major labels are in UK/Eire and U.S., it makes sense to put those primary major markets at the top. I'm sure the folks on French Wiki would agree and put their Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique at the top for a French band like Phoenix. Rafablu88 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. I somehow always miss the most obvious answer. Anyway, the article looks like it satisfies the FA criteria. I'll give it one last read and add my support tomorrow, if that's OK with you. Timmeh (review me) 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you'll find that all images have detailed alt text. I was very careful following last time. Rafablu88 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It some problem with squid cache. The squids are returning revision 20090808224225 (without alt text) when the current revision is 20090811151141. I change the retrieve method to avoid the squid caches. — Dispenser 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would help to skip the cache, yes. I often modify pages and then check them right away with the altviewer tool. Also, I fixed a typo that prevented one of the alt text entries from showing. Eubulides (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The squid cache is invalidated after saving, but sometimes it fails. The rational behind using the squids cache instead of the parser cache was that it is what readers see/hear. But bugs can change that. — Dispenser 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about making synth pulse clear as synthesizer pulse? Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two things that I noticed. 1) Please use dynamic columns (code: {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}) on the reflist template so 800x600 users aren't reading 3 words a line. 2) Avoid fixing image with, just use the default. — Dispenser 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slipped through the cracks but changed now. I'd used it on FBC. As for images, this comes up over and over again. MOS:IMAGES says that thumb is advised but that sizes are up to editor's discretion, unless they become something stupid like 1000px. I usually use 233px, not too big not too small, so that people can actually see the detail without having to click on the photo. I always make sure they're nicely placed and merged too. Rafablu88 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced them to 200px which works just as well I think. Rafablu88 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks to me that the article satisfies the FA criteria. Timmeh (review me) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers, for the GA review edits as well. Rafablu88 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a UK printed magazine until the start of this year (hence the italics for when the article was written) and then it went online only. Here's a couple of covers: [49] and [50] And the About Us page: [51] to confirm "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight". Rafablu88 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've just insulted a British institution here. Remember the time when there was no Internet, no Wiki, etc.? Well, then, people used to press a little button named 'txt' on their remotes while watching ITV and Channel 4 to get all their info. Its Planet Sound was the one of the first notable non-print media publications to review music. Here's Teletext's history to enlighten you: [52] Rafablu88 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laughed out loud. I too fondly remember Planet Sound and its parent :)  GARDEN  19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the legend that is John Earls, who got a job there after writing reader reviews before he was 18 and is now the only writer and editor on it after all these years. Actually, I might start his article seeing as he doesn't have one. Rafablu88 22:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, YES!! Finally, an "all resolved" conclusion on sources. Rafablu88 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as significant contributor (would have been a nominator had I been here and not in Denmark) - I too believe this article is FA-worthy and applaud the endless work Rafa has put into it with some help from myself :) I can't find anything to fault offhand but will patrol this page and help to right any possible wrongs that turn up.  GARDEN  19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remove references from Eil.com; it's a retail site and does not count as a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being a retail site is not automatically conducive to being an unreliable source. In fact, they would strive to be extra reliable seeing as they have more to lose, i.e. customers, sales, reputation etc. For example, Amazon.com is often used for information and is trusted my millions, if not billions. Esprit International is one of the earliest and largest retailers on the Web, now operating an extensive worldwide mail order system and a record label. It has one of the largest databases of vinyl LPs and their respective info on the web. Ealdgyth, who does the source comments on FACs, considers both Amazon and Esprit reliable as was the case here and in all my previous FAs. Finally, in all instances, both sources are simply used for release dates, catalog info, track list anomalies etc., info that no other websites have, and not for opinions or anything else controversial. Rafablu88 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that it's not considered a reliable secondary source. It's a retailer, and should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says you, sadly. The person who does the source reviews on FACs, Ealdgyth, has always considered it reliable. When I get a "remove it" from the person who is the expert on sources here then I shall. As it stands, it's staying there. Rafablu88 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a particularly helpful attitude. Can't you find a better source for this other than a retail site? WesleyDodds (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's the only attitude to have after it passed its sourcing comments with flying colours (see above). And don't you think I would have put in those non-retail sources if they existed, being the ridiculously thorough and perfectionist person I am? Rafablu88 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the BBC call it "one of the UK's largest specialist record dealers". That must be enough.  