Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2014

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:55, 26 April 2014 [1].

Saltwell Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A second attempt at FAC for a beautiful Victorian park. The article is ready; it just needs the support of the community. I'm here to answer any queries raised... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I've got some concerns here, especially regarding referencing. Contrary to my habits, I've not closely audited reference formatting.

  • Perhaps most importantly, a substantial amount of this article is sourced to references that I'm not sure are independent, third-party sources. Carlton's book, published by the Gateshead Corporation. The Gateshead Council, Gateshead Libraries, and NewcastleGateshead websites. None of these appear to be independent sources, and cumulatively, they provide the bulk of the article's citations.
  • The Tyne & Wear SiteLines references are all dead links. Is/was this a reliable source?
  • Why is this a reliable source?
  • Why is this a reliable source, as it appears to be largely operated and edited by a single person?
  • The North East Film Archive reference is a dead link.
  • Why was the list of events discussed chosen for inclusion? Many of them seem like run-of-the-mill activities that would not be unusual for any park of comparable size, and are cited largely to the local newspaper. Things like the Field of Remembrance that received national attention are one thing, but when the only coverage is in one or two Newcastle upon Tyne dailies...
  • The article's structure has some flaws. For example, there's a war memorial introduced in "Design and layout" that's actually never explicitly identified; I was able to puzzle out that it was the Boer War memorial only after reading the following section.
  • Prose is also a concern. I'm not attempting a comprehensive prose review at this time (nor is it my strong suit), but a few sentences stood out even on a quick read:
    • "This has been in situ since a tender to install a 4 acres (1.6 ha) lake with an island in the centre was accepted in August 1880."
    • "The park is also host to three well-used bowling greens, replete with their own pavilion (the Avenue Green Pavilion) and a rose garden."

On the whole, I have to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm going to give a weak oppose for the time being per Squeamish's sourcing concerns and the following wording issues:

  • "ha-ha" should probably be categorized as a type of wall. If I hadn't clicked the link, I'd have assumed it was just silly vandalism.
  • "adjacent, banked bedded planting" - awkward
  • "Caged animals are still kept in the north-east of the park in an area called "Pets Corner", where there are a peacock and peahen, pheasants, rabbits and guinea pigs[13] kept in a pair of aviaries built in 1880 and paid for by John Elliot, then chief constable of Gateshead.[8]" - awkwardly structured and a bit of a run-on
  • "Gateshead Council subsequently considered other sites for a second park, but it was discouraged by the high prices being asked by the estate owners at Redheugh and Shipcote." - What's being discouraged?
  • That whole paragraph contains somewhat stilted use of the passive voice.
  • "The park is split into three sections – southern, central and northern areas – and the entire park is bordered by perimeter shrubs, plants and trees." - Why refer to "the park" and "the entire park" for two clauses in the same sentence?

I'll keep this on my watchlist in case you address my concerns. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- It's been almost two weeks since the original comments and opposition were registered, without any response or attempt to resolved the issues raised, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:55, 26 April 2014 [2].

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Nominator(s): — Status (talk · contribs) & Tomíca(T2ME) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And we're back! Tomica (talk · contribs) and I have worked very hard on this article and we now have more time allotted to focus our energy in finally getting the article to FA status! We believe that it's very close to getting that gold star; all we need is your help getting it there! — Status (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • No disambiguation links or external links that need correcting, good work there!
  • Instead of using the term "US", I would recommend writing out "United States" when using referring to the country, and leaving it as "US" when using it as an adjective for something like "the US Billboard 200".
    I believe I've corrected all the instances. Let me know if there's any left that need changing. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, I suggest using the {{ubl}} template for the album chronology instead of the <br /> as it currently is.
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction, can it be specified that Good Girl Gone Bad was released on May 31, specifically?
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the introduction, when you talk about Brandy's album, maybe you can mention that it was her fourth studio album and put its year of release in parentheses.
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Release history" section, you may be interested in placing the references in their own separate column instead of next to the countries as they currently are. This is just my personal preference, though, and certainly isn't a make-or-break deal; just something you might end up liking.
  • In the "References" section, most citations that use Amazon.com list the particular country abbreviation as well, like "Amazon.com (CA)". There are some that are plainly listed as "Amazon.com", and while it appears that these links go to the United States version, can you add in the "(US)" in the publisher field?
    Adjusted. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the "References" section, I believe that the Australian iTunes citation should be listed as the "iTunes Store'".
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRedactor (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am happy with all of the revisions made, and am giving my support to the nomination. Nice job! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism[edit]

Superficial comment from Prism

Hello Status! I see you have fought for this article to become an FA, and it is quite close to reaching such status. However, I have to be fair here, and compare Good Girl Gone Bad to other album FAs. It hardly references any of the lyrical content, and regardless of it clearly emphasizing the music and not the lyricism, it should talk about what the songs, in general, address. I'm not going to force you to write down every meaning of every song in the tracklisting, but just a general view would be welcome. Thank you! Prism △ 19:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prism: We will have a look for sure to see if we find such information to add to the article, but we can't promise that such sources exist. I understand your concern and thank you for raising it! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Petergriffin9901[edit]

  • Quick comments - You guys need to sift through the references. I'm finding many inconsistencies. A few examples: I see MTV is sometimes in italics, Radio & Records is linked in awkward places, a few news articles are not properly formatted. These issues persist throughout. Also, regarding the prose. As a past music article editor, I know the difficulty in avoiding choppy, repetitive and possible listing-type prose when dealing in this field. However, in terms of comma usage and sentence structure, the article often reads a bit awkwardly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Petergriffin9901: Thank you for your comments Nathan! Would you mind pasting a few sentences that you find read a bit awkwardly, so I have something to go on? As for the references, those will be a no-biggie to fix! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Вик Ретлхед[edit]

  • Good Girl Gone Bad produced five singles, including the international hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Umbrella", which Rolling Stone placed at number 412 on the magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list.—Is it "Don't Stop the Music" or "Umbrella" that was placed on Rolling Stone's list? You'll need to clarify this.
  • Per WP:MOS-ALBUM#Personnel ("If citing from Allmusic, do not include composer credits"), the composers in "Personnel" are redundant.
  • Good Girl Gone Bad is a dance-pop[19] and R&B album[20] influenced by 1980s music.[8]—This is a primary example of violating WP:SYNTH. It doesn't mean that if one critic says "it's a pop album" and another one calls it an R&B album, you can write "it's pop and R&B". Furthermore, the same can be said about the rest of the "Composition" section. Basically every song is tagged with genres by multiple sources.
  • West Indian shouldn't be linked. The article discusses some old civilization, which is not connected with the sound of Rihanna's previous albums.
    • Changed to Caribbean, as that's what the source states. I don't know where West Indian came from. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue is the prose in this section, which is not "brilliant". The section goes "song—genre—comparison with other artist" and the same on and on, while the text from "Critical response" is not cohesive. It lacks linking words and is filled with too many quotations.
  • "Accolades and legacy"—It would be better if the section was entitled just as "Accolades". I haven't noticed that the record influenced some other artist or had significant impact on its genre. Being nominated for Grammy and being certified platinum doesn't make it a "legacy" album.
  • Sorry, but I have to oppose the promotion of this article to FA. You've definitely put hard work on this one, but it needs additional fixes to match the criteria. The biggest strength of the page is the formatting style and tables, but the issues listed above can't be ignored.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Here's some things I would do before this becomes FA:

Development and title
  • The info on A Girl Like Me belongs on its own page, not here
  • The quote from what she told StarPheonix should just go in the first paragraph, and so should the first sentence of the second paragraph
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, don't use ref#7 multiple times in a row. Just include it at the end of the "Rihanna explained that she wanted to keep the audience dancing and be soulful at the same time" sentence.
Recording and production
  • Three photos in one corner is excessive. If including any, just use Ne-Yo and Tricky Stewart.
  • More WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#14 after the "Rapper Jay-Z added rap vocals" sentence in second paragraph, and ref#15 after the "over which Timberlake improvised his lyrics" bit.
Composition
  • More WP:OVERCITE, don't have ref#24 right after the "contains rhythmic devices used mainly in hip hop music" bit in second paragraph, ref#21 should just be used in the "It samples New Order's 1983 single 'Blue Monday'" sentence in second paragraph, and ref#23 should just be used after the "produced by Timbaland" bit in the third paragraph
Singles
  • If including a photo of Jay-Z, just use one of simply him and mention his collaboration with Rihanna on "Umbrella" and what critics said about it
Marketing and release
Live performances
  • More WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#80 at the end of the "'Don't Stop the Music' and 'Umbrella'" bit.
Re-issue and remix album
  • More WP:OVERCITE, ref#124 should just be used at the end of the second paragraph
  • Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé

Best of luck getting this to FA! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case they haven't noticed the input, pinging @Status: and @Tomica:. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I think it's been long enough for the nominators to respond to and/or resolve outstanding comments, so it's time to put this one to bed and allow further work to take place outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 9:00, 21 April 2014 [3].

Daniel S. Schanck Observatory[edit]

Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first astronomical observatory built at Rutgers College (now Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey). A small article I started about a small building most students at Rutgers never really learn much about--it's comprehensive, well-sourced, and after a DYK appearance and GA review, FAC is the next logical step. Thanks, in advance, for your comments and suggestions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Atenes,_torre_dels_vents.JPG: as Greece does not have freedom of panorama, the image description page must include a licensing tag for the building as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this is being withdrawn per email request of the nominator, who has been blocked indefinitely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 9:00, 21 April 2014 [4].

Amphetamine[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the central nervous system stimulant that you probably know at least a little bit about.


Prior to the first nomination that closed two weeks ago, this article was subject to an extremely rigorous GA review to help prepare the article for this review process. This nomination is a continuation from where Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1 left off.

@Axl, The Sceptical Chymist, Anypodetos: Just notifying you three that I've renominated the article.


WP:PAYWALLED citations for the article can be downloaded here: my file locker for the amph article.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • The "Reference notes" section is a pretty messy, awkward way of dealing with an abundance of citations. Have you seen WP:BUNDLING? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Curly; yeah, I agree it's a bit awkward, especially considering the 4th note only has 2 citations. Refnotes 1-4 are actually just the citations for the four lead paragraphs respectively (listed once at the end of each paragraph). The first reviewer from the last nomination had a real issue with citing the lead due to "readability problems." I cite the lead of articles I write mostly out of habit and aversion to unreferences statements (~99% of the sentences in the article have at least 1 corresponding medical citation). The single remaining (5th) refnote/bundled-citation references the diverse overdose symptom list in the body of the article. I'm open to suggestions on making it neater if you have an idea/suggestion on how to do that though. :) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue discussed/addressed in Shuddle's section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anypodetos[edit]

My concerns were already addressed in the first FA review, but I'd like to give the article another read (next weekend) before I formally support promotion. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anypodetos: Sorry about the ® edits; I was trying to be consistent in the parenthetical brand mentions while indicating Adderall refers both to the brand and the generic mixture (the lack of generic name makes it seem odd in generic and/or brand drug lists...). I read MOS:TM beforehand, so I was aware that it's generally discouraged. In any event, I think you were right in removing it since it made lists of generics with Adderall® outside of parentheses odd. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I understood your intention, and as it's a guideline and not a policy I won't be removing any ®s again should they be added. However, as some people routinely remove ®s in articles, I think we shouldn't rely on them for conveying information to the reader. Should my "trade name, e.g., Dexedrine" be included again, do you think? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)
Come to think of it, I think the best way to deal with it is simply cut the parenthetical mentions of brands throughout the article since there's already an entire section covering brand and generic drug info. It's a bit redundant with that section and just results in the problem with distinguishing brand/generic drugs by keeping it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the abbreviation titles in the Pharmacodynamics section? They are somewhat dense for my personal taste, but I won't remove any (to, say, one per abbreviation and paragraph) without your support, Seppi. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion. I agree with TSC that any remaining issues are minor things and won't affect FA worthiness. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K, I made a few changes, mostly to address what we talked about above and the lack of clarity on what "amphetamine" refers to (in the article and in general). Let me know how it looks (please revert a change if I did something stupid - I'm not very awake right now...). Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TSC[edit]

  • Support, Most of my comments were addressed during the previous nomination. A. is a difficult subject to write about, since you are writing essentially about 4 substances in one article (two stereoisomers, racemic mixture and adderall). Of course improvements are always possible, but the article is already at the level of FA for pharmacology, so improvements can continue after the nomination is approved. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from John[edit]

Oppose on prose. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate that uses "however", "moreover" and the like as padding. This is not brilliant writing. Also, what's going on with the {{abbr}} tags? --John (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I don't know how to actually address your concern without additional feedback, as it's excessively vague. Transition words are used for to enhance the flow of writing in any good English text. What precisely do you believe is the problem with the current use? How would you like to see it addressed? Abbr tags are indicated for accessibility and general readability both in html and in the wiki MOS.
In any event, please elaborate with the style guide - without a guideline, there's literally no way I'll be able to fix conformity to a formatting standard. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Re the abbr tag I prefer Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence. If you're going to use html you should probably only use it the first time too or at least be consistent in how you are using it. Re "however" see WP:EDITORIAL. Re "moreover" try the sentence without it and if it still works (it will) leave it out. "Moreover" is padding and it makes the prose harder to read without adding meaning. --John (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John:After going through it, I agree - 3 of them were a bit useless since they were written redundantly "Moreover XYZ also...". The last one I cut flowed well even without it as you suggested.
Off the top of my head, the styles I used throughout the article include: (a lot was convered in the GA review)
  1. Consistent use of the serial comma (I went through the whole article)
  2. Use of American English and DMY dates
  3. Consistent journal name formatting using a period with where abbreviated according to Pubmed-indexed journal names
  4. First and middle names of authors initialized and written as Last1 (F1)(M1), Last2 (F2)(M2), ... (no et. al.)
  5. use of comma when writing e.g., and i.e.,
  6. In abbreviations, full versions are written out in the first occurrence and abbreviated thereafter, with an {{abbr}} template used only at the first instance of each ensuing paragraph (for consistency and in order to avoid a display of something ugly like this clause was intended to appear).
    • Edit: to be completely upfront, there's 2 adjacent sentence with 2 names where I didn't follow this convention, simply because the full name is unnecessary jargon.
These terms are: SLC22A3 and SLC22A5 which are SoLute Carrier (family) 22 members 3 and 5 respectively.
In any event, I'd be happy to do edits to cut redundancy like that if you spot anymore. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing quite a few. Take these edits as a model. We need to go through and trim any other padding and superfluous words. It should be possible to trim 10% and the article will be the better for it. --John (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll see what I can prune over the next few days of editing, particularly in the technical sections. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help out. It's easier to edit someone else's work. It's a really good article and just needs a wee trim. --John (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I pruned pharmacodynamics as much as I could - how's it look? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better. I now have a slightly different qualm about the article; I am worried it depicts Adderall in too positive a light. I have pinged User:SandyGeorgia who is more of an expert on the medical side of things, and maybe she can help. I accept that the references are good but it seems this article spends just a little too much time reassuring the reader how utterly safe and efficacious this drug is when used as a medicine. Second opinion needed. --John (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I suppose you've got a point that it's probably a bit too much reassurance; the main reason I wrote it that way was due to the misconceptions people have about amphetamine as a result of the mountain of negative outcomes related to methamphetamine use (the lead of that article contains a summary of it). I didn't intend to emphasize the safety of a particular medication though, so I'm perfectly fine with scaling back the language. Which parts concerned you? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the only medical claim involving Adderall that I saw on the page; was there something else that concerned you? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John, I noticed you reintroduced the ADHD abbreviation in the first sentence of the body a while back when it was defined in the first sentence of the lead. I don't have any issue with redefining it in the body, but is it conventional to do that, or was that unintentional? Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just introduced the last 2 paragraphs in Amphetamine#Dependence, addiction, and withdrawal - I'd really appreciate your expertise in copyediting that. I tried to keep it short and concise. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look later on today. --John (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bit you have added looks ok. I dislike the indistinct photo of the colourless liquid. Could I interest you in File:Adderall bottle and capsules.jpg instead? --John (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to shy away from using images of pharmaceuticals because they're really just amphetamine salts combined with a lot of fillers or in a resin, possibly also in a gelatin capsule. Before writing the article, I didn't know the amphetamine compound (free base) was actually a liquid at room temparature, so I thought it more informative to add that. I think the pharmaceutical would be great for the associated enantiomer or product page though (dextroamph/adderall). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's a terrible picture. Here's another one: "contracted from alpha‑methylphenethylamine)" We don't do this per WP:MOSBOLD. I was sure I had removed this but it looks like it has been re-added. --John (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I'd forgotten that you removed it so I put it back in; I merely added it due to the convention in other drug articles with contracted names. I don't mind cutting it, so I'll remove it now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine." Is this statement true world-wide or does it relate only to the US? --John (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that should be mentioned then. --John (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - diff Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I support on prose now. Here are the last few edits I made, nothing major. Well done for your good work on this article. --John (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Shudde[edit]

I have a number of problems with this article (specifically criteria 1a, 1b and 2b). I'm only going to list a few of the problems I have found.

