Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 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 Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2014 (diff).

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of KFC, the fast food chain. This article has previously had two FA nominations, first receiving 4 Supports and 1 Oppose, and secondly receiving 5 Supports and 1 Oppose. Both Opposes were from the same user and expressed concerns regarding a need to spotcheck the references. So I would ask contributors to focus on that! Thanks! Tom (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone through and checked all the references yourself? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 75%. I don't have time to do all of them at the moment. Tom (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should've waited and checked them 100% and then nominated. If you don't have the time now then why did you nominate? As per Dank, you now run the risk of people opposing for that very reason. Cassiantotalk 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will probably wind up opposing unless someone (maybe the nominator) checks all the references, and then a spotcheck is done after that. There were enough cases of close paraphrasing and of inaccurately representing what was said in the sources that I wouldn't be comfortable just trusting that they're all fine, until someone actually checks that they're fine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Actioning issues raised in previous FACs is a necessary part of the renomination process; on top of that there's been no activity here for the past 3 weeks, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:27, 28 June 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 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2014 (diff).

Proteus (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sam Walton (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a unique open world musical video game which has been the subject of broad coverage. Most interestingly became one the main games in a debate on anti-games. Sam Walton (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • Genre isn't consistent between the lede, infobox, prose—try to keep one consistent throughout all three (at least for the purposes of classification since you can still add extra genres to the prose or wherever)
  • "which results in audio changes": to what? the soundtrack?
  • avoid comma verb-ing—it's happening often in the lede
  • I'm getting the impression that the anti-game part should be more prominent in the lede (and in the article overall), this was somewhat alluded to in the peer review or FAC (don't remember where I read it, probably the latter) where it isn't exactly clear what is happening and to whom and why it's important

czar ♔ 21:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • preliminary copyedit
  • why is anti-game italicized?
  • "a pixel art style island": I know what pixel art is, but I don't know what this means
  • "different every time the game is played": should this be linked to procedural generation? would be worth clarifying this
  • "full of an assortment of different sounds": does this get any more specific?
  • "to the next season through winter, after which the game ends": ? needs more explanation
  • spell out RPG on first use and only specify acronyms if it'll be used later
  • "US$40": we typically don't include the prices unless there's a special reason for it
  • actually I removed it. Also "Artifact Edition" would not be italicized
  • "extra development notes": what is this
  • "Key apologised that this edition had still not shipped": so did it ever ship? finish the thought
  • "game's PC release,": why is this linked? isn't it the same as Windows? try to be consistent when using the same terms to refer to the same things
  • "though Key said that they never attempted": is they Sony or the devs? specify


  • "Proteus was a finalist for the Independent Games Festival's": when? add year
  • "the Museum of Modern Art's "Common Senses" exhibit.": same—when?
  • this isn't really pre-release post-release so I would lose the headings and make it one section
  • I'd swap the second and third ¶s of Reception
  • "drawing particular attention to the game's changing soundtrack": wet noodle sentence—tell me what he said that was important
  • "felt "deeply familiar" in subsequent": in what way? good or bad? put it in more context, at least?
  • "gave the game a mostly positive review": this sounds like OR to me—stick to what he said?
  • I think the anti-game part can be expanded
  • to elaborate on the anti-game: part of my understanding of this game's specific notability is the debate around the anti-game element, so I think it should have a little more space dedicated to that... but you know the sources better than I


  • consider using list-defined refs next time—I had to use Visual Editor so as to be able to copyedit
  • Some Game