GARDEN  19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they use it as a source in that article as well. That must surely seal it?  GARDEN  19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Ealdgyth's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches (which I always go on and what everyone should go on here), that should prove reliability, especially as the BBC cite technical data from them (which I have, too). But I bet our Wesley will still find fault and continue undermining Ealdgyth's thorough work and conclusion. Rafablu88 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<- Rafa, really, stop attacking Wesley - he's not arguing because he dislikes you; purely because he's concerned with some areas of the article. He might be right, he might be wrong, but you don't need to treat him like a scratch on a Porsche.  GARDEN  21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I, too, thought that was a bit harsh, Rafablu. Timmeh (review me) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've got guidelines, dispatches, and source experts to go by, and he suddenly decides he doesn't like a source and wants it removed. I do my homework and I expect him to do the same if I'm to take his oppose seriously and actually improve what he says I should improve. Rafablu88 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep calm. I've been heavily involved in FAC and FAR for years, and I am not making unwarranted remarks. Just because one person does't challenge a sourcs doesn't mean others can. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I don't think your comment now stands considering the sourcing and dispatch above. Rafablu88 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose over prose and sourcing concerns. Much of the prose is awkward and not entirely clear as to what point it's trying to convey (sample: "The politically charged A Weekend in the City allowed the band members to push forward sonically, but they were not entirely comfortable with more daring arrangements when recording it"; this is awfully vague and unnecessarily long-winded). I visited a few sources to try and clarify the prose based on the original text, but found in several instancies the prose was not reflecting the citations. For example, the article originally said "The first track, "Ares", shares its name with the Ancient Greek God of War and is an attack on the modern generation obsessed with appearances, exemplified by the lines "War war war war / I want to declare a war / My fist breaks your porcelain nose". Expect the article cited said nothing about "an attack on the modern generation obsessed with appearances". Another example is "Impromptu 2007 single "Flux" incorporated some experimental electronic elements, and multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes has noted that it gave Bloc Party the opportunity to move in a multitude of directions on Intimacy". However, the article cited said nothing about "Flux"'s incorporation of experimental electronic elements; it simply discussed that it inspired the band to go in different directions on its next album, but didn't specify why. I have since fixed these two examples, but the rest of the article's citations need to be double-checked. I'm also worried that opinion statements from reviews are being used to support information about the recording process and musical composition, when all can source their statements for is critical opinion; that's what they're paid to do. Coupled with the concern I mentioned about the use of eil.com as a source above, this article needs a look from some uninvolved editors to try and balance out the problems. I'll be happy to revisit the article after it has received a discriminating in-depth look at these problems from others. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't help when you wholesale revert my cleanup efforts, including the items I mentioned I fixed above due to inaccuracy. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replied about Esprit International above.
  • Adam Mazmanian of The Washington Times is clearly referenced in the sentence in "Studio sessions", so whilst being a critic explanation, noone can get the wrong idea about the statement. It is simply there to enrich and inform the discussion since he specifically commented on the studio process. It is the only statement from critics in that section and I wouldn't be stupid enough to source that section entirely from critics, as it needs to be factual.
  • Yes, the "Lyrics and composition" section makes use of critics but as I explained to you about Silent Alarm earlier in the year, they are usually the only sources apart from music sheets and lyrics on the bands website that explain and inform that section. They might be paid to write opinion, but they are usually the experts in music and know what they're talking about in terms of composition. Now I would have loved to have had the actual creators, Bloc Party, explaining this stuff like in A Weekend in the City but they did zilch promotion and zero print media interviews, so feasting on breadcrumbs was the only course of action.
Have you looked at any music magazines (specifically guitar mags)? They typically go in-depth about musical composition. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't mean to sound like a dick, just ridiculously exasperated. Have you or have you not read the article and the comments I have written over and over again? THE BAND DID NOT DO ANY PRINT MEDIA PROMOTION. I can't magic up sources from thin air. I only went with what I could find and I reckon I've done a sterling job with breadcrumbs. Rafablu88 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the producers or any of the technical staff who worked on the record? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One word that typifies the research for this article: zilch. I think that's what the band were going for. Minimal coverage and absolutely no critical magnum opuses like their last time. Rafablu88 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall have a look at the all references. I am pissed off that those two things slipped through but there's no need to generalise the whole article.
  • I will tighten the prose in those examples you mention and would appreciate any more you might have. Again, let's not generalise the whole article based on 1-2 examples.