  • I know that there are guidelines regarding the structure of pharmacology articles, but why is there not a section (preferably near the top) introducing the structure and nomenclature of the two enantiomers and the prodrug? For example Lisdexamfetamine is mentioned in the lead, yet it's structure (and the fact that it's a prodrug that metabolises to dextroamphetamine) is not mentioned until the Pharmaceutical products section. I know there is a link to the main article further up, but is mentioned twice before it's adequately introduced.
The main reason I put it last (besides being indicated in MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM)is because the salts and lisdexamfetamine (Lis-D-amph dimesylate/Vyvanse is more or less a glorified time-released salt of dextroamphetamine, since, like dextroamphetamine salts, the active moiety of lisdexamfetamine is dextroamphetamine) have pharmacodynamics that are identical to the freebase form - I suppose I should state that explicitly in the pharmaceuticals section. There are claims that lisdexamfetamine is more difficult to abuse, but the pharmacokinetic difference is completely irrelevant for recreational users since the elimination half-life for the enantiomers nearly triples during an overdose. A detailed description of the chemical properties wouldn't be very interesting IMO, so I didn't even bother elaborating on lisdexamfetamine's chemical properties (which should be in that article, per summary style). The key difference between lisdexamfetamine and dextroamphetamine is that its half life is, on average, about an hour longer due to the time required to metabolize the lysine portion. As for the enantiomers, there's really not much more to the naming convention than the content of note 2 - i.e., left/right handed versions of a mirror image.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • You haven't responded to the thrust of my comment: "why is there not a section introducing the structure and nomenclature of the two enantiomers and the prodrug"? I think you may be missing my point here. Like many others, at PR, GAC and FAC I usually read the lead last. So when I started reading this article (from Uses–Medical) there were a number of terms/names in use that hadn't been introduced -- lisdexamfetamine is just one example. Levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine are other examples. MOS:MED does not preclude implementing this suggestion. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would you expect me to put into this section that isn't already covered in chemical and physical properties? The structural relationship between amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and levoamphetamine requires only two sentences, as it did in the lead. Lisdexamfetamine is not an example of the amphetamine molecule (I'd suggest you actually cite a chem/pharm database if you want to argue this), but ignoring this, it's relationship is simply an inactive prodrug form of D-amph coupled with L-lysine. All that is 3 sentences for this entire section; what else do you want added? I mentioned MOS:MED because it indicates that section is where it's supposed to be. The only other option to implement your suggestion is to create a completely redundant section with that one. I'm not going to introduce redundancy simply because you want to skip the lead and read that information in the body sooner. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the opening paragragh of the Physical and chemical properties (although is structure a property? Don't properties derive from a structure?) could be moved to the top of the article. For example levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine are both linked in this section, but levoamphetamine had already been mentioned several times in the text, yet here it is introduced (apart from the lead, but like I said, one should not need to read the lead before reading the main text -- nor the infobox). You could also mention all the names (in note one) in this section. It would probably make sense to merge this with the Pharmaceutical products section. Therefore when you mention the various names (brand or otherwise) throughout the rest of the article, it will be clear exactly you are referring to. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example is how you discuss the "free base" form in several instances. This would all make more sense if the structure was discussed earlier (that amphetamine incorporates a primary amine, and therefore can exist as a free base or as a salt) and the various enantiomeric ratios, salts etc.
I tacked on "free base" to the clause on the chemical that "amphetamine" references in formal/correct use. For this compound, the salts basically just act as a delivery vehicle since the active moiety, amphetamine (the free base is a bit volatile), retains its pharmacological properties in all the salts used in pharmaceuticals (i.e. the salts don't affect pharmacology). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • Again missing my point (and I don't think your statements here are necessarily correct; amphetamines are almost certainly supplied as salts for other/further reasons). My point was that "any" discussion of a free base or salt would benefit from the reader being introduced to the fact that amphetamine incorporates an amine -- see above. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Amphetamines are almost certainly supplied as salts for other/further reasons" - Oh really? What might those be?
Anyone who looks at the first sentence or the IUPAC drugbox parameter would realize amphetamine contains an amine. This material is already covered in chem/physical properties. Citations for my former statements:
Pubchem: The efficiency of absorption of amphetamine & phentermine is unchanged from resin bound dosage forms compared with soluble salt formulations. However, the absorption rates of these compounds are slower from the resinates, giving rise to flatter & more prolonged blood levels. ...
EMCDDA: Amphetamine base is a colourless volatile oil insoluble in water. The most common salt is the sulfate (CAS-60-13-9): a white or off-white powder soluble in water. Illicit products mostly consist of powders... Amphetamine may be ingested, snorted and, less commonly, injected. Unlike the hydrochloride salt of methamphetamine, amphetamine sulfate is insufficiently volatile to be smoked.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said "the salts don't affect pharmacology" -- where in the article is this stated? If this is true (and it may be) then that doesn't mean that the choice of salt is arbitrary. I was actually thinking stability/storage/shelf-life etc when I said "supplied as salts for other/further reasons" -- but there may be others (see [5][6]). But this is moving away from my point, which is that discussing salts will make a bit more sense to the reader after mentioning that amphetamine includes a primary amine. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this address your concern? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but even if it did, it's a change to the lead. Like I've said above this could be best addressed by a separate section at the top of the article -- not in the lead. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the chemistry section to the top in this edit - is that what you had in mind? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I'd need a consensus on WT:PHARM to move the pharmaceutical section up top - a recent dialogue on the project page specified placing it as the last section in an article (if such a section is included) before the refs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you need a consensus there. Projects are welcome to have guidelines, but the MoS supersedes it, and projects can't insist that articles follow their guidelines. Moving the "Physical and chemical properties" section improves things, but there are a still a number of problems. I'll list them here to try and make clearer what my thinking is:
  • I like the general structure used by pubchem [7] -- it's very logical and intuitive
  • All the uses, properties, biological activity of the amphetamines flows from their structure, therefore mentioning this early makes sense.
  • Physical and chemical properties are not the same as structure/formulation/composition -- I would consider them the things listed at [8] -- I'm not sure what I'd rename the section. PubChem calls it Identification -- but really we'd need something a bit more descriptive than that!
  • Surely "Pharmaceutical products" does not belong as a subsection of "History, society, and culture". These formulations/compositions are what is being discussed in "Uses", "Contraindications", "Side effects" etc etc -- so it would be better to have this section before the others?
  • That was actually what I was referring to - pharmaceuticals are supposed to be placed within a society and culture subsection (which I've appended to history due to the related main article name). The structure of MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM is currently inconsistent and the revision discussion has indicated its placement there. Three other reviewers have emphasized these MOS orderings in their review (I've given a detailed explanation of the ordering, prior to the chem section move, under Anypodetos' section in the first FAC). Due largely to their reviews, I don't have as much leeway on this as you think. This isn't suprising, since I notified/requested input from WT:MED/WT:PHARM at the beginning of the first FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmh649: Since you've more or less just unknowingly illustrated what I mentioned here, can you provide your thoughts on the section layout? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but you're going to have to provide me with diff's. What were the arguments exactly? If they were along the lines of "you should follow the guideline, they're great in this case because ..." then that might help. But if it's "you should follow the guideline because we have a guideline" then we may have a problem. I have no issue with guidelines being followed, but if it's only for its own sake, then we're in trouble. I've outlined exactly why I think the current formatting weakens the article, and certainly don't see how my suggestions damage it. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having an image near the top with L-amph, D-amph and lisdexamfetamine all in the same images would be great. Having one rather than two images would also make things easier for people reading the article on a mobile device.
  • I think it would be misinformative to pair lisD-amph with L-amph and D-amph. People with less familiarity with chemistry might think of the three as variants of the same chemical. As you know, that's obviously not true. The only thing that's really equal among these (technically, just D-amph and Lis-D-amph) is that they have the same complete pharmacodynamic profile (pharmacodynamics of the drug + metabolites). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's done well, with a good caption, then it won't be misinformative. All three compounds are discussed in the article, are providing comparative structures early is valuable. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing all this would allow the incorporation of notes 1–3 into the main text.
I hope this makes things a little clearer. I'd like to emphasis that project consensus is not needed to make these changes. If the only reason we have not to do it is that, then let's just do it! -- Shudde talk 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would also eliminated the need for note 2 (which is unreferenced).
I initially hadn't referenced it due to it only containing a chemistry definition (it more or less just states wikt:enantiomer) and enantiomer names derived from the INN listed in note 1. Nonetheless, I added a ref to support it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Like I said, adding a separate section would eliminate the need for this note at all. But if you insist on retaining it, I'd recommend quoting and referencing the IUPAC Gold Book ([9]) -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, derp - my mistake. Thanks for the ref! I've added this as you've requested. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uses[edit]
  • "Amphetamine, as Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine, is generally used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy.[16][20][29] Historically, amphetamine has also been used as a treatment for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion." -- is it necessary to say Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or lisdexamfetamine here? Why "generally"? Could this be rewritten "Amphetamine is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy,[16][20][29] and has historically been used as a treatment for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion." ??
In most cases, when I've qualified a sentence with "generally" or the like, its because the unqualified statement is technically incorrect in all cases; amphetamine is banned in some countries, so in certain places its not used at all for those indications. In other countries, it's a controlled Rx with that indication (covered in legal status). I've made all other changes to this sentence that you proposed. Pruned 1 unnecessary ref as a result of the change and appended the resulting orphan sentence to the next paragraph.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • Including "generally" may imply that it has other medical uses. You're suggesting that removing it would then make the statement mean that it can be used everywhere to treat ADHD; I can't see how one would interpret it this way. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously does have other medical uses, as there's 3 others listed in that same sentence. Those are less common off-label uses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • "Does" or "did"? The way it is written implies that it has been used for depression, obesity, and nasal congestion in the past, but not any longer. So it's currently not obvious at all. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both. It was an official indication before; now they're off-label: "With clinical applications of amphetamine as a drug to combat fatigue, an appetite suppressant and a treatment of narcolepsy, adverse effects such as anorexia, weight loss and insomnia are predictable and frequent adverse events associated with the use of amphetamine-based medications in the management of ADHD" - from the first ref to that sentence. Nasal decongestion may be an exception due to drug delivery unless people insufflate it, but that's more a recreational route than anything else. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's used off-label then it'd be good to say that. Like I said, saying it's "historically been used" reads to me like it was but no longer is used for those purposes. There is no discussion in the medical uses section (other than the first sentence) on its use in depression or obesity however, so a little bit more information on this is probably warranted. I know that there is a brief section on legal status, however does the fact that amphetamine is a scheduled/controlled substance restrict its use off-label? -- Shudde talk 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a mention of them as off-label uses. As far as prescribing amphetamine off-label, in the United States, that's just up to the prescribing physician. An amphetamine Rx doesn't even need to list an indication for a generic pharmaceutical. A complete Rx script example for brands with generic substitutes would be "Adderall Xmg PO TID #90" or "Dexedrine Ymg PO BID #60". This is true for any schedule 2 controlled substance (some states may have indication requirements, however). An insurance company cares about indications for non-generics though (Vyvanse). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you now strike the use of "generally" which seems redundant now? You mention no problems in the US -- but what about elsewhere? This would not need to be mentioned in this section (could be added to the "legal issues" section). -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the word "generally" as you've requested. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a lot of information on the legality of its use elsewhere, but not much on the officially indicated use - for that I'd probably have to use google translate on the equivalent government body of the FDA in other countries (the EU regulates legality in many countries, but not the indication of usage in countries where its legal, so it's not easy to summarize this or find summary information on it). I'll look, but I can't promise that I'll be able to add anything. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Literature reviews of human studies, including a meta-analysis and a systematic review, of magnetic resonance imaging indicate that long-term treatment of ADHD with amphetamine may decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects with ADHD, such as an improvement in function of the right caudate nucleus." -- This just reads very poorly. There is a redundancy, and why are we being so specific regarding the "report" (meta-analysis and a systematic review)? Would "Magnetic resonance imaging studies have revealed that long-term treatment with amphetamine may decrease the abnormalities of brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD." -- Surely this is the relevant information, although "may decrease" sounds awfully speculative.
Fixed this by adding a sentence back to the paragraph that I deleted yesterday (there were numerous prose edits in the day prior to your review - this sentence was cut without revising the context of that paragraph). I think the added context may answer your questions regarding specificity. Tweaked to "may decrease" to "can decrease" - beyond statistical noise, the variability is probably in large part a result of the wide range of etiological factors that cause ADHD. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • Be specific about "species" -- it's unnecessarily vague. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifying only the latter group since the included sources only support it for humans (a more general statement is true - I just don't feel like adding citations for the sake of specifying non-human animals). I'm not specifying the former because it's not relevant to humans or that section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly not fixed -- "systematic reviews of magnetic resonance imaging indicate" makes no sense. You can't do a review of "magnetic resonance imaging" -- you can review studies performed with an MRI machine, but the way you've written it makes it read like the technique itself has been reviewed. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...I'm not retarded - I didn't need the explanation; that was just a typo from the recent edits I linked. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The error existed when I initially commented on the statement, and remained after you tried to address it, so don't get offended that I explicitly pointed the mistake out. -- Shudde talk 08:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "treatment of ADHD with amphetamine can decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects with ADHD" -- again with the redundant use of ADHD twice. Look at it like this, does the statement "treatment of ADHD with amphetamine can decrease the abnormalities in brain structure and function in subjects without ADHD" make sense? -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I unintentionally passed over this point last time. My subsequent revisions/fixes to my last edits in this section are included in this diff: [10] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In humans, reviews of clinical stimulant research have established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for ADHD." -- "In humans"? Is it necessary to specify? "Clinical stimulant research has established the safety and effectiveness of long-term amphetamine use for treatment of ADHD."
Addressed in the above bullet (w.r.t. species-dependent variation in safety). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • "In Millichap's review of recent studies, he emphasized the findings of a randomized controlled trial of amphetamine treatment for ADHD in Swedish children which found marked improvements in attention, disruptive behaviors, and hyperactivity and an average change of +4.5 in IQ following amphetamine use for 9 months." -- this seems to come out of nowhere. Recent (see WP:RELTIME) He emphasised the findings? Relative to what?
Tweaked the sentence intro for better flow. As noted above, I re-added context w.r.t. species-dependent variation in safety; efficacy is relative to controls. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • This whole section still has problems. "the author emphasized" -- relative to what? Over what else? "Consequently, the author asserted that other long-term amphetamine trials in ADHD with less comorbidity could result in even greater functional improvements.[35]" -- this seems speculative, why have we included it here? The language also needs work -- the study would "find" not "result". -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diff- how's that look? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem still exists. "Noted" rather than "emphasised" doesn't address it. Is there someone that can help with a copy-edit here? -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: is your concern in relation to a baseline/control group, or am I misunderstanding this issue? I can elaborate on this if so - just not 100% sure what you're looking for atm. Maintained) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It just doesn't read very well. In addition to my comments above, we're mentioning the authors name, but I'm not sure why? Why is he "emphasising" or "noting"? It's not really made clear why any of this is important, but the language implies that it's because Millichap has said so. In that case it comes across as opinion (like how opposing views on something can be summarised by taking representative quotes from authoritative figures -- but this doesn't work in this case, because what we're discussing is less subjective or speculative.). Hope this helps. -- Shudde talk 09:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. He said it was notable following a statement that long term studies were infrequent. Presumably, this study is long wrt previous studies. Shall I add a statement about its length and just cut the language on the author making an assertion?Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine that act on these systems are used to treat ADHD." -- This seems to be implying that the reason these psycho-stimulants are used to treat ADHD is because of "problems with the operation" (I don't like this phrase -- could it be more specific?) with neurotransmitter systems (that pipped link may not be appropriate btw). But surely this isn't the reason they're used, but rather a possible mode of action (the reason is because they show efficacy I assume).
I don't mind rephrasing it if you have a suggestion for replacement, but the message I intended to communicate with that section is more or less "these drugs act on the system that produces the (hypo-)functional impairments in adhd" - the clinical efficacy is more or less a demonstration of that explanation in practice. As for the wikilink, there's no independent article on neurotransmission; the neurotransmitter article includes information on the various systems in Neurotransmitter#Actions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • This does need to be rephrased. Why not just say what you said to me, that amphetamine acts on these systems, and this may explain why it is effective in treating ADHD? How it's written right now is the other way around (that amphetamine is used because it acts on this system). See WP:PIPE -- but why would you use [[neurotransmitter|neurotransmitter systems]] rather than "neurotransmitter systems"? -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the pipe and edited the redirect to that article and section. I also rephrased this in the third group of edits; has this addressed your concern? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it says "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine are used to treat ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems" -- but obviously they may be effective because they increase the neurotransmitter activity. So "Consequently, psychostimulants like methylphenidate and amphetamine may be effective in treating ADHD because they increase neurotransmitter activity in these systems" ?? Still not sure this fixes it, but it's an improvement I think. -- Shudde talk 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make this change, but I'm not sure what you see as being wrong with it (before or after this second change). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adderall has a significantly lower discontinuation rate than other amphetamine mixtures" -- is this because it has fewer adverse effects? Also you can probably get away with only having [38] at the end of this paragraph, rather than after all of the last three sentences.
The Cochrane review was annoyingly vague on that topic - I couldn't find an explanation; they merely reported that. W.r.t. citations, with exception to the lead (which cites by paragraph due to another FA reviewer's complaints complaints in archive 1), the convention I've used in the body is to cite claims by sentence.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • I find the excessive inline citations to be quite distracting. It definitely makes the article harder to read. You may want to reconsider the convention you've adopted. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've received the opposite feedback from others on the lead (i.e. distribute citations back to each sentence), but what do you suggest? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you bundle some of these references (for example 40,41,42) ? See WP:CITEBUNDLE.
The cutoff I've used for including a group of citations from the body of the article in the refnotes section is 5 or more consecutive citations to a single sentence. I could reduce that to 4 if you'd prefer - grouping 3 wouldn't produce much of a difference because the superscript replacement is roughly the same length. I.e.:
[40][41][42]
[ref-note #] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
*Go for four. Keep them as short as possible. -- Shudde talk 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of single sentence paragraphs -- can these be reorganised?
I've merged all single sentences into relevant paragraphs except for the individual sentence in physical side effects, which I intentionally kept in order to emphasize that statement. That was the only single paragraph sentence that I authored.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Pharmacology[edit]
  • Can I get your feedback on the image in pharmacodynamics? I'm not sure if its more useful to replace certain text with an annotated wikilink overlay or add more descriptive text to the image. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I give this section a proper read through I'll give you a more definitive answer, but at the moment my feeling is not to add further to it. It's probably a busy enough image as is, and adding annotated wikilinks may reduce clarity. At the moment I don't think it's worth your time, but I'll give it some more thought. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to submit it for FP and ended up getting a lot of useful feedback on it (both on my userpage and at the FP nomination page). I'm going to follow up on the feedback I've received and improve it to FP-quality. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is currently a valued image (Edit:now a quality image too - 06:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)). Probably going to renominate it for FP since I received useful feedback from it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to skip down a bit.

  • "Amphetamine is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine. Oral availability varies with gastrointestinal pH. Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9–10; consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium. Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in its water soluble cationic form, and less is absorbed." -- I wonder if this could be reorganised to be a little clearer and better organised. This would also benefit from a structure / nomenclature section earlier on (you're effectively discussing effects arising from the amine). It's also a little confusing, saying there is a certain absorbance. Maybe "The oral bioavailability of amphetamine varies with gastrointestinal pH. Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9–10; consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium. Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is exists predominantly as a water soluble salt, and less is absorbed. Amphetamine is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically over 75% for dextroamphetamine." -- this is minor (hopefully I've not stuffed the pharmacokinetics up) but I think improves it.
I've made this revision, but tweaked it slightly for flow. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • "Approximately 15–40% of amphetamine circulating in the bloodstream is bound to plasma proteins." -- again with the single sentence paragraphs. It's also strange how this is not really elaborated on or explained, but the pH dependent conversion between a free base to a salt is.
The pH-related conversion information and protein binding (as prose) was added by another FA reviewer - I didn't want to alter it for obvious reasons. I think he just wanted to add the drugbox information to the pharmacokinetics prose for completeness. Protein binding isn't an interesting pharmacokinetic property for amphetamine IMO. Bioavailability and excretion are more general pharmacokinetic parameters and pH induces high variability in those parameters for this drug though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • "When the urinary pH is basic, more of the drug is in its poorly water soluble free base form, and less is excreted" -- is this necessary given the discussion in the first paragraph of this section?
The first paragraph discussed the effect of pH on absorption. That clause is discussing the effect of pH on excretion. It's more or less just saying the impaired absorption/excretion related to alkaline pH arises from the same chemical phenomenon, even though the processes/involved organs are different. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • The effect of pH on lipophilicity (or water solubility) is already discussed though, and this seems to be repeated here. -- Shudde talk 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did this address the issue? [11] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you on this one. Definitely an improvement though. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Metabolism occurs mostly in the liver by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) detoxification system of enzymes. CYP2D6 and flavin-containing monooxygenase are the only enzymes currently known to metabolize amphetamine in humans." -- might be worth explaining that CYP2D6 is a member of the cytochrome P450 system, otherwise this may seems like a contradiction to readers.
I'm actually just going to cut that first sentence since it was based upon the December 2013 adderall XR FDA label and written prior to the FMO addition a few months back. The FDA label is completely missing information on FMO. Moreover, in the average person, FMO3 and CYP2D6 have roughly comparable activity. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • As you can't easily explain what the various metabolic pathways are, why not add labels to the arrows for File:Amph Pathway.png (for example amphetamine to 4-hydroxyamphetamine is para-hydroxylation). This would be a great thing to do.
Done. I'll annotate that sometime over the next day or so w/ {{annotated image 4}}. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
How's the format on this look at the moment? User:Seppi333/sandbox2 Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, a minor gripe would be to use lower-case letters rather than starting with capitals, but that is really up to you. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd sort of prefer to use caps because of the page name wikilinks, but I did make it consistent since you made this comment (e.g., I changed para-hydroxylation to Para-Hydroxylation for consistency with wikilink caps). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After re-reading this section, there is no discussion on the difference in PK between Lisdexamfetamine and Adderall. A quick literature search reveals there are reviews out there on this -- it's a prodrug, so one would hope it'd have superior PK. My quick read suggests it has less PK variability. I don't think more than a couple of sentences would be needed, but if PK is discussed, seems odd to omit a mention of this. -- Shudde talk 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some PK info on it. Let me know what you think. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really does it justice. The point of the prodrug was to improve PK right? I'll see if I can unearth the review I found earlier -- this actually compares the PK of lisdexamfetamine with the amphetamines. This is something that should be covered a little more comprehensively. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to add more if you can lead me to something more comprehensive - what I added is more or less a summary of the only relevant distinction of which I'm aware (from info in the med guide/pharm databases/current reviews on the page). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The review I read was [12] which is a good one. Another is [13]. Both are reviews, so good secondary sources. Worth your time to look at. Also regarding Lisdexamfetamine, I know that sources say "it is converted by red blood cells to dextroamphetamine" -- but it's going to be enzymatically cleaved. Would it be better to say "red blood cell-associated enzymes" instead? ("The current findings suggest that LDX is primarily absorbed intact in the small intestines into the portal circulation and that enzymatic hydrolysis of LDX occurs primarily in the blood." [14]). -- Shudde talk 01:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis[edit]
Comments addressed or no longer relevant
Skipping further:
  • "Amphetamine can be synthesized by Knoevenagel condensation of benzaldehyde with nitroethane, which is subsequently reduced by hydrogenation of the double bond and reduction of the nitro group using hydrogen over a palladium catalyst or lithium aluminum hydride (LAH)." -- this reads terribly, and why use the abbreviation when it's never used again? Maybe "Amphetamine can be synthesized by Knoevenagel condensation of benzaldehyde with nitroethane, followed by reduction of the double bond and nitro group through either catalytic hydrogation or by treatment with lithium aluminum hydride."
I've made this change. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
You've introduced a typo. -- Shudde talk 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it (reducuction -> reduction). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I need Boghog to respond to this point.I'll make any necessary revisions to the image when I work on the svg files (mentioned in a response below). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Fixed (a mistake that I introduced, sorry). Both "ketone + hydroxylamine → oxime" and "ketone + amine → imine" routes are described in the source, but it is the second method that matches the graphic used in the article. The graphic and text now match. Boghog (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This intermediate is then hydrolysed using hydrochloric acid, and subsequently basified, extracted with organic solvent, concentrated, and distilled to yield the free base.[120] The free base is then dissolved in an organic solvent, sulfuric acid added, and amphetamine precipitates out as the sulfate salt.[120]" -- why this level of detail into the work-up of the illicit method but not the others?
That synthesis is a well-known named synthesis for amphetamine production and yields the sulfate form (the most common licit and illicit form of amphetamine), hence its coverage. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
It's not named for amphetamine synthesis is it -- it's simply a named reaction. This explanation falls short. Converting an amine to a salt is rather trivial (as is the work-up), but no information is given on the industrial synthesis; is it racemic -- in which case how do they separate the enantiomers? -- Shudde talk 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source for my statements about synthesis. I've already covered the most common method (i.e., this one - "The most common route of synthesis is by the Leuckart method."). My response to your statement on industrial synthesis follows below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
There are numerous patents describing either the optical resolution or the enantioselective synthesis of ampethamine. As stated below, it is not at all clear if there is a predominate industrial method for the synthesis of either racemic or enatiomerically pure amphetamine. Much more published information is available for how in practice amphetamine is produced illicitly than licitly. The method described in the current version is a widely used method for the illicit production of amphetamine and hence the extra detail devoted to this method is justified. Boghog (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply more below, but the work-up just looks like a standard work-up: the key steps are what I imagine readers are going to want to know about. The statement " and subsequently basified, extracted with organic solvent, concentrated, and distilled to yield the free base.[120] The free base is then dissolved in an organic solvent, sulfuric acid added, and amphetamine precipitates out as the sulfate salt." isn't really worth having in there I think. Anyway this is minor relative to my other concerns. -- Shudde talk 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are these compounds prepared industrially?
Depends on the enantiomer and the salt being produced - there are too many variations to include this. A total synthesis of amphetamine would require an independent article due to the large number of production methods. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • This isn't taxol. If there are a large number of methods (which I doubt) then even more of a reason to summarise the major ones. See above for further comments. -- Shudde talk 10:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog's source is more comprehensive, although my statements were based upon what I remembered after reading this. Including 8+ routes is excessive without a separate total synth article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
As reviewed in:
  • Allen A, Ely R (2011). "Review: Synthetic Methods for Amphetamine" (PDF). Crime Scene. 37 (2). Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists: 15–25.
  • Allen A, Cantrell TS (August 1989). "Synthetic reductions in clandestine amphetamine and methamphetamine laboratories: A review". Forensic Science International. 42 (3): 183–199. doi:10.1016/0379-0738(89)90086-8.
there have been an enormous number of synthetic routes to amphetamine that have been developed. I am trying to track down how amphetamine is produced industrially by ethical drug manufacturers, but so far I not found anything. I agree that this is an interesting and important point that if possible should be covered in the article. However since there are a large number of good routes and a large number of manufactures world-wide, I suspect there may not be a straight forward answer to this question. I will continue to look. Boghog (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After searching several chemical and patent databases as well as Google, I am fairly certain that it will not be possible to specify one or even a few preferred commercial routes to amphetamine. The first pharmaceutical use of amphetamine predates WWII and hence all composition of matter and most use patents have long since expired. Worldwide, there are numerous generics available from a large number of manufacturers. While many regulatory authorities require specification of the manufacturing route, these details are not generally disclosed to the public. For example "Trade Secrets and Confidential Commercial Information" is routinely redacted from the chemistry review section of published FDA approval packages for drugs. The bottom line is that there are multiple cost efficient routes that both elicit and ethical drug manufactures use to synthesize amphetamine. Boghog (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I said there probably were not many methods I was thinking industrial (I should have made this clear). However it is not mentioned in the synthesis section that there are a large number of methods. Nor does it say why the two described are included in the article (are they the most common industrially? common by forensic labs? are they classical methods?). Nothing is mentioned about enantioselective routes. I understand it may be hard to find the most common route, but even the review you gave me (which cites to an earlier review by the same authors) should give enough information to expand on this section a bit. The Allen Ely review seems to set it out well: classical then stereoselective; condensations, rearrangements, reductions. I'm not asking for a huge section here, but at the moment it comes across that you just plucked two of your favourite methods out of thin air (even though this probably isn't true). I'd like to see a common enantioselective route included here at the very least. -- Shudde talk 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This weekend when I have more time, I will expand the synthesis section to include an overview of the available synthetic methods, at least one representative enantioselective route, and a chiral resolution. Boghog (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. -- Shudde talk 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this in this case -- where you have three images -- care should be taken to ensure the schemes are consistent. The Method 1-3 schemes are not formatted the same way -- e.g. R2-6 substitutions for method one, arrow types, bond lengths etc.
I'll remake all the images with a consistent format in SVG over the next 2 days or so. Will update this response with file links when I'm done. Boghog is taking care of this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • I am going through the synthesis section as carefully as I can. First up, it's good to see the section expanded.
  • The mechanism and intermediate in Method 2 looks incorrect. According to the reference (a primary ref btw), the intermediate is N-(Benzylmethylcarbinyl)-acetamide, which is prepared from acetonitrile (not cyanide), and then hydrolysed with HCl.
  • The third route cites a patent -- we should avoid citing the primary literature without also citing a secondary source. Is this route discussed in a review anywhere?
  • "A number of chiral resolutions have been developed to produce either enantiomer of amphetamine" -- doesn't a chiral resolution separate enantiomers rather than "produce" them?
  • In the last scheme I think there is an error -- shouldn't it be an imine rather than secondary amine? -- Shudde talk 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Method 2: Interesting. This is a case where the secondary literature had it wrong (Allen & Ely, rxn/ref 102) and the primary literature (Ritter & Kalish) is correct. I have corrected the graphic and corresponding text. I have also added another secondary source (Krimen & Cota) that cites the primary source (Ritter & Kalish). Unfortunately Krimen & Cota use isobutylene instead of allylbenzene as the example. However the reaction conditions are the same (sulfuric acid + acetonitrile) and the proposed mechanism is also the same. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The patent for the third route is reviewed by Gray DL (2007) which is cited in the very next sentence.
  • produce → separate change made.
  • The scheme is correct. Please note that there are two steps included in the first reaction arrow: (1) condensation to produce the imine intermediate followed by (2) Raney nickel reduction of the imine to the amine. Boghog (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing method 2.
  • Not having the secondary and primary source in the same spot is a little confusing, but I can live with it.
  • Yes separate is much better.
  • Ah yes, sorry my mistake. A couple of questions/points though. Reorientating the bottom three structures in the "Stereoselective synthesis of amphetamine" scheme would make the scheme a little clearer. Either that or reorientate the top two structures (which may be easier) so that all the structures in the scheme are orientated in the same way. Saves the reader having to reorganise them in their heads. Esp. as the stereochem matters here. -- Shudde talk 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per your suggestion, I have reorientated the bottom three structures in the "Stereoselective synthesis of amphetamine" scheme so that all the structures are now oriented the same way. I agree that this makes the diagram much clearer. Boghog (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More[edit]
  • Reference 128 doesn't seem to be working properly. -- Shudde talk 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is now reference 129 (Allen A, Ely R 2011). I just checked the link and it works for me. Please note that the PDF is of the entire issue and you need to scroll down to page 15 to get to the amphetamine review article. Or was there some other problem with this reference? Boghog (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the hyperlink from the in-line citation #128 to the full citation in the references section wasn't working. After removing a stray whitespace in the reference name, the hyperlink now works. Boghog (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enhancing performance[edit]
More or less done here
*Ref 16 says "This suggests that cortical networks that normally process spatial working memory become more efficient in response to the drug" -- so I would drop "by increasing cortical network efficiency" -- it reads poorly as is, and the information is in the ref if people really want it.
  • Reworded this to be more direct, but I kept the clause. I think it's interesting to know how it does this. I think providing a reason also makes it less likely for people to think this statement is bullshit. Let me know what you think.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • You have a RS with an extensive quote from it, we shouldn't be relying on a jargony statement to persuade readers that the statement is correct. My other problem is that the ref says "This suggests that cortical networks that normally process spatial working memory become more efficient in response to the drug" -- so it suggests, but we're saying "Therapeutic doses of amphetamine improve cortical network efficiency". Would be better just to reduce the jargon here, the ref is good and has a large quote to satisfy any readers without access to the source. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a ref with a more concrete statement on rCBF + efficiency from another ref instead. Jargon words were removed in a previous edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These stimulants increase arousal and, within the nucleus accumbens, improve task saliency" -- maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it reads like [stimulants] improve task saliency within the nucleus accumbens" which doesn't make much sense to me.
  • I just cut the clause on the NAcc, since I don't think it's very useful to mention the particular brain structure instead of the neural pathway (which includes that structure) which regulates it. The affected pathways are mentioned later in the article.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • You have to be very careful of close paraphrasing here. The section is quite jargony, but also reads very very similar to the cited ref -- which is a bit scary. Maybe consider rewording, reducing the jargon where you can. This will solve both problems at once.
  • Let me know if you still feel this is a problem after looking at the section edits: Diff
  • I'll address the close paraphrasing concerns below. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stimulants improve performance on difficult and boring tasks.[16] Consequently, amphetamine is used by some college and high-school students as a study and test-taking aid." -- maybe "Stimulants such as amphetamine can improve performance on difficult and boring tasks,[16] and are used by some students as a study and test-taking aid."
  • done
  • Try "Based upon studies of self-reported illicit stimulant use, performance-enhancing use, rather than abuse as a recreational drug, is the primary reason that students use stimulants." -- removes a redundancy
  • done
  • Ref 16 even says "Therapeutic (relatively low) " rather than just "Therapeutic" as an aid to readers. We should consider doing the same.
  • I'm actually surprised you're suggesting that given your previous concerns about the use of relative language. I actually don't know what the relational benchmark is for comparing low vs high in the textbook. I've discussed an alternative that I've used instead in the subsequent bullet's response. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • "At doses much higher than those medically prescribed," why not just say "At high doses," -- but again a big problem with close paraphrasing here.
  • I'm just going to use "At supratherapeutic doses" - this was cut during he GA nom, but I really think it's the only word (other than wikt:suprapharmacological) that accurately describes what this statement is supposed to say without being verbose. I also think most people can infer what supratherapeutic means in comparison to suprapharmacological, as the maximum therapeutic dose is intuitively the benchmark for "supra" (benchmark also addressed the above bullet). Hope this works for you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • It's even more jargony. "Relatively low" is probably not close-paraphrasing, but could we not consider a well known synonym of low instead? Really what most lay readers are going to want to know is that therapeutic dose is low compared to an "abusive" dose. If you're really worried about accuracy, my recommendation would be add a note, rather than add further jargon to the article.-- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to just omit the relational language here and just maintain that it holds therapeutic doses, since that's obviously true. I removed the jargon I added and wikilinked a technical term - (see the diff in the response at the bottom of this section)
  • "Amphetamine is also used by some athletes for its psychological and performance-enhancing effects.[15][29][55] In competitive sports, this form of use is prohibited by anti-doping regulations." -- how about "Amphetamine is used by some athletes for its performance-enhancing effects -- such as X Y Z --[15][29][55] but this is prohibited by anti-doping regulations."
  • I feel the inclusion of any performance enhancing effect is likely to be extremely contentious, so I actually cited them by word in the sentence which lists them. That's why I didn't do that anywhere else in the article. =/ Because of this, I don't think it's wise to make this edit unless the statement comes after the effects are listed/cited.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what the problem is here? -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something on the World Anti-Doping Agency's official policy on amphetamine use should be included here -- all IOC sports follow their code, and it's probably the world's most high profile anti-doping body.
  • I'll add/wikilink ",like the World Anti-Doping Agency," if you prefer but there's other relevant/important agencies that regulate competitive sports (e.g., NCAA) at the collegiate level. This is the main reason I didn't mention organizations - I don't know enough about them to make a comprehensive/informed list that includes them besides the obvious two (for the United States), WADA/NCAA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • There are others, but World Anti-Doping Agency is the most important and influencial. I'm not saying it should be written to imply they're the only body that regulates performance enhancing drugs, but all Olympic sports (everywhere) follow the WADA code. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Like< methylphenidate and bupropion" -- maybe introduce these, such as "Like psychostimulants methylphenidate and bupropion" -- or something more appropriate, just to save the reader needing to click the links.
  • done
  • "Similar to cognition enhancement" -- I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. -- Shudde talk 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made this sentence: "Similar to the effects of amphetamine dosage on cognitive enhancement, very high doses can induce side effects that impair athletic performance, such as rhabdomyolysis and hyperthermia." (underlined part is changed) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • Problem is still there, but I think I understand what is trying to be said here. I think you should cut the first part of the sentence: "Very high doses may actually impair performance, such as causing rhabdomyolysis or hyperthermia." -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just some background on this section; the close paraphrasing and inclusion of lengthy quotes was due to this section starting an edit war when I was a new editor. I've since become knowledgeable of the relevant policies for medical articles, but I felt it necessary to follow the sources closely due to legitimate concerns raised in the original conversation (it's in an Adderall talkpage archive and it's very long) and opposition by editors who are misinformed or have an an anti-drug bias.
I'm not trying to point fingers or make accusations, but regardless of why there may be close paraphrasing, any possibility needs to be eliminated. We've seen the nightmare scenario twice before, and so have to be extra careful. I haven't looked explicitly for any copyvio/close-paraphrasing so far, but just noticed some potential problems in that section. If you have any reason to think their may be more sentences or statements that need a close look, I'd highly recommend checking them before anyone conducts a source review. -- Shudde talk 09:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. I'll take care of the language sometime over the next day or so. This is the only section with text that closely follows a source, so it's not an issue elsewhere. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this edit resolved this close-paraphrasing issue, since that's how I'd convey the information regardless of the original text wording. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contraindications[edit]
  • "For simplicity, this section will refer to the USFDA, since multiple versions of the amphetamine prescribing information exist." -- I think I know what this is supposed to mean, but it could be clarified. Does it mean that even though the language of the prescribing information is that of the manufacturer, the USFDA approves it, and therefore any prescribing recommendations will be attributed to the USFDA? It's really not that clear, and you should consider playing with the language.
  • It's the intellectual property (via copyright) of the manufacturer. Different national drug regulatory agencies typically have their own presentation format (analogous to the WP:MOS) and may suggest/require minor content changes. If everything checks out, it's subsequently approved (that's generally how it works for the countries I know of at least). I think it's kind of sketchy to say "(arbitrary/substitutable generic manufacturer name here) says" as opposed to "(prominent regulatory agency) says" when discussing this. WP:MED's (technically, Wikipedia's) requirement/guidance that WP not give medical advice is the main reason that it's written that way; e.g., I can't say "amphetamine and xyz shouldn't be taken together." In any event, I'll see if I can think of a better way to write this more clearly (this may be a moot issue depending on your thoughts/suggestions to following bullet's response though). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • You need to fix the language of the note -- it's not clear, and needs to be. -- Shudde talk 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole section only discusses the US -- information should be added on other major markets. I would expect the US to be the largest market, but not the only market..
  • I suppose I should change the language a little. Technically, contraindications are just avoidance relationships between drugs, so it's not something that varies between country. More to my initial point though, the contraindications came from the manufacturer's Rx info (the brand/generic package insert), which has virtually the same content regardless of where its dispensed. The presentation might vary between countries though. Drugbank's Pubchem's amphetamine page (linked in the drugbox on amphetamine) and the Australian D-amph package insert for "Dexamphetamine Sulfate" (a generic - it's a ref on the dextroamphetamine page) have the same groups of contraindications as the US Adderall package insert.
  • That said, do you have any advice/preference on how I reword this to clarify that? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
    • You've got all this from the prescribing information provided by the FDA. Have you looked into other sources on contraindications? Or are you assuming they are going to be identical? -- Shudde talk 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This got me thinking, the contraindications are the contraindications regardless of where they come from (so regardless of who states them). Therefore wouldn't it make sense to eliminate any discussion of the FDA. So rather than saying "The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA)[note 7] states that amphetamine is contraindicated in people with a history of drug abuse, heart disease, or severe agitation or anxiety, or in those currently experiencing arteriosclerosis, glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, or severe hypertension." -- it'd say "Amphetamine is contraindicated in people with a history of drug abuse, heart disease, or severe agitation or anxiety, or in those currently experiencing arteriosclerosis, glaucoma, hyperthyroidism, or severe hypertension.". There are inline citations, so the source of the information is available to the reader, and as you say, the contraindications are the same everywhere. Why would we not use the packaging information from the UK, or Japan, or Canada? Seems like any mention of the FDA is unnecessary unless it's only them (or another regulatory body) that lists the contraindication. -- Shudde talk 23:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1#Comments from Anypodetos are the reason for this language. Please contact him for consensus if you wish to change it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The medical disclaimer link is irrelevant, it's clearly not advice, you're just listing contraindications (we also have a general disclaimer, and attempts to add specific medical disclaimers to articles have failed). Anypodetos concerns can be allayed by saying "reported" or something similar (rather than the firm "is") -- the USFDA or manufacturer doesn't have to be mentioned. Then it's clear the information is not coming from the writer, rather from the source. -- Shudde talk 01:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of growing children and adolescents during treatment" -- maybe "the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of children and adolescents prescribed amphetamines" -- the growing is redundant, and treatment reads funny. -- Shudde talk 09:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side effects[edit]
  • "Amphetamine products such as Adderall, Dexedrine, and their generic equivalents are currently approved by the USFDA for long-term therapeutic use." -- this reads as US-centric (which is a bit of a problem in this article). Can we not have a more general statement that encompasses more than just one country? It's approved elsewhere right? What about Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc etc. Is there not a review somewhere summarising amphetamine's use worldwide, this would surely be of interest to pharma companies and generics manufacturers. -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drug approval is necessary nation-centric. Indication isn't. I can cut it if you want. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I'm saying reword it, what's stopping you saying "It's approved for use in a large number of countries" etc etc -- or something similar. Try to come up with something appropriate. -- Shudde talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Approval isn't correct diction for non-US regulatory agencies. Again, I can cut it if you want. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • I think the first and last statement of this paragraph below next to each other, they're directly related. May be able to trim it down a little in that case. How about:
"Side effects of amphetamine vary, and their nature and severity are primarily dictated by dose. Consequently, the recreational use of amphetamines – where doses can be large – has a greater risk of serious side effects than in therapeutic use." -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or something like that -- makes it clearer that the dose makes the poison, and rightly links recreational use with a higher chance of serious side effects. -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a normal person at therapeutic doses, amphetamine does not noticeably increase the stimulate breathing, but when respiration is already compromised, it may stimulate it." -- could this be made a little clearer -- also the ref lacks a page number. -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ref doesn't have page numbers. What would you like it to be changed to? It reads clearly to me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
" increase the stimulate breathing" ? I'm confused by that.
Sorry, this is inevitable when numerous FAC editors make or request tons of exceedingly minor language copyedits. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ref has section titles -- use those instead -- at the moment it's too hard to verify. -- Shudde talk 02:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the "section=" parameter in the ref is already filled in.[1]