Rafablu88 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • UPDATE:
    • I've fixed the "Politically charged..." sentence and added an extra ref for good measure.
    • I've cited the Flux elements sentence with an extra ref.
    • The Ares thing was a terrible cock up and has been rectified.
    • Adam Mazmanian was made a tad bit clearer.
    • Added tons more music sheet refs to solidify and enrich the critics' assertions.
      • Will now check each citation and then the prose. Rafablu88 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All citations seem totally fine now. Fixed a few of the prose issues as well. Don't think there's anymore to do but will give it a final workover. Rafablu88 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You need to be careful how you summarize the information you are citing. There are instancies where the wording borders on original research. Don't be afraid to directly quote sources if this clears up confusion. Also some statements aren't outright factual and are instead opinions that need to attributed. The sentence "The vocal delivery is fragile . . ." is an example. "Fragility" is not a measureable trait of music, so you must attribute the description to the source in the prose. Remember, this is an example, and not an isolated instance; review the entire article for these issues. And as I mentioned before, someone not involved with authoring the article needs to take a look at the prose (I would do it more in-depth, but I don't want to step on any more toes). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Borders" on original research is not original research then is it, if we define bordering as "close to but not over the line". All sentences are cited to where the info was found, and if there's any doubt, the source is only a little click away.
          • I have reviewed the entire article for sources and prose and will do time and time again. I believe your worries have been fully tackled.
          • I don't believe it's suitable to take a stance, i.e. oppose, then say that it stays there until SOMEONE ELSE reviews the article for you. At best, you're only entitled to a comment or a neutral stance if you can't back up your claim with a list of personal examples. I'm not telepathic and can only go on what you write. Rafablu88 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no need to be confrontational; I am giving honest feedback as is standard in FAC nominations. I don't have to list every single thing wrong with the article if it is an overarching problem, because that would just be an exercise in tedium. As I mentioned on your talk page, please mind WP:CIVIL and keep in mind editing sumamries such as "NOT original research; please refrain from editing and keep your comments for the FAC page since you oppose this nom" are not appropriate. Any editor is free to edit any article on Wikipedia. You ask me not to edit the page, but you also say "I don't believe it's suitable to take a stance, i.e. oppose, then say that it stays there until SOMEONE ELSE reviews the article for you". As you seem unreceptive to my edits, that is why I ask that an uninvolved editor take a look at the page. The point of FAC is to garner consensus among the community over whether or not the article fulfills the FAC criteria. Currently my oppose still stands. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--- Well, I have given the article the royal treatment over and over tonight and can firmly say that all your worries have been tackled and edited. If your editing is the only way to remove your oppose then by all means edit away. Although, if I don't like something I will tell you. As it stands, I consider your oppose comments completely satisfied as seen by my responses above and the edit history of the article. Rafablu88 02:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposes are still considered valid by the FAC director until the person who has voiced opposition strikes it out. That's why FAC nominators typically have to contact editors and ask them if their objections have been rectified. Starting at the body of the article, it's unclear how "Bloc Party conceived Intimacy to defy the conventional expectations of a rock band" is supported by the article cited. I can kind of see how you drew that conclusion from the text, but it's not explicit. You're better off citing specific details, which the article has loads of, instead of generalizing. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I've left it open to you. Change whatever you want and then strike your oppose. Rafablu88 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... happy now Wes? Or are you not finished editing yet? I CEd and moved a few a bits about after you. Nothing major. The article does look better I have to say. Let us know when you're ready to strike the oppose OK. Rafablu88 01:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's still some stuff I want to review/double-check (particularly the studio section, which I haven't got to yet), but I have a busy weekend. Might take a couple of days. One of the problems I ran into was interpretations of the lyrics based solely the liner notes as citations. Unless the band described what the songs were about in them, this should be avoided. (Aside: working on this article and reviewing the sources led me to watch the video for "I Still Remember" about 20 times in the past day. Yes, it's a different album, but it's a really good song). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I removed some of the lyrics things you mention myself. I think lack of sources dictated a lot of this article. It's hard to be comprehensive and engaging with pretty much nothing. (And I prefer the instrumental of ISR more tbh, although I'm generally more of a Prayer/Mercury person from being in grimy east London). Rafablu88 09:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are Wesley's concerns addressed? I'd like to go through the article, but only if the content issues are sorted out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some sources to review. Will probably take an extra day or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can wait a couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2009&oldid=316403762"