References

  1. ^ Westfall DP, Westfall TC (2010). "Miscellaneous Sympathomimetic Agonists". In Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC (eds.). Goodman & Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780071624428. {{cite book}}: External link in |sectionurl= (help); Unknown parameter |sectionurl= ignored (|section-url= suggested) (help)
  • Wondering if we can try and reduce the jargon in this section, thinks like analgesic instead of pain relieving, I also wonder whether we overlinking a little in this section. -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should bring previous FAC reviewers into this discussion as well if you want to change the linking - this was covered a great deal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
It's a wall of blue in some cases at the moment. It needs to be addressed. Not worried how you go about that. -- Shudde talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K, I finished removing wikilinks. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent studies by the USFDA indicate that" -- they didn't conduct the research did they? Did they conduct it or merely review the data. "Recent" -- be more specific. How about "A 2011 review by the USFDA found no association between serious adverse cardiovascular events (sudden death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) and the medical use of amphetamine or other ADHD stimulants." (we don't need to say 'children, young adults, and adults' as I'm pretty sure that covers nearly everyone!). -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They commissioned it. It doesn't include older adults or very young children; I'm hesistant to generalize it, since that may not be true. Your language isn't technically correct, so I made a different change that included the date. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Add a note. Then say USFDA commissioned the study, they commission studies all the time, doesn't mean they conducted it. "indicate ... that there is no association" is vague. Did it really indicate this, or just not find an association. There is quite a difference. You've haven't addressed the root of the problem. -- Shudde talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add the word "commissioned." That's correct language to use in the event of nonrejection of a null with a valid statistical design. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Common psychological effects of therapeutic doses can include alertness, apprehension, concentration, decreased sense of fatigue, mood swings (elevated mood or elation and euphoria followed by mild dysphoria), increased initiative, insomnia or wakefulness, self-confidence, and sociability." -- are these all side effects? -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
  • "during long-term therapy as a side effect" -- drop "as a side effect" -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
It has its own section in OD and its own article... what do you want added to the psychosis section? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
It's frequency for one. It's kind of brushed over, at the moment as much text is devoted to erectile function. -- Shudde talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again very US-centric -- have you looked at prescribing information from other regulatory bodies? -- Shudde talk 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See 1st bullet. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
You need to address this, bullet one doesn't help at all. -- Shudde talk 02:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to both points there. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dialogue[edit]

For all these reasons I have to oppose at the moment. I'm going to leave it there. I think there are a number of problems, I've only given a sample, and have not read everything in detail just yet. I worry about the prose -- mine is not that great, and I'm seeing problems -- so I am concerned that there are even more issues in there. – Shudde talk 10:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old dialogue
My 1st group of edits. My 2nd set of edits. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am really loath to suggest withdrawing this candidate. However I found a lot of problems on my read through yesterday, and I still have a long way to go. On top of that, many of the replies have not really addressed my concerns. I had a brief read through the previous FAC in order to get a feel for what work had been done on the article, and noticed at least one point I made yesterday was made at the previous FAC (regarding errors in the chemistry section, also some of the schemes); this worries me a lot. I wonder whether this article could do with a thorough peer review -- would easily take two weeks -- before a renom. – Shudde talk 09:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My 3rd set of edits - also includes Boghog's edits My 3rd set of edits - also includes Boghog's edits
Frankly, I don't see how this is a very constructive review based upon your responses to my explanations and edits; nonetheless, I'll admit I introduced a few errors yestereday (largely due to a lack of sleep the night before). You've been far more confrontational with me than any previous reviewer, as none of the others have suggested that *I* am wrong. I've provided citations for my claims above in response to this. I'd suggest you actually provide a citation to support that the article is incorrect, although that might be difficult considering I've ensured its conformity with WP:V - i.e., I haven't asserted anything in the article that isn't covered in a source. I'll also note that no reviewer in FAC1 suggested that there were "errors" in the chemistry sections. That said, like you, Aa77zz suggested that there was an incorrect statement (in the lead), but he didn't bother to even check the supporting sources which I simply repeated in my reply to him. You've basically just asked me to include things in this article that completely lack notability. I'll continue making textual edits and other alterations to the prose based upon your feedback; however, because it's clear to me that you don't know that much about this compound, I'm probably not going to make a substantive/content edit unless you provide a source supporting what you're suggesting is entirely missing or wrong. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
A couple of points:
  • All my comments, suggestions and questions have been made in good faith, and should be treated as such
  • If you have found my comments "confrontational" that is regretful, however I'm not going to apologise for being blunt. How you interpret my comments is up to you -- you can see them as genuine feedback intended to help you get this article to FA standard, or you can take it as some kind of personal attack -- I'd recommend the former.
  • If I say something such as "If there are a large number of methods (which I doubt)" it is not my responsibility to prove that there is a small number of methods, it's yours to prove that there is a large number. "I'm probably not going to make a substantive/content edit unless you provide a source supporting what you're suggesting is entirely missing or wrong" is not how it works; you can establish what is written is correct and not, it's not mine to establish where the errors are -- not that I've said anything is "wrong" btw.
  • The comment in the previous FAC was "Synthesis - which one is used in manufacture? Remove R-s in Knoevenagel scheme since they = H. In the second dcheme, the formula for hydroxylamine, should be NH2OH not NH3." -- I more or less repeated these comments here (unbeknown that they'd been made before) because they had not been fixed or resolved properly.
  • The top of the FAC page says "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and ... [are] given considerably more weight than declarations of support" (emphasis mine). If you don't want critical comments, don't bring an article to FAC. As much as I'd love to see this article get the gold star, I'm not going to support it's promotion if I believe the prose isn't up to a professional standard, and if I believe major facts and details have been omitted.
  • An appeal to authority is not a good rationale for disagreeing with my comments.
If you don't wish to address my comments that is up to you. At the moment I've spent quite a lot of time reviewing only three sections -- there are over a dozen to go. Your comments above are quite discouraging. This is a difficult subject to bring to FA standard. A psychiatrist, pharmacologist, toxicologist, process chemist, forensic scientist and layperson are all going to look at this article and want to focus on different things -- it's a hard thing what you're trying to do! But that doesn't mean we should drop our standards. I'd recommend a withdrawal and PR. I'd be happy to make further comments there. There wouldn't be such a pressure to make and address comments promptly, and comments could be solicited from other editors without having to worry about canvassing. Please consider trying to address the comments I've made so far (and try to ensure they're addressed, we've had to cover a few things more than once because of oversights, typos etc), and I'll check back in a couple of days. -- Shudde talk 09:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just asking that you change your tone with me, not your review. Just WP:DONTBEADICK by making statements like "If XYZ (which I doubt) then..." where XYZ is a statement I've made. If you want proof or further explanation, just request that. You can provide your review just as well without insinuating I'm wrong (aside, I didn't say you outright stated this - the example statement simply implies ("suggests") this). My intent with the "argument from authority" (i.e., suggesting that you need to provide a citation) was mostly so that you'd get a feel for what you're asking me to provide. E.g., there is no research at all on pharmacological differences amphetamine salts. Not a single paper. In papers and medication guides on drugs with multiple salts, the difference is ignored and the focus is instead on the isomers, sans the salt. Hence, I don't even know how I can add any more content on the salts than simply list them as I did in Amphetamine#chemical and physical properties. In any event, I'll do my best to continue responding to your concerns. Just keep an open mind - there might not be coverage in the article on something simply because there isn't any relevant research on it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Also, as you mentioned (and as its obvious that) you've spent a lot of time on doing this review, I wanted to say thanks for all the effort you've put into this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lets move on from this. My advice is focus on the substance of my comments rather than the style, as you obviously find my style a little grating. But if I have doubts about something I'm going to say it, I'm happy to be wrong, but I'm not going to assume that I am in order to avoid offending someone. As for the salts thing, you made a claim I didn't think was correct, and it hasn't been established either way, but having such doubts is necessary for giving critical advice. I've made a few more comments today, and hope to start reading some new sections in the next day or two. I'll continue to add comments, but I'm still unsure that FAC is a better for this than PR (right now at least). -- Shudde talk 22:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shudde:I'll do my best to address your comments. I'm not sure a peer review would be as helpful as you think. The last two peer reviews I opened received a cursory review by a single reviewer in both cases, even though I advertised them on WP:MED; one of those two PR's was for this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been meaning to come back and follow up on comments, however I've been super busy this week. Was hoping to have a couple of free hours today, but I've had to work (it's Saturday here). I should have time tomorrow. Yeah PR can be a ghost town -- my advice is to approach editors directly (Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers can help with this). -- Shudde talk 05:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed this because it's sort of lengthy and seems resolved. Hope you don't mind - feel free to remove the tab if you object though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Axl (continued)[edit]

  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Long-term amphetamine exposure in some species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage, but humans experience normal development and nerve growth." Are the doses being used comparable? Berman states "Brain structural abnormalities were consistently reported in amphetamine abusers, as compared to control subjects." However it is careful not to imply causality. Which reference describes the animal findings? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Axl:I'm adding a review to this section that was cited in the neurotoxicity section. It depends on the species (mice vs rats vs rhesus monkeys, etc), since the addition or absence of certain enzymes results in the presence/absence of metabolites that are very neurotoxic. In some cases, this is observed at therapeutic doses. In others, at very high doses (as discussed in PMID 22392347, the ref I added). I didn't feel it informative or even helpful to mention this; it's actually misleading in relation to humans, because the cited neuroimaging reviews and/or meta-analyses assert the opposite in ADHD individuals using stimulants. As for Berman, he's one of the erudite individuals that prefers to use "amphetamines" instead of "substituted amphetamines" when referring to meth and ecstasy. The use of the former when referring to abusers results in the misleading but grammatically correct "amphetamine abusers" instead of the grammatically incorrect "amphetamines abusers" or more accurate "substituted amphetamine abusers." There's only 1 recent paper that's shown any (and only marginally) statistically significant human neurotoxic/neuroplastic changes following the use of extremely high doses of amphetamine over a long period of time; it hasn't been cited by any other papers as of the last time I checked. This paper is the material in the big text box at the bottom of the neurotoxicity section on Talk:amphetamine#Neurotoxicity - cont. (2). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of a very recent abuse of language like Berman's: PMID 23892199 Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes[edit]

  • We've let this run on a good deal longer than many reviews but it can't go indefinitely. Shudde, if you're still actively working with the nominator on your objections then I guess we've nothing to lose by allowing another day or two but if there's little prospect of imminent resolution then I will have to archive this.
  • Housekeeping: There's been no source review or source spotcheck here but I believe Sasata was satisfied on both counts in his extensive GA review -- pls correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Housekeeping 2: I don't know whether there's been any changes to the images since GA but I've in any case reviewed their licensing myself just now and no issues stood out.
  • Housekeeping 3: There are quite a few duplicate links in the text. Use this script to highlight them and remove as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I've gone through and double checked whether my comments have been addressed. There are still a number of outstanding problems, so I'm reluctant to commit a lot of time on reviewing further while these remain. At the moment my problem regarding the article structure has not been addressed (I have given detailed reasons why I'm unhappy), and I'm not going to support while this is outstanding. There are also a couple of other things that haven't been addressed (an adequate discussion of the difference in PK between Lisdexamfetamine and Adderall springs to mind -- and there are a number of good sources for this). Also I'd recommend spot checks, I found a couple of potential problems regarding close-paraphrasing, and think we need to be more confident we've found them all. The article has improved significantly since I started commenting, and both Seppi and Boghog have put in a lot of work, so I'm happy to continue commenting (either here or at a PR), but I can't strike my oppose at the moment. -- Shudde talk 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prune the extra wikilinks tonight.
@Shudde: I'm hesitant to add anything comparing Adderall, Dexedrine, and Vyvanse in the amphetamine article - that's a WP:COATRACK issue and entirely ignores levoamphetamine (i.e., half the article scope). I attempted to address your concern about the structure, but this was reverted by Jmh649 as noted above; the change you want would require a consensus on WT:MED and very likely will be reverted by them without one. Feel free to spotcheck though, FWIW I don't think there was a close-paraphrasing issue in the PE section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article should continue to follow the ordering of sections of WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further simplification of language would be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment we have amphetamine's use discussed before explaining what it is. This is illogical and counter-intuitive. We have "Pharmaceutical products" listed under "History, society, and culture". We have "Synthesis", "Derivatives", and "Detection in body fluids" listed under "Physical and chemical properties" (maybe behaviour in bodily fluids is a property, and therefore this belongs under this heading, but it's a stretch, and the other two make no sense under that heading at all). If you want to stick with this odd structure then that is fine, but I'm not going to support promotion -- it's just not widely accessible. pubchem has got the structure right, WP:PHARM has got it very wrong. I also find the section Signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals WP:MEDMOS applies to this article. The signs "You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words" and "You use a writing style appropriate only for graduate-level courses, because that's what you see in peer-reviewed journal articles and professional reference works." apply in particular. Part of my review has been to try and fix these two problems -- but without a more logical structure, it becomes even harder. The levoamphetamine issue clear to me; it's not coat-rack at all, its a prodrug so discussing its PK properly is entirely appropriate. -- Shudde talk 01:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Shudde: Levoamphetamine isn't lisdexamfetamine - you seem to be confusing the two. Pubchem lists chemical and physical properties as the very last section and "Use" as the first section with prose. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, copy-paste and weary eyes can do that, but my point remains valid. Pubchem lists Identification first, and also Formulations/Preparations before any pharma. It also doesn't conflate Chemical and Physical Properties with topics such as Synthesis, or include other such strange hierarchies. But I'm repeating myself, as I've said all this before (see above). I'm going to leave the comments for now, my comments so far should be seen as guidance for what further work is required. At the moment there is no way this article is accessible enough to the lay-person to be a Featured Article; may do okay for someone with a medical degree, chemistry degree or degree in pharmacology, but even then I have serious issues (see above). There is a lot of jargon, a lot of funny language that reads like it was written by a pharma company's law department (I know there are Medical Advice things to be weary of, but that can't be used as an excuse). Like I said above, the article has improved, and a lot of work has been put in (by many people, including me) but I still think we are a distance from FA. If significant changes are made (including within the many sections that I have not yet reviewed), and all my comments are addressed appropriately, I'll have another look. Otherwise I'll wait until a peer review is opened. -- Shudde talk 05:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your responses. I think everyone is acting in good faith to resolve things but there's a way to go and that can better be done away from FAC, so I'll be archiving this shortly. I hope you'll continue to work together on the article so it can return to FAC at a later date, perhaps via PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 11:02, 20 April 2014 [15].

God of War III[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 video game, God of War III. I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it is ready to become an FA. --JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: JDC808. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As per what I said in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/God_of_War_III/archive2, since I have not noted any huge changes. Only one minor point: I might rephrase the piece for the QTE screenshot, just referring to Hercules as a boss rather than by his name. It makes the screenshot seem too involved in the narrative for where it is in the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of removing his name, I added "boss character" before it. I'd like to keep his name because I'm sure people who haven't played this would be interested in knowing what he looks like. --JDC808 ♫ 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Ref 4 is dead.
I just checked ref 4 and it was fine. --JDC808 ♫ 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out now. Checker There are refs on obsolete parameters in the infobox which screws up the ref numbering in the article causing problems for the checker. The link in the checker is indeed dead. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just recently able to get around to see the Checker and have replaced the dead link. --JDC808 ♫ 21:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add deadurl=no for archived links that are alive.
  • Obsolete parameters in infobox
  • Resolution... etc...
Missed those. Done. --JDC808 ♫ 00:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicize God of War in the ref titles.
Re:Italicize God of War in the ref titles. Is this a standard? I've never come across this before. --JDC808 ♫ 21:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider it similar to why ref dates must match the article's styling. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 00:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. The second one I removed because it's integrated with the first. --JDC808 ♫ 00:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done reviewing. I did find the gameplay section overdetailed though (Metroid Prime 2: Echoes would be my level of preference). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Even though I believe the gameplay section is over detailed, the article satisfies FA criteria for comprehension and references. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll read over the gameplay section a couple times to see if I can trim it back some. --JDC808 ♫ 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; After a few minutes with the article, I don't have any complaints. (It's no secret that I'm a fan of citations for plot sections, but that's far from official policy.) Well-written and complete. Good job. Tezero (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If I can find citations that can be used for plot sections, I'll use them, otherwise it's kinda hard to find them unless you cite the game itself. --JDC808 ♫ 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the game, period, would be a little ridiculous. I cite specific quotes from the game. Tezero (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I do if I use the game as a source. --JDC808 ♫ 07:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: JDC808, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions I think will be useful in improving the article.

WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis for the Development and the Release. Can these points be expanded a bit in the lead?

  • Major Point 1: Gameplay "The gameplay is similar to the previous installments, and focuses on combo-based combat, achieved through the player's main weapon—the Blades of Exile—and secondary weapons acquired throughout the game. It features quick time events that require the player to complete various game controller actions in a timed sequence to defeat stronger enemies and bosses. The player can use up to four magical attacks and a power-enhancing ability as alternative combat options. The game also features puzzles and platforming elements. In addition to its similar gameplay, it features a revamped magic system, an increase in the number of onscreen enemies, further interaction with the environment, new camera angles, and downloadable content." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 2: Synopsis "Loosely based on Greek mythology, the game is set in ancient Greece with vengeance as its central motif. The player controls the protagonist, Kratos, the former God of War, after his betrayal by his father Zeus, the King of the Olympian Gods. Reigniting the Great War, Kratos ascends Mount Olympus with his initial allies, the Titans, until he is abandoned by Gaia. Now guided by the spirit of Athena to search for the Flame of Olympus, Kratos battles monsters, gods, and Titans in a search for Pandora, the key to pacifying the flame surrounding Pandora's Box, and to defeat Zeus. Successful, Kratos kills Zeus and ends the reign of the Olympian Gods." (summarised well in the lead)
  • Major Point 3: Development "First released for the PlayStation 3 (PS3) console on March 16, 2010, the game is the fifth installment in the God of War series, the seventh and final chronologically, and the sequel to God of War and God of War II." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 4: Release "The best-selling game in the God of War series, it sold nearly 5.2 million copies worldwide by June 2012, and it was included in the God of War Saga that was released on August 28, 2012, also for the PlayStation 3." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  • Major Point 5: Reception "A critical and commercial success, PSM3 magazine claimed that God of War III is "simply one of the best games of all time."[6] IGN asserted that it defines the word "scale" with reference to video games.[7] The game has been highly praised for its graphics, particularly Kratos, with IGN claiming the character "is perhaps the single most impressive-looking character ever in video games."[7] It received several awards, including "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" and "Best PS3 Game" at the 2009 and 2010 Spike Video Game Awards, respectively. It was also honored with the "Artistic Achievement" award at the 2011 British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Video Game Awards." (summarised well in the lead)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. JDC808, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see what I can do regarding Development and Release in the lead, --JDC808 ♫ 01:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • I know images were reviewed in the last FAC but I'd like to see someone sign off on them here (unless I missed it above).
See Red Phoenix's comment above (first one below WikiCup nomination note). --JDC808 ♫ 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I scanned the lead and found some issues I believed needed resolution, and would like to see a very good copyeditor (e.g. Eric Corbett, who raised issues in the last FAC, or John) walk through the entire article before we consider promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may comment on your changes, I had it as "First released", because without the "First", IMO it makes it sound like it was released everywhere on March 16, 2010. I don't necessarily agree with your statement of the second change, but your change wasn't bad, though the wording was a bit awkward IMO. I would prefer to not involve those two editors because I have not had good experiences with either of them. --JDC808 ♫ 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The prose is not FA standard and needs more attention. There is excessive use of "also" and awkward phrases such as "while the player can still control Kratos while the camera is panning. A first-person camera view was also utilized for the final portion of the Poseidon and Zeus boss fights". Utilized is pompous – used is much better, and we have have "while...while". These are just examples, the prose needs attention throughout. I am not suggesting an extensive rewrite, just an hour or so of work from a good copyeditor. Graham Colm (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at the Guild of Copyeditors project page to see if anyone would be available. --JDC808 ♫ 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the article myself and I disagree with the "excessive use of 'also'" claim. Took care of the other two points noted. Going to read through more. --JDC808 ♫ 16:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.

  • Lede: Doesn't the stuff in the first sentence need sourcing somewhere within the article? I know it seems basic, but I think it makes sense
  • I think the chronological part can be removed from the lede unless it's imperative in some way I don't understand
  • "Reigniting..." Did the Zeus betrayal reignite or his mountain ascension "reignite" the war?
  • Lede plot paragraphs can be further summarized (remove as much jargon as possible)
  • Relevance of the weapons in 2nd ¶ in the lede isn't clear—consider removing
  • The player can use up to four magical attacks and a power-enhancing ability as alternative combat options. Is this vital enough to include in the lede?

czar ♔ 16:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multiple sources confirm that information.
  • I've seen multiple people confused on the chronological order on other websites. I removed the "and the sequel to..." part though.
  • Basically the first part. Because Zeus betrayed Kratos, Kratos is now leading an all out assault on Olympus, which reignited the Great War.
  • Summarized more of the plot in the lead.
  • In regards to the second paragraph itself, this is a format I've established (with help) across the God of War articles, which all (except this and Ascension) are now FAs. The mention of secondary weapons is so a reader can see that there is more than just one weapon that can be used.
  • It gives an overview of the game's gameplay, and lets readers know that you can do more than just attack with some blades. --JDC808 ♫ 15:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. After looking at this for the last day, here are my other overarching thoughts as a copyeditor active in WPVG: Though I didn't see the article listed on the GOCE requests page, I would be happy to copyedit—however, I think there is work to be done before a copyeditor even looks at it. The harder work of paring down the text needs to be done first. I fear that this article is too long (I'd estimate twice as long as it needs to be: 39kB → at least 30 if not 20). The text needs to be much more concise—this means throwing away information at this point: why are voice actors listed twice? why does the lengthy plot and gameplay go into such detail? why is the marketing important, and if it is, why is it in "on x, y happened" format? Every time I sit down to read the article, I am caught up in jargon and quickly lose interest (note: even though I'm interested in the game, as an outsider to the series). This isn't necessarily cause to "oppose" but it keeps me from engaging further with the text, which is an FAC#1a problem. I'd try reading this text out loud to a friend. If you notice them zoning out, perhaps there is too much minutiae in that section. If that minutiae is important, perhaps there's a more interesting way of phrasing it.
  • My other (more optional) suggestion would be to compare the gameplay/synopsis sections here with the recent FAC Dishonored's. Its sections are much more concise mainly because they're limited to what the RS say about it—and the RS aren't going to mention the minutiae that isn't worth mentioning. If you solely relied on those external sources, you'd have a good skeleton for how much plot and gameplay is vital—I imagine it's less than half of the current text. (An aside: while plot sections don't need to be sourced, the current end-paragraph instruction manual footnotes in the plot section make it appear as if the plot is fully cited in those pages, and it isn't. This should be addressed.) The article, right now, is written for an audience already familiar and interested in the series, and it needs to accommodate and engage other, more uninterested audiences. My suggestion is to do this by cutting text extraneous to the essence of the game liberally. The task at hand is reading every phrase of every sentence for the question, "Is this necessary?"

czar ♔ 15:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Been looking through and trimming/cutting some stuff. How is it looking?
  • I'm a bit confused about where the footnote in the Plot section is, because there's not a footnote in the plot section. The only end-paragraph instruction manual footnotes are in the Gameplay section. --JDC808 ♫ 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I meant the plot/setting/gameplay/intro sections. czar ♔ 01:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit confused. The Plot and Setting sections (which are subsections under Synopsis) do not use footnotes to cite the instruction manual. --JDC808 ♫ 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As in "(a first for the series)" uses an instruction manual for its footnote. Unless the footnote says this, it should either not be added or another source should be used to cite it. Some good trimming there so far. I still think a whole lot more can go czar ♔ 04:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's contradicting. You said it isn't necessarily a cause to oppose, but you opposed? --JDC808 ♫ 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said the jargon wasn't reason enough to oppose. I get no pleasure from opposing, and you probably have enough supports to go as is, but as a copyeditor, I do think the article's verbosity adds to a lack of clarity, such that it needs a significant razoring even before it gets copyedited (I elaborated above). czar ♔ 14:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I do not, because two opposes automatically means not passed despite the amount of support. I still don't understand how an FAC can have a good amount of support and one or two people come along, oppose, and that automatically stamps the article for a not pass. It's like all the support from this and previous FAC nominations are ignored. --JDC808 ♫ 05:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Czar and I see my comment on the redundant uses of "also" have been ignored. Graham Colm (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your comment regarding "also"s above. --JDC808 ♫ 05:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

  • Support Pre my comments at the previous nomination. → Call me Hahc21 04:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up -- This FAC has been open longer than even the somewhat extended periods we're used to these days, and needs to be closed one way or the other. At this stage we still have outstanding objections from Graham and Czar -- I'll give them another day or so to come back and see if they believe the issues are resolved, otherwise I'll be archiving it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 19:47, 13 April 2014 [16].

Laborintus II (2012 recording)[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Così s'osserva in me l'album concetto. While not a long article by most estimations, this is a comprehensive look at an independent album by three disparate acts, in three disparate acts. The work is a recent recording of a fifty-year-old composition, adapted from a sixty-year-old poem, first intended to mark the septuacentennial of Dante Alighieri's birth. It's not exactly "My Lovely Horse".

The article was given a GA review by Crisco 1492, and a brief peer review by The Rambling Man; it has been modelled on my usual approach for writing album articles, although this would be the first time I've taken one to FAC. As usual, I'll endeavour to respond to any comments promptly and should be readily available for interrogation. GRAPPLE X 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review:
  • Prose comments
  • Reason why the choir's opinion is important should be clear at first mention
    Added. GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link blow-up doll?
    Piped to sex doll, which is where the phrase redirects. GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for an over-repetition of "piece"
    Changed a few around; should I try to cut out a few more? GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patton's spoken-word narration is mostly in Italian, with some sections spoken in English - watch for repetition of "spoken"
    Got it. GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! GRAPPLE X 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose, images and comprehensiveness. I drove Grapple crazy during the GA review about comprehensiveness, and I haven't found any new sources either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's really difficult to get any grasp of how this sounds with a sample. It's impossible to get a feel of the music by reading the article. A non-free sample would add significantly more to this article than the non-free identifying artwork. - hahnchen 17:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly open to replacing the cover with a sample, I just wouldn't really know the first thing about going about it. I'll see if I can comb through a few other articles to get a feel for the expected length and the technical know-how in doing it. GRAPPLE X 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to replace the cover. Just add a sample to the composition section. - hahnchen 18:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Uploaded and included. Not 100% sure on the placement, though; I'm contemplating losing the cover image, moving the the dual picture into the section above to take advantage of the reduced infobox, and moving the sound box up a paragraph. I may just be over thinking things. GRAPPLE X 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • You did a nice job covering all the critical commentary. The sound sample seems fine as it's enough for me to tell that it's nothing that appeals to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad I could save you the cover price. :P GRAPPLE X 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the prose is hardly "brilliant":

  • the opening sentence has "Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble" but "the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor". Including or omitting "the" are both fine, but it would be good to be consistent.
  • Dante referred to as "Alighieri". Dante is surely a standard WP:MONONYM -- his article certainly uses it.
  • Unnecessarily heavy use of passive in cases like "The original poem has been described by allMusic's Thom Jurek as ...".
  • Clumsy phrases like "believing these to also be themes present in the works of Alighieri".
  • "Piece" is still over-used. At over half an hour, it would be justified to replace at least some of them with "work".

These are just illustrative. I can offer to do a quick copy edit this evening or tomorrow evening if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a quick pass to tackle the items you specified, but I'd gladly welcome a copy-edit if you're willing. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting it. I've done it now, but I'm sorry to say I have been left with so many concerns that I'm forced to oppose this FAC:

  • It is worrying that we have an article about just one of the three recordings of this work, and no article about the work itself. By doing this, are we not tilting the playing field in favour of this recording, i.e. exercising commercial influence? The article certainly doesn't cover the music in depth, and I'd be willing to bet there would be several good sources for that if they were sought. Moreover, the title of the article is also the title of the work, so anyone who might have come here to read about the music is automatically presented with this commercial bias.
    When creating the article I simply went for the non-disambiguated title as there was nothing currently existing to distinguish it from; if this is considered problematic the current title could be given over to a disambiguation page and the article moved to a title with additional disambuigation (Laborintus II (album)?). Alternatively, to save creating an extra page, a hatnote could be used to refer the reader to the Luciano Berio article if they were looking for information on the composition. I'm happy enough to do either, and I'm open to any other suggestions too. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A move to some such title is certainly very desirable indeed. A possibility is Laborintus II (2012 recording), since at least two other recordings of the work are also commercially available, and since there's only one work on it. It's multi-movement, but we call a recording of one Beethoven symphony a recording, not an album, don't we? Just Laborintus II should be reserved for the work itself. Even with a move, I have misgivings about the ethics of Wikipedia covering only one recording of a work that has multiple professional recordings available (one of them the composer's), and not the others nor the work itself. Why did you choose this particular one? --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your title works for me. I've redirected the original title to List of compositions by Luciano Berio with a hatnote at that target. I came to this subject as a fan of Patton; I've previously worked on articles for other albums he's recorded or produced. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing that. Good target for the redirect, but I've removed the hatnote as tending to highlight one recording too much for a list-of-compositions page. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the Jurek review on allMusic (FN3) says that the work uses Sanguineti's poem for the libretto, and that Sanguineti "appropriates fragments of works by Dante, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, and the Bible alongside original content". However, Berio's author's note (FN2) states "The text of Laborintus II develops certain themes from Dante’s Vita nuova, Convivio, and Divina Commedia, combining them - mainly through formal and semantic analogies - with Biblical texts and texts by T. S. Eliot, Pound and Sanguineti himself." That is, Berio seems to be saying that it is he, not Sanguineti, who brought the various texts together. These are not consistent. The article takes Berio's view on this, ignoring Jurek, and that may seem logical, but composers' own accounts are not always reliable sources. A featured article ought to go into this, and it requires research.
    As was my understanding of the Berio note, it attributes the text solely to Sanguineti and not to Berio ("Laborintus II, for voices, instruments and tape (1965), Text by Edoardo Sanguineti"); both sources seem to be saying that the text is largely a collage of other sources with additional material written by Sanguineti. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading them again, I think you're right about that. But both the second paragraph of the lead ("in addition to Sanguineti's work"), and the first paragraph of Production ("In addition to Sanguineti's poetry") are written in such a way as to imply that there is more to the libretto than Sanguineti provided. The sources seem to me to be saying that Sanguineti assembled the whole libretto, combining original work of his own with those other things. The article as it stands seems to imply something a bit different. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to clarify a little more that the intention is that quoted material is in addition to original content by Sanguineti. The second instance you cited may need more comprehensive rephrasing if it's not currently strong enough. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited to make it clearer that Sanguineti assembled all the libretto. How is it? --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Production section we read: "Berio considered some elements of Laborintus II to be "autonomous", capable of standing on their own in addition to serving as component parts of the full work; the composer considered this to apply to both the libretto and the musical score, which he saw as extensions of each other" cited to Berio's author's note. I don't believe Berio was saying any such thing in that note.
    I based this on "Individual words and sentences are sometimes to be regarded as autonomous entities, and sometimes to be perceived as part of the sound structure as a whole" and " The instrumental parts are developed mainly as an extension of the vocal actions of singers and speakers, and the short section of electronic music is conceived as an extension of the instrumental actions" from this source; perhaps either my reading of this, or my paraphrasing of it, is flawed, or both. I can certainly rewrite it if I've taken the wrong meaning from the source. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, but I think you are misreading it. How can an individual word be capable of standing on its own as opposed to serving as a component of the work that uses it? My understanding is that those words and sentences are autonomous within the work -- i.e. independent (for example thematically) of what is elsewhere in the work. Also, you say "extensions of each other", but the source only says that the music extends the vocal content, not the other way round. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given that section a thorough re-write to more closely mirror the original phrasing. How do they compare now? GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good on what is an extension of what. On autonomous words and sentences, I suspect you're still saying something different from what Berio said, but he is quite cryptic, so I've just replaced it with a quote from him, and caveat lector. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found instances where critics' comments were presented as being about the album, when they were actually about the music.
    Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here; aren't they one and the same to an extent? I've tried to be clear when it's the actual composition that's being spoken about, rather than the delivery of it, but the critics are speaking about this particular recording in each instance. Is this an issue of drawing this line more clearly (for example, specifying more explicitly if "the piece" is Berio's composition versus the Ictus/Kamerkoor/Patton recording)? GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a question of drawing that line clearly. Sometimes the critics are talking about Berio's work, and sometimes about things like Patton's delivery. The work and the specific performance aren't "one and the same" to any extent. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've clarified the subject of criticism for a few more of the cited reviews, to make it more evident when the composition or the recording are being discussed. I now get the feeling I may have overused the word "composition", however. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty good now. I don't think you've overused "composition". --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seemed to say that Berio considered a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" to be "an enumerated list in the style of Dante". The Berio source says no such thing.
    That one I can't account for; I can only hold my hands up and call the use of "Dante" a mistake; the source does give a different author as an example (which I see you've added) so I seem to have put the wrong thing down in error. I'll attempt to seek out a source review in case I've made any similar mistakes. Thanks for your copy-edit and your frank comments; I'll endeavour to resolve them as I can. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected such errors as I found, but I only consulted five of the sources and I cannot be sure that there aren't more. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much happier now the changes discussed above have been made, but I'm still shy of supporting. Partly this is because of the fandom and commercial bias here. Normally with a work like this we would have an article about the work, which would include a Recordings section to describe them all. It's a bit different from commercial albums. A Beyoncé album, for example, features music and arrangements written specifically for her. Articles about such albums don't tilt the commercial playing field; this one does. But this is the first time I've seen this issue, so if other editors want to pitch in with different views, I'll defer to them. The other issue is the need for source checks. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly understandable; would it assuage the issue any if I could put some information together for an article on the original work? With the sources already present I'm sure there's already the kernel of something viable and I would highly doubt it would be difficult for me to track additional material down. GRAPPLE X 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have replied quickly. I'm on unfamiliar ground and needed to think about it. For me, it would improve the situation, but the problem of featuring one performance over and above the others would still bother me. That's about all I can say at present. It's an issue that needs wider discussion, I think, unless it has already happened somewhere, --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of reviewed content, the closest analogue I can think of immediately would be 2012 tour of She Has a Name, which focusses on one particular production of a play in a separate article to the play itself (which is located at She Has a Name); I didn't see anything else at WP:FA, but I didn't check WP:GA. I suppose it is an uncommon case, to cover such a lengthy piece instead of just one song. In all honesty, though, I don't really know how to address this other than, as suggested, creating an article on the original piece too—is this a notability concern (why is one album more notable than other versions?) or how should I approach it? GRAPPLE X 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tour is a bit different, in that it's over and so can't cause commercial prejudice. I don't think we have a concept of greater of lesser notability, and our concept of due weight relates more to viewpoints than to things that have a commercial value. I really don't know how you should approach this. I've said that I'm willing to be overruled, and that's about as much as I can say, honestly. Sorry not to be more helpful. --Stfg (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I've let this review go on longer than I might normally because I'm not sure that we'd gain much by archiving it without resolving Stfg's concerns. It's true that we're used to seeing pop album article nominations, but not specific recordings of 'classical' works. That said, if such an article passes notability criteria, I suppose why not? Were an article to appear focussing on Solti's recording of The Ring, would we be having the same discussion? Unlike this case, it's just one of a multitude of recordings of the work, but then it's probably the most famous and the work itself also has an article (though one that could cerainly stand some improvement). I would like to see if we can resolve this quickly one way or the other, so I might ask for another opinion or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I passed this as a GA and have supported above, so my opinion is fairly obvious. However, to make it explicit: yes, this is a recording of a classical composition. That is not indicative of notability, or indicative of a lack of notability. What makes something notable is sources. This has several sources, including six or seven reviews. This has coverage in a variety of trade magazines and popular magazines, showing the planning process and describing the creative aspects of the work. This was released to the mass market. We have articles on compilation albums and cover albums, which do not feature "new" material, just classics and/or covers (Dekade being the only one I've written); why should this be any different? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, been a busy day and I'll be away for the most of tomorrow as well. As Crisco says, the article itself does indicate its notability as a separate subject. I've made some steps towards distancing it from the original work in terms of visibility—the title has been ceded to a redirect, the target of which doesn't mention or link to the article (which means the incoming links are from articles already about the performers, preventing a reader reaching this article first if they initially wanted to look for Berio's work); and while I'm happy to work on an article for the original work in the coming week, after that I don't know how else to favour it. I'll admit it's a niche case, but I don't think it's wholly unique—we've also featured multiple commercial adaptations of a work which currently is not featured, for example. If a wider consensus on the issue is needed, I'd be happy to start an RFC on the article's talk page, or to ask editors from related wikiprojects to chime in, whichever would be seen as the best way to resolve the issue. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me you need to convince, guys, and I don't think an RFC is called for. The nom simply doesn't have consensus to promote according to FAC convention -- if that can be achieved in fairly short order, well and good, if not I'll have to archive it and it can be renominated some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for giving time for this question to be aired. I don't want to take more of a view than I already have, but to answer your question, yes, I'd have raised the same issue if it was Solti's (or anyone's) Ring. I had a similar thought about Barenboim's Hammerklavier. I don't dispute this one's notability; I only ask whether it should be featured.. The issue arises only where there is a question of commercial competition. None of the examples given so far (other than the classical recordings) raise it. --Stfg (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "commercial competition" is something we need to be too worried about. If another recording of Laborinuts II passes notability, it is just as viable a candidate for being featured. There are several films based on the legend of Tangkuban Perahu: would we not feature any, just in case we give more credence to one than the other? In that case I'd better put Tjioeng Wanara on the backburner. Ian, I don't quite think "The issue arises only where there is a question of commercial competition" is really actionable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having been asked to comment, and after reading through the review comments to date, I have a few issues:

  • This is clearly not an "album" in the accepted sense of that term in recorded music, a fact that it seems was acknowledged by a title move in the course of this review. It is a recording of a composition. Yet I see it is repeatedly referred to as an album in the text. Is it an album, or isn't it?
  • I am uneasy with the assertion that notability is simply a matter of sources. For example, there are over 60 recordings of Bizet's Carmen available, all of which have been reviewed at one time or another in the press and journals. Are they all individually notable, and would it be acceptable to have separate articles for them? If so, within WP rules there would be nothing to stop each and every one of them from being presented as a potential featured article. But that is the way that Wikipedia works: absurdity tempered by common sense. Personally, I think that individual recordings should only be considered notable if the particular circumstances of the recording are themselves notable – as indeed they were in the case of the Solti Ring cycle quoted above. However, I accept that this is a personal view; the WP bar of notability is set low, and I think it's too late now to start questioning the notability of this particular recording.
  • The "question of commercial competition" should not be applied on a piecemeal basis to individual articles. If there is an existing policy that tackles this issue, bring it out and let's see whether this article falls foul of it. Other than that, and the clarification of the "album" nomenclature, I think this article can be considered for promotion in the normal way. I'm sorry that these comments are somewhat hurried, but I'm on my way out, the taxi is almost due and I have got to finish packing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In a similar rush myself; looking at this on a lunch break. In regards to the first point, I'd say the record does constitute a live album, having been recorded at a concert and released by a record studio known mostly for studio recordings (and the occasional soundtrack); it was also tracked for sales by a US albums chart (which I would also point towards in regards to notability). I'm happy enough to change the title if it seems incongruous, the intention with the move was more to do with weight and focus rather than nomenclature. I would also put forward that the mere existence of sources isn't the only indication here of notability; they also represent attention being paid to the release by relatively mainstream music press—these are sources just as likely to be reviewing number-one albums by pop acts, rather than being niche classical or genre oriented press. It'll probably be tomorrow evening before I can get back to this, however. GRAPPLE X 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • Crisco 1492, Brianboulton: films "based on" a legend presumably have their own scripts and are essentially separate works, not performances of the same work. A legend is not a work in that sense. Laborintus II is a work with its own score. But anyway, I'm convinced by everything that Brian said, including the point that we shouldn't set a precedent ("piecemeal") in a place like this. So my earlier comments on commercial competition can be ignored here.
  • To be a live album, something must not only be recorded live, but also be an album. My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work. I agree with Brian here.
  • In any case, the need for a source review remains. I found these further issues just now:
    • FN15, the Billboard page used as the source for the first paragraph of the Release and reception section, no longer carries that information (or any useful information).
    • Mincher's review (FN1) does indeed mention "the occasional English" as stated in the article, but Jurek's review (FN4) says that Patton "speaks in Italian throughout". Who is right? Whoever is wrong becomes a dubious source, doesn't he?
    • In any case, "the occasional English" is not the same as "some sections in English" as the article puts it. To many people that would imply whole elements of the sectional structure of the work.
--Stfg (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to find another section of the Billboard site with the same information; they seem to have overhauled how their site works in the interim. The confusion as to the lyrics featuring some English or being all Italian took me a while to figure out, but it seems the AV Club source has mistaken English-language taped samples for Mike Patton; the album's booklet labels these as "Eduardo Sanguinetti on tape". As such I've removed the mention of English, though if you prefer I could reinsert it with the clarification, citing the album's booklet, that speaker and choir use Italian exclusively and that English is solely the domain of these samples (the full libretto is printed inside this book). As for the issue of album vs recording; should all the instances of "album" be expunged, or should the word just be used much less frequently? GRAPPLE X 22:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new Billboard link gives the peak position and the number of weeks, but seems not to have the date. Have I missed something? Or is the previous version archived? On the lyrics, I think it would be better to clarify the full situation, otherwise someone might spot the Mincher mention and be confused. On album vs. recording, I'm of two minds, because I think Brian is right, but some sources do call it an album. I prefer "recording" throughout, but not strongly. @Brian, what do you think? --Stfg (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, you're right about the date, they've taken it off. The weekly breakdown of the chart only goes as far as #10, with the full thing being behind a paywall. I've rephrased it to remove the date, as (understandably) the page hasn't been archived, and I'm not comfortable assuming it's present in that paid link without being able to see it myself. I've also added a bit more about the language issue, clarifying that the English is another voice and not Patton's. GRAPPLE X 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So a comedy album (such as a recording of a live performance by Chris Rock or alumni) is not an album, Stfg? Those can be a single "performance", containing several jokes. This is a single "performance", containing several movements. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that unsourced stub of an essay need detain us for long. Crisco 1492, once again you're not comparing like with like. The movements of a composed piece of music aren't comparable with the jokes in a stand-up routine. And you're misrepresenting what I said: I said "My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work." No semantic argument about what constitutes a performance. Instead of trying to shoot down my comments, which I have put forward tentatively enough in any case, why not carry out a full and independent review of your own? --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed this article at the GA and FA level. Or did you miss that? Or do neither of my reviews qualify as a "a full and independent review of [my] own"? If not, how so?
Fine. You want to shoot down every comparison I come up with. Then answer me this: how does this recording not count as an album? When it was released as an album and charted as an album? When it was performed with its own interpretation, its own timing, its own emotion, its own flaws and mood, enough to cross the threshold of originality (TOO; a copyright term, but one I think is applicable here). That TOO is, for the understanding of an album in general (not a studio album, just an album), quite low. Compilation albums have little creative input (I dare say less than this), yet are still styled as "albums". Cover albums (probably the closest comparison there is) are still styled albums, and have a similar level of originality.
I have explicitly noted, on several occasions, why I think this passes the bar for notability. I am prepared to argue it at an AFD, if you think this should go that far. Frankly, I am surprised that the delegates are even giving your concerns the weight that they are, and their actions disappoint me greatly. There is no separate bar for notability for FAs. Never has, and should never be one. If this is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough to be an FA assuming all the criteria are met. If this is closed as non-notable, yet survives AFD, then in the future I will treat FA as I am currently treating the FOUR Award. This is ridiculous. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologise for forgetting your reviews here and at GA. My bad. As for "shooting down", I have been replying to your challenges to my comments, which I feel entitled to do. I think I have explained why I believe that "recording" is a better term than "album" for this. We appear to have a difference of opinion on it, but I won't repeat myself. I have never said that this article is not notable; in this edit I said "I don't dispute this one's notability". The issue I raised was about its effect on commercial competition, and yesterday in this edit I said "... my earlier comments on commercial competition can be ignored here". I have also mentioned that while copy editing the article I found several instances where the text here did not reflect the sources, which I either corrected or raised in my review. I found a further batch yesterday and recorded them above. After I first pointed this out, in this edit Grapple said he would ask for a source review. IMO whether this article passes should depend not on notability but on whether it is believed that the article now accurately reflects its sources. --Stfg (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I agree that the issues with source representation should be looked into further. My spot checks during the GA review (here) turned up only one issue, but it was a random sampling, so more things may have slipped through. I will post at WT:FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or not. Apparently I missed that Grapple has already posted there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that. I need to know if you now accept that I have never questioned this article's notability; that, even though we disagree about it, my preference for a word other than "album" was expressed tentatively and in good faith, recognizing that some sources use it; and that I did correctly identify some cases where the articles did not accurately reflect its sources, at least four of which are identified on this page. In light of your statement yesterday that "I am surprised that the delegates are even giving your concerns the weight that they are", I feel the need for this clarification. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose:: I won't bother to go through striking things out, but provided the source check turns up nothing new, I have no objection whichever way you decide to take this FAC. Call me neutral, if it helps. I'll trust you on the usage of "album". --Stfg (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - We have not reached a consensus and there has not been much activity here lately; so I will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Graham Colm (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (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 GrahamColm 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Uncle David[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a British avant-garde independent film about an abused man who finds solace in his uncle on the Isle of Sheppey. It attained GA status many months ago and has since gone through FAC twice, each time getting neglected. The last time it failed was on 31 December 2013, but User:Ian Rose suggested that it might be third time lucky, and permitted me to re-submit it before the usual fortnight was up. So, that's precisely what I'm doing... and third time lucky ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 comment[edit]

I did the GA review on this article. Per my usual practice, I just pick the article that has been waiting the longest. So far history has been repeating itself, with no review during the first two FA nominations. Whether it is to pass or fail, this article deserves to get reviewed. Please do! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]
  • Sorry I didn't get to the last nomination. I'll give you a review now.

Image review

  • File:Uncle David Poster.jpg - Needs to be downsampled (I'd say 400 pixels wide). Also, is this a theatrical release poster, or an advertisement for a showing? What does NFT1 mean?
    • I've resized the image and changed the caption to be more specific: "Poster advertising the film's premiere at the British Film Institute." The NFT1 is the old name for the cinema that it was screened at; it is now referred to as BFI Southbank. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Uncle David screenshot.jpg - Also needs to be downsampled, per WP:Image resolution. I think this fits the NFCC quite well in terms of contextual significance, though you will likely draw criticism on TFA day from random readers for featuring nudity (just a heads up).
    • Done! Well, I guess I'll have to face that hurdle if I come to it but thanks for the heads up! Appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:David Hoyle 2012.jpg - Appropriate, copyright seems fine.

Text review

  • Per WP:REDLINK, we should not redlink people's names (Ashley Ryder)
  • If it is buried, how does Ashley's body get swept away to sea?
    • Well, Uncle David covers the body in sand, but the sea still drags it away. Maybe this could be rephrased ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a cast commentary track voiced by Hoyle, Ryder, Reich and Nicholls. - Have you been able to consult this for the article? I've found stuff like this quite useful in writing Ruma Maida and Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet!.
    • I've watched it and made the additions to the text as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any in-depth discussion of themes and/or shooting styles? A work like this usually gets at least some thematic discussion
    • The commentary track mentioned which cameras they used, and I have added that in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, try and paraphrase some of the quotes in the reception section. A bit heavy there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've trimmed a few of them down; if you think that any others could be trimmed further, please let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Crisco 1492 – they are much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any luck with my two other comments? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking into the use of a commentary track; I shall watch through the track later to see if there is anything useful there. I have not found any in-depth discussion of themes or shooting styles elsewhere, but they might be in the commentary track. I will get back to you! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've viewed the commentary track and made some additions on the back of it. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very nice. Do you have more? I just edit conflicted with you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Since you already told us about the three shorts, add "the" to contained several extras, including three preparatory shorts
  • The bit about the costume source was good since it ties into the budget (or lack thereof), but the following sentence is kinda pointless since we know nothing about the wig shop.
    • I've changed that sentence; where it once stated the name of the wig shop, now it just comments that the item was purchased in a Dalston wig shop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still not sure that the source of the wig is actually important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The wig shop is pointless trivia unless it was some sort of budget shop in which case it would be relevant because of the limited budget. Otherwise delete it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the article titles be in title case?
    • I'm not sure what you mean ? Are you referring to the title of "Uncle David" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the title of the articles in your bibliography. Title case is where all of the major words are capitalized, like in the title of a book, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No duplicate links or DABs. External link checker inop, but spot checks showed no problem.
  • As an aside, I firmly believe that the best way to get your own stuff reviewed is to review other FACs. So spent some time doing so and maybe you'll get more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments Sturmvogel 66. In the past, I have focused on GA reviewing, and have not done much here at FAC, but I shall endeavour to take up your suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose comment per User:Tony1's excellent writing guide, "with" is a particularly awkward additive link (ctrl+F for "With as an additive link"). You should recast the relevant sentences as suggested there.—indopug (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, indopug. I have looked up Tony1's page and am proceeding to replace many of the uses of "with" as an additive link in this article. Thanks again! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- @Midnightblueowl: It looks to me like Sturmvogel 66's most recent comments haven't been responded to, nor have there been any additional reviews since then. I'm loathe to close this for lack of interest, yet again, but there's not much else to do after almost two months, even allowing for the usual holiday period slowdown... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian Rose, I've responded to Sturmvogel's comment (apologies that I missed it). There's clearly a majority support here (albeit a majority of one); does not that mean that it should pass as a FA ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, you probably should take Sturm's advice and review more FACs -- although it's unwise to become too focussed on numbers of supports (consensus to promote is not based on that alone by any means) a minimum of three is required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps User:North8000 would also be willing to revisit? Just so we don't have to go through this a fourth time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the ping. I'm really more of a GA reviewer than a FA reviewer, but will give it a try. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 review[edit]

First my disclaimer. (see above ping) I've done a lot of GA reviews, (including the one for this article) but this is my first FA review. Would appreciate any critique from experienced FA reviewers. For FA I think that I should be tougher than I was for the GA review and will do so. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing an interest, User:North8000, I'll respond to your queries now. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review discussion[edit]
  • Could you add a couple words explaining what "region free" means? Even the linked article does not explain it. Or maybe explain it at the linked article? :-) North8000 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the link; do you think that this does the trick ? I just think that additional words here would be superfluous and might look a little clumsy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does it. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. In the lead it mentions that it was shot without a script, but that is not covered in the article. And related to that, regarding article completeness, I think that there should be some coverage of that important & interesting aspect in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a referenced sentence into the "Development" section stating that it was filmed without a script. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like an important and interesting aspect that could use more coverage, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the lead is too short and incomplete. Most notably, there is very little in there from the entire "Production" section and it's two substantial ("Background" & "Development") subsections. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info box said that the budget was £4000 and a quote in the article said that the budget was under £1000. Could you reconcile or clarify this? North8000 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I can gather, £4000 is the total budget of the production, whereas £1000 was the budget for filming. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally, I'd be saying that this is important info, and also presume that the sources that came up with those two numbers would say what they covered. But since the numbers are so miniscule, 9we're talking about only a £3000 "disparity", and allowing for differing things to be included in the figures, I consider this to be a minor point. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify the following phrase: " while same-sex pornography starring Ashley plays on the television set." Is that referring to Ashley Ryder, the real world actor, or Ashley the character in the film? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an issue that is intentionally ambiguous. The porno being screened is clearly one of those that Ashley Ryder has appeared in previously, but in the context of the film, it is unclear whether this was supposed to be the character of Ashley or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It said that Boy George contributed a musical track for the film. It does not say whether it was just allowing use of one of his existing songs, or whether it was created for or debuted in the film. I think that this would be good info. Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it would make a good addition, but I'm afraid that the source material is not clear on this issue itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like it could be a key aspect, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one sentence in the article regarding the movie playing in theaters, which was a sentence on it's original release. The rest of the "release" section segues into and is about a discussion regarding potentially making a musical. Is it possible to add more on it's playing in theaters? North8000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could find no evidence that it was ever screened commercially in different cinemas. I think that it only played at a few film festivals, and then was released on DVD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like an important aspect for a movie, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing that covers the film's degree of commercial success. Is there any of this info available? North8000 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not. In fact I am not aware of it even having a commercial release. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
      • Seems like an important aspect for a movie, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any plot info available on whether or not the Ashley character was an adult vs. a youth? The plot summary refers to him as a young man, and presumably the actor (being a porn actor) is an adult, but then a reviewer discussed the movie being about a paedophile "grooming" him; with that term usually meaning a youth as a target. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's tricky; the actor is clearly an adult in his 20s, but the character is "child-like", i.e. drawing crayon pictures, generally acting like a child. The whole scenario is intentionally ambiguous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Results on meeting Featured Article criteria[edit]

  • 1b: On a "0 -10" scale, I'd call the prose an "8", and would consider that to be sufficiently good. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: I have some concerns that there are certain key aspects where info is not included and probably not available. It seems that there are little or no "overview" type sources which would cover for example, whether or not the movie even played in theaters. I think that the editor(s) probably did a good search for these and that they are probably not available. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: I think that the article certainly meets the second half of this criteria. Everything that is in the article is sufficiently sourced and cited. Regarding the first half, please see my notes under 1c. I think that more "overview" sourcing is needed to make this article ideal. If such exists, then more research was needed. If it doesn't exist, then sufficient research was done. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1e: Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a: Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b: Meets this criteria. Structure looks appropriate for the size and content of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c: Appears to meet this criteria, but I am not a good judge of the smaller formatting details. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: Meets this criteria. Has 5 images. The two non-free images have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Meets this criteria. Certainly not over-sized or overly detailed. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: My thought is that that is the end of my comments. As I understand it, it is not my role to say "pass" or "fail". And again, I was the one who did the GA (Good Article) review and passed this one. I did not plan to do FA reviews, but I got pinged and felt that this is owed a review. I applied a tougher standard, but do not have a FA reviewing perspective. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North8000! It is much appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose - i thought this was very well put together. i do have a couple of other queries, though.

  • What establishes the significance of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website. Is it even a reliable source? I note it isn't wikilinked, which raises a question about how important it is.
    • Hmm. Fair point. I mean, it is an established website devoted to horror films, with a large number of reviewers (see this) but at the same time it does appear to be self-published. Any advice from other users who are more knowledgeable in this area would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the small number of sources, if anyone could check this, it would be great - Google Scholar indicates that the film is referred to, but I don't know if the reference is of any consequence.
    • That looks very interesting; unfortunately I don't have access to it, but it would be great if someone who did could take a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was able to get hold of it, with a friend's assistance. Unfortunately, its only reference is to a project Hoyle did subsequently with Nichols; nothing on Uncle David itself or its development. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

while Ryder portrayed a misbehaved nine-year-old. - hmm, I'd say "while Ryder portrayed a misbehaving nine-year-old".

Closing comments - Sadly, after an extraordinary time here at FAC, I don't think the prose is up to scratch. I made one edit to help tighten the writing but clunkiness remains. The use of "the latter" is often a sign of non-professional prose and should be avoided. I suggest recruiting a good copy-editor who can bring a fresh pair of eyes to the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (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 Ian Rose 15:58, 9 April 2014 [18].

Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Me5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 animated series Napoleon Dynamite. I have improved this article substantially and it is now a Good Article. I believe it is now ready for featured article status. Me5000 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

This article seems awfully short for an entire TV series, even if there were only six episodes—is it really that comprehensive? I can't see the "Home media" section flying—only one sentence, and the "sources" are the retailers' websites? Does that not fall under Original Research? Ditto "International broadcasting". I also noticed some spelling errors—obviously this thing should be in American spelling, but I see "cancelling" in the final paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used every source I could find that had new information on the subject, I don't think there is anything else to tell, at least nothing that could be verified. I don't see how I could make the home media section any longer, there is no other information. As for the sources for the home media section I used featured article The Wire as one of my example articles to help write Napoleon Dynamite, if you look at The Wire's DVD section it uses Amazon as source for the Region 1 and 2 DVD releases, so I thought the sources I used would be all right. Does The Wire article contain original research as well? Essentially ditto for the international broadcasting section. I thought "cancelling" was the correct spelling, it is even listed in the oxford english dictionary [19], but I'll change it if it is needed. I looked over the article again and couldn't find any other spelling errors, please bring them to my attention. Me5000 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cancelling" is correct Commonwealth spelling. American spelling tends not to double final consonants when the final syllable is unstressed. Why? Ask an American—I'm Canadian.
    I'm definitely not asking for a longer list—I'm wondering if it's truly notable if nobody but the advertisers and retailers bothered to note it. Either way, a one-sentence section is hard to justify—it's unlikely the info in it couldn't find a home somewhere else in the article, if it is indeed included at all (to be honest, the info seems pretty trivial to me. If I were the one editing this article I'd simply drop it). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed "cancelling" to "canceling" and removed the home media section. Me5000 (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The prose seems fine from what I've skimmed of it, but the introduction is rather short. Why not make one that's two paragraphs? Tezero (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the lead and it is now two paragraphs. Me5000 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from Tezero:

  • "Some critics thought it translated well to animation, while others did not." - Kind of a cliche sentence. Either talk about why they did or didn't, or rephrase the sentence to something like "Critics were divided on how well the source material translated to animation."
  • "averaged 4 million" --> "averaged only 4 million"
  • Mention something in the intro about the show's unusually short run of six episodes.
  • "2004 cult film of the same name": Remove "cult"; it was a pretty high-grossing film and, at the very least, its status as a cult classic isn't relevant.
  • "get sick of the characters": A little informal. What about "tire of"?
  • "Guest voices included Amy Poehler, Jennifer Coolidge, Sam Rockwell, and Jemaine Clement.": Relevance? It's a one-sentence paragraph, and these actors are all listed later.
  • "Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Staten Island Advance gave the show negative reviews, as well as neutral reviews": Mediocre grammar. Change the "as well as neutral reviews" to "while it received neutral reviews from" or something.
  • You should probably add citations to the character lists. Tezero (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did everything. Also realized the reception section was kind of bad and expanded it. When sourcing the character list I had to cut down some of the info because I couldn't find sources for some information. Me5000 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per addressing of my and Curley Turkey's comments and the article's (partially resultant) high quality. Nice! Tezero (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Given the relatively meager number of reviewers and the fact that there's been no activity for about a month, I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (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 Ian Rose 15:58, 9 April 2014 [20].

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

Nominator(s): Gloss • talk 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American actor, currently in the off-season of his current major film projects. The article has received a major facelift over the past two months or so, and I'm nominating it because I believe it's well-written and well-researched, as it covered every notable aspect of Hutcherson's life and career. I attempted to bring this to peer review before it's GAN, but it received no comments after a few weeks. Since then, it's passed its GAN and appeared on the main page for a DYK, where a few other editors lent a hand in further improving the article. Any and all criticism is welcome! Gloss • talk 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:JoshHutchersonSep09.jpg: source link is dead, author is not named, and the licensing given suggests that that link was not the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eisfbnore

  • "Along the way, he picked up four Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor, two of which he won." – the phrasing is a bit informal.
  • "In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series, based on an adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel series." – tautology
  • "Hutcherson's passion for entertaining people began developing at the age of three when he would watch television and think "how cool it would be to be like them." – 1) a bit verbose. Consider rephrasing. 2) to be like whom?
  • "For six years his parents had ignored his requests to pursue acting, however they realized that it could be something worth pursuing for Hutcherson and was not just a phase" – ortography: "; however, (at one point) they realized... [semicolons to separate independent clauses]
  • "In the animated film Howl's Moving Castle, he voiced the character of Markl alongside Christian Bale and Billy Crystal." – Presumably Bale and Crystal voiced other characters in the same movie, whilst Markl's voice was provided solely by Hutcherson. The sentence says otherwise.
  • "He also performed in 2004's The Polar Express." – really? Wasn't that an animated film? Suggest changing the verb.
  • "the reception was not nearly as positive as his previous films" – HUh? The sentence currently says that his previous films had been more positive than the reception for Red Dawn. Makes no sense. Perhaps something like "Later in 2012, he appeared in Red Dawn, a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. The film was panned by critics, achieving only a 12% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the lowest score of any film Hutcherson has appeared in.
  • "The day following the films' United States release," – misplaced apostrophe
  • "In 2013, Hutcherson voiced the character, Nod, in the animated action-adventure film Epic, alongside Beyoncé and Colin Farrell." –excessive use of commas
  • " He also has cited actor Jake Gyllenhaal as an inspiration." – word order

As you may see, the prose clearly needs some work, and I really think the article should have gone through peer review before landing here. However, English is not my mother tongue, so some of the above comments may be misguided. I wish you good luck. Eisfbnore (会話) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eisfbnore: No worries about the language barrier, your comments were helpful and I've made all of your suggested changes. Also, I did bring the article to peer review back in December, but it received zero feedback and was archived by a few weeks later. See the page's history. Thank you, Gloss • talk 18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

Before becoming a FA, here are some things I would do:

Early Life
  • Second sentence is rather lengthy. Try something like "He is a son of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyst Chris Hutcherson and former Delta Air Lines employee Michelle (Fightmaster) Hutcherson." and add "Mother Michelle now helps with Josh's career" right afterwards.
  • Last sentence is also lengthy, and would read better as something like "After ignoring his requests to pursue acting for six years, his parents started to listen and allowed him to pursue it."
Continued success through The Hunger Games
  • In the first sentence of the first paragraph, just use ref#28 (Los Angeles Times).
  • I know your opinion of The Huffington Post, but consensus is that it can be used as a reliable source. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#40 (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis) should be outside of the parentheses (second paragraph)
  • Here's something you could use: (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|420000000|2013|r=0}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars).{{inflation-fn|US}}
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph should have spaced out from the ref's, and just use ref#43 (Rolling Stone)
  • See two comments above. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Life
  • Info on brother should be in "Early Life" section, right after bits on parents.
  • If including ethnicity, that should also be in early life section. Try to find a better source than EthniCelebs or remove altogether, as admins Acalamari and Kww have informed me that the site is known for having questionable-at-best reliability.
  • The info on Jake Gyllenhaal inspiration would probably be better in early life section, or perhaps make a section dedicated to his acting inspirations and styles with that in it.
  • Justin Timberlake info is trivial, I'd remove that
  • Regarding this comment and the one above it, there isn't enough information here to create it's own section. So combining it with his personal life seems like a reasonable compromise. And I disagree that the Timberlake info is trivial. He was a fan of his growing up, essentially the same as an influence (like Gyllenhaal) Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was an influence, that should be included rather than stating he was a fan.
  • Hobbies info is also trivial and should be removed
  • Favorite sports teams are also trivial and should be removed
  • Biographies are not simply supposed to be about the person's career. Personal life information has always included information like this. If anyone else has a concern with it, we can discuss it further. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For his relationships, find better sources than Us Weekly, Huffington Post, and People, or remove altogether
  • Again, I understand you dislike these sources but they're all considered reliable on Wikipedia. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much me disliking as it is me often noting poor support for basis (i.e. a recurring example of poor support they use is where a quote is followed by "according to sources" or "sources say" without giving the names of these "sources") and frequent inaccuracy
  • This is all your preference and I do understand that. But I cannot go with your opinion and go again an established Wikipedia consensus. Gloss • talk 21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the instance provided on poor support, what I neglected to mention is how they would have more merit if the names of the "sources" were provided rather than simply stating "according to sources" or "sources say". Also, unless I'm mistaken there are always accepted sources and sources that are considered to be even better. In this case, try to go with those deemed to be in the "even better" range (i.e. Boston Globe, Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Washington Post).
  • There is nothing wrong with the sources the article has provided. Please stop pushing you personal opinions. Gloss • talk 04:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was meant as more of a recommendation than pushing, though I'm sorry if it came off as pushing.
  • Remove the red link to "Straight But Not Narrow"
  • Interesting..... most times I've seen users avoid them whenever possible.....
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#57 (E!) at the end of the second-to-last sentence.
  • There are only two sources there, and that does not violate WP:OVERCITE. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was, you don't need to include ref#57 twice in a row.
  • I see. Taken care of! Gloss • talk 21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a better source than People (ref#59) or remove altogether
  • Only use one image if any of him with Vanessa Hudgens. I'd personally recommend the one of them on the beach if any as it gives a clearer view of their faces.
  • Why only use one image? There are two good images of them, no harm at all in using both. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, because one image doesn't provide a very good view of the faces.
  • I respectfully disagree. Again, if anyone else has an issue I'll remove it. But for now it's just a matter of preference. Gloss • talk 21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and nominations
  • Find a better source than ref#62 (IMDb) or remove altogether
  • Remove the red link to "Chlotrudis Awards" and "Best Cast"
  • Find a better source than ref#76 (Huffington Post) or remove altogether
  • Again, see my comments above. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should've gone through a peer review before being nominated for FA after it got GA status, but wish you luck, Gloss! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The comments I did not leave a reply to have been completed. Gloss • talk 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- The nominator has done the right thing attempting PR, as well as GAN, before FAC and has responded in a timely manner to comments raised. Unfortunately this review has been open almost 6 weeks without attracting any support for promotion, and it doesn't look like it will any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (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 Graham Colm 13:47, 8 April 2014 [21].

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of KFC. I believe it is to a high standard, but I welcome suggestions as to how I can improve it. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I performed a thorough GAN review, and it has only improved since then. The article's prose is good, the images are used appropriately, the organization is excellent, and the lead is appropriate. In my estimation, this fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry[edit]

Support This was a refreshingly well-prepared and intriguing article. I was very happy to read this. Specifically, the prose is excellent, it's well-sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. No problems with neutrality or stability. I do have a few image questions that I'm sure will be resolved....

I have removed the personality rights tag now. Farrtj (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ky fried chicken.png - Claim of public domain by the "threshold of originality" doctrine does not work with trademarked logos--since part of the requirements for filing and protection under trademark law in the US is that they are original. Since it was a logo last used in 1978, you might have a case for it being free contact under the "abandoned trademark" doctrine.
Replaced with a different image. Farrtj (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ColonelHenry: - The threshold of originality for copyright is different than that for trademarking. Trademarking requires something to not be a reproduction of an existing design (i.e. be an original design), whereas copyright requires a degree of creativity (originality) before something qualifies. Hence why text logos like that for House can be trademarked but not copyrighted. That being said, I agree that this image added little to the article, and it's fine to remove it (unless an SVG is made, which can be bigger). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Colonel Harland Sanders in character.jpg - Are you really sure that's an verifiable "own work" claim? The information statement is a little sparse for me to sign off it. Not many 1974-era photos magically being uploaded so a redflag goes up for me.

Good work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

Without reading the article (which I probably won't do given that I commented on a couple of FACs for the KFC article and so would not be able to approach this with fresh eyes), I have a few concerns about the references here:

  • A number of references are to entire works (1 and 110) or to large groups of pages (eg, 14 - which is cited repeatedly, 23, 28, 49 (a normal length sentence cited to 13 pages) and 57). Please provide specific page numbers for each statement cited to help readers follow up these sources.
I believe this is a matter of preference rather than a requirement for featured articles. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty poor attitude to take to readers of your articles IMO and means that the article does not meet WP:V as it's not practical for readers to verify statements. For instance, reference 110 is 103 page long accounting document (I was unable to locate the statement this report is used to reference in it, but I imagine it's buried in the detail somewhere) and reference 14 directs readers to a 30-odd page chunk of Harland Sanders' autobiography for multiple different facts. There are several other such references. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Reference 1, it's a standard academic reference formatting style to not give the specific page for a journal source, but to instead just list the pages in which the article is located. Farrtj (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have given a page number to the 10-K reference. Farrtj (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on WP:V that says you need a specific page number for each reference. As a matter of fact, this was how the progenitor of this article (KFC) was organised, but after discussion, it was decided that it would be easier if the page numbers were grouped together. Farrtj (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Farrtj - The appropriate content guideline is WP:CITE, specifically WP:CITEHOW. On Wikipedia, it's usually best practice if you're quoting something specific to provide a specific page number. Academic rigour requires it specific information be cited precisely. In a journal article, it's acceptable to list the article's page range if you're adding a general statement (i.e. the thesis of the article or the lengthy discussion of a point within the article). However, specific facts require specific page numbers. when citing article for a specific fact, I generally will use the format: (author) (article title) (journal name): (page range for article), at (specific page number or numbers). i.e. for a specific fact: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, at 4. Or i.e. for a discussion of a certain point: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, from 4-7. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sanders was dissatisfied with the 35-minutes it took to prepare his chicken in an iron frying pan, but he did not want to deep fry; although a much faster process, in Sanders' opinion it produced dry and crusty chicken and cooked the product unevenly".
  • "The new method reduced production time to be comparable with deep frying, yet still (in Sanders' opinion) retained the quality of pan-fried chicken."
  • "Sanders adopted the name because it differentiated his product from the deep fried "Southern fried chicken" product found in restaurants."

The three above quotes are the first three sentences where I use Sanders' autobiography as a reference. As you can see, the first two are statements of opinion from Sanders, and it states so quite clearly in the sentence. The third reference is explaining why Sanders used the KFC name. Who else could explain that than the man who ran the business at the time? Farrtj (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanders autobiography references now have separate page numbers, as they originally did, before I was told on a review over at KFC to amalgamate together. Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual page numbers restored for the Dave Thomas reference. Farrtj (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to pre-internet era magazines and newspapers are lacking page numbers.
Unfortunately this can't be helped. I accessed most (if not all) of these sources through the LexisNexis database, which doesn't list page numbers. Besides page numbers can vary among various editions of the same newspaper, and listing them is not a requirement for FA status. I believe that the newspaper sources are still verifiable without page numbers. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to WP:CITEHOW, newspaper page numbers in references are optional. Farrtj (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One the main references used for the article is "Secret Recipe: Why Kfc Is Still Cooking After 50 Years", which is published by Tapestry Press. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? From my reading of its website [22] Tapestry Press is, at least in part, a self-publishing outfit though it states that it also acts as a traditional publisher for some books. The range of titles published by this firm [23] doesn't indicate that it has any expertise in editing or producing high quality books on business history, and the list of other books written by this author available through Google Books [24] also doesn't suggest that he has any particular expertise in writing business histories. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [25] Robert Darden is an associate professor of journalism at Baylor University. How is he not a reliable author? The book was also created with the help of Pete Harman, who is the virtual co-founder of KFC. Furthermore, there aren't a huge wealth of high quality KFC sources to choose from: you can't afford to be picky. Finally, perhaps the sole academic source about KFC, KFC in China by Warren Liu, sees fit to reference Darden. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was written by a non-specialist with the co-founder of the company and published by a lightweight press which is unlikely to have conducted any fact checking (assuming the book wasn't self-published through this firm) I don't think that this is a reliable source I'm afraid. Other editors may have different views though. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a second opinion on this, but until one appears, I will try to find substitutes for the Darden book. As such, I have removed all quotes and opinions from Darden. Some statements like KFC opening in Beijing in 1987 I have been able to replace with more than adequate sources. Others I have not, and have deleted the statement. Farrtj (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all Darden references now, and replaced them where I can find suitable sources. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Farrtj, Nick-D - Refer to WP:PSTS and related guidelines on this issue. A primary source can be used as a reliable source if the content of the article is relates to a recollected autobiographical detail that isn't dispute. (Example: if Liz Taylor said she had sex with Michael Jackson, we should assume that detail can be supported by a primary source. However, if she divorced someone because of infidelity, some newspaper articles on the case or an non-involved third-party needs to support that claim). In the cases where it is suspect, it needs to be backed by reliable second sources. A business book co-authored by a primary actor (i.e. a business executive) and a journalist or journalism professor should be treated as a primary source, per that guideline above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Almost one month on there are still a number of references to large page ranges. I don't think that this is at all suitable referencing for a FA. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the specific references you take issue with? From what I can see, I disagree that this is an issue. In my academic background, one cites a journal reference's entire page range rather than the specific page in the journal. And I'm consistent within a style. And I don't think a page range of eg 14-40 is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 (company headquarters location cited to a 50 page range), 8 (five separate claims cited to a 26 page range), 32 (3 separate facts cited to and eight page range) and 38 (five statements cited to a three page range). I note that many other statements from books are cited to specific pages, so these are inconsistent with that referencing style, as well as not being very helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 sorted out. I don't think the other page ranges are unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the single page number references for the Ozersky source, so now the sole page range reference is the Bill Carey, with a 9 page reference, which I don't think is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment
    • In the lede, it is mentioned that KFC's venture into China was the first for a western franchise. However, this factoid is not reintroduced/sourced in the body of the article when it mentions the opening in Beijing. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Farrtj (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I updated the source to add the page that mentions this (127). - Floydian τ ¢ 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have thoroughly scanned the prose for flow and grammar, and this article meets my expectations. I was thrown back to find out that Dave Thomas was the top guy for KFC before starting Wendy's; very interesting! I have not done a source spotcheck, except for the lone fact I mention above this. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reading through now - will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Harman, the addition of KFC - was the acronym in use at this point? If not it strikes me as a bit misleading - maybe use "the addition of the name" ?
Actually you've mentioned about useing the name to distinguish it twice in about three sentences. If there was some way to fold this into one sequence it'd help I think.
I've cleared this up now I think. Farrtj (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KFC international sales boomed, with particular success in Japan -I'd change "international" to "elsewhere" - less repetitive and clearer meaning (I am in Oz)
Done. Farrtj (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the name change to the acronym as being a pretty big thing at the time - any other comments, especially looking back on it in later years, might be good to add. If there is nothing in the sources then this is moot I guess.
It was a big deal, and for this reason I researched it extensively. KFC don't appear to have given a solid reason for the name change at the time. Them eventually I found the KFC US President say they were trying to get away from the "fried" connotation. It dedicate three sentences to it, I'm not sure what else you're looking for? Farrtj (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure really...whether folks retrospectively thought it was a good idea. If there is nothing else really then never mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some additional information about the name change. Farrtj (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, leaning support - still thinking about issues such as history of advertising and slogans that are currently on the main KFC page, as well as some PETA/Greenpeace issues. Can you describe your rationale for what goes where? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful edits and comments. My overall aim is to follow User:Jerem43's lead with Burger King and create separate articles for Advertising and Controversies. The Controversy regarding PETA is definitely worthy of an article in itself, as it's enormously nuanced and complex. I don't want to repeat information here that will ultimately be in the Controversy at KFC article. Again, I feel that Advertising is better off with its own section. It's very difficult to tell what advertising has really had a major impact on the company etc. Farrtj (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • As this is looking like it will soon become the nominator's first FAC to be promoted, I'd like to see someone perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (unless I missed it above).
  • "In the early 1970s, KFC was sold to the spirits distributor Heublein, who were taken over by the R.J. Reynolds food and tobacco conglomerate, who sold the chain to PepsiCo". Seems to be inconsistency here. You say "KFC was" (the company being singular) but then "Heublein ... were" (the company being plural) -- which is correct in AmEng? Also is it standard in AmEng to treat a company as a personage ("who" instead of "which")? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited that section now. I hope that's better. Farrtj (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Midnightblueowl: Generally, this is a very good article, and it is clear that a lot of hard work has gone into putting it together. However, I am a little perturbed that it makes no mention of the fact that, for at least several decades, KFC has been the focus of harsh criticism from both health advocates and animal welfare and/or animal rights groups. It concerns me that this article does not even mention such criticism, which has often led to direct action protests at KFC outlets, many of which will have been reported on by the media and other reputable sources. Surely we should have some information on this aspect of KFC's history in here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a few comments about this from numerous reviews now. I've added a paragraph about increasing criticism of the health effects of fast food and some background about the KFC/PETA relationship. Farrtj (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - some concerns here

  • "After leaving the family home at age 12, Sanders passed through several professions, with mixed success" - given source supports "several professions" but neither age at departure (it says "seventh grade" but also "teenager") nor level of success
13 appears to be the correct age. Have amended this with a new source. The new source also details Sanders mixed success in various professions, by his own account. Farrtj (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he admitted to the use of salt and pepper" - source?
added reference to his "Celebrity chef" autobiography. Farrtj (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wearing a black frock coat" - source?
added a reference Farrtj (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pay four (later five) cents on each chicken sold as a franchise fee" - source?
Can't find a source for the four cents claim at this moment in time, so have amended to the sourced five cent claim for now. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use his name and likeness for promotional purposes" is a direct quote from the source
Changed. Farrtj (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Brown, Sanders had lost interest in the business operations of KFC, and suggested that Brown should buy the company" - not seeing this in the source
The reference says "Sanders, at 75, was losing interest in the business side of KFC", but does not mention that the sale was Sanders' suggestion, so I have removed that part. Farrtj (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Massey made the written offer, Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his office drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell" is very close to "made him a written offer. Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell"
Changed the phrasing. Farrtj (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending a thorough going-through of references and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest that you yourself undertake this task, or continue to oppose until someone else does the job? It would be a shame to see this article fail its nomination simply because no one will look through the references. It also implies guilt until proven innocent, rather than the other way round. It is my belief that I shouldn't have to prove that my references are above board: it should be up to others to prove that they aren't. Farrtj (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What specifically is wrong with them? Tezero (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note As there is still no consensus for promotion after three months here, I will be closing this nomination in a few minutes. Please wait for at least two weeks before re-nominating. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2014 (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 Ian Rose 08:00, 1 April 2014‎ [26].

Daboia[edit]

Nominator(s): Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 05:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Russell's viper, a common and highly dangerous snake species responsible for many human fatalities across its geographical range annually. The article is currently a GA level article. It is extremely well-written, focused, comprehensive and has many images. The article is also very stable - no edit wars or vandalism. Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 05:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: DendroNaja. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal. I'm afraid I think this article is quite a way from ready. Here are a few comments.

  • The lead is short, and doesn't seem to well-summarise the article. The second paragraph is one line long, and I'm left wondering why there're so many references.
  • Your citation style seems inconsistent- sometimes you use in-text publication dates, but you mostly rely on footnotes. Items in the footnotes and bibliography are inconsistently formatted. (Date formatting, brackets, stray full stops, name formatting, locations...)
  • You've got a few bare urls as references, as well as dubious online sources. Ideally, we'd see these references expanded or replaced with better publications.
  • You have a massive further reading section- why not incorporate these sources into the main reference list?
  • You also have a number of external links of dubious value.
  • Are all those pictures adding anything? They don't seem particularly well-chosen/placed.

All of this comes from without really looking closely at the article text, so I'd be inclined to say that this article is not ready for FAC. I suggest you find someone with experience of taking biology articles through FAC and have them take a good look through the article; perhaps a nomination at PR would be helpful, too. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I have had a fairly close look at the text, and unfortunately it's just as problematic. I note the elevation to GA happened in 2007, making it well overdue for peer review if not a total reassessment. Not sure how it was concluded that this article is 'extremely well-written' while including the following among other issues:

  • "Apart from being a member of the big four snakes in India, Daboia is also one of the species responsible for causing the most snakebite incidents and deaths among all venomous snakes on account of many factors, such as their wide distribution and frequent occurrence in highly populated areas." --This awkward run-on sentence is the main body of the lead. No other characteristics of the snake are given. Even the snake's common English names, which are of primary importance (not least in helping the reader recognize they've got the right article), are relegated to an odd little tacked-on sentence under this.
  • The 'Common names' section includes an apparent attempt to collate every name the snake has across its range. This would be serious overkill even if the names weren't given in the languages in question with no English translation -- a major problem for readers of the English Wikipedia, for whom this section is thus rendered largely useless.
  • "Brown (1973) mentions that it can also found [sic] in Vietnam, Laos and on the Indonesian island of Sumatra" --These kinds of typos are the sort of thing that should be caught well prior to submission for FAC. And I'm having a hard time believing that there's not been more authoritative research conducted into the snakes' presence in Vietnam and Laos (let alone Indonesia) in the last forty years.
  • "Adults are reported to be persistently slow and sluggish unless pushed beyond a certain limit, after which they become aggressive." --Surely there's been enough investigation into the snake's behaviour that a detailed, authoritative description can replace this single vague sentence. For starters, the 'limit' needs to be defined a lot more precisely than that. And there's no description of feeding, mating or territorial behaviours, the basic building blocks of any zoological article.
  • "When threatened they... produce a hiss that is supposedly louder than that of any other snake." --Who's doing the supposing? And why are we giving them credence? Has this never been precisely measured?
  • "It seems that sexual maturity is achieved in 2–3 years." --Again, this is unsourced and 'seems' is unacceptably vague in a scientific article concerning a common and well-studied species. To echo JMilburn above, you've got a ton of reference material to work with, and almost none of it appears to have made its way into the article.
  • Suddenly in the 'Venom' section we get into all the well-cited detail that's missing in the rest of the article. Between this and the focus in the lead, I'm getting the distinct impression that this was originally written out of a fascination with how deadly the snake is, and the rest of the article hastily fudged around it.
  • Sorry, but no scientific article should be citing tabloids, let alone one as notorious as The Daily Mail.

I strongly second JMilburn's recommendation: withdraw the article from FA consideration, get it a thorough peer review, and only then think about resubmitting.Shoebox2 talk 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm not sure why this uses AE when India uses BE, but more concrete reasons for opposing include
  • A list of names in various languages without any explanation of their relevance to an English language article. This isn't a dictionary.
  • It is not restricted to any particular habitat, Oceans? Himalayan peaks (map suggest it occurs there, although it seems unlikely)?
  • Books don't have page numbers, some refs are bare urls

I don't know how this got through GA, I wouldn't have passed it, sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 31 March 2014 (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 Ian Rose 08:00, 1 April 2014‎ [27].

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel[edit]

Nominator(s): QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fox Searchlight's 2012 motion picture The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I recently saw this article's accession to GA status, and have improved the article substantially from this point. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: QatarStarsLeague. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few cites needed throughout the article. Also, it appears the entire Awards table is uncited, at present. — Cirt (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After viewing the accolades table for the FA film Fight Club, I am unsure as to whether or not I need to provide references for each, or any, for that matter, intercalation of the table. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - multiple {{citation needed}} tags and citation errors, needs cleaning up. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:QatarStarsLeague has a habit of nominating articles for GA and FA without even notifying the other article writers. I've warned him on numerous occasions for GA but taking an article like this to FA without notification is rather frustrating. Had I known about this I might have worked on it more, but I don't think the content really exists to promote it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- With very little activity over the past three weeks and fact tags remaining in the article, it's time to archive this and allow the nominator to address the citation issues away from the FAC process. Per guidelines, pls do not nominate this or any other article for FAC until a minimum of two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2014 (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/April_2014&oldid=605901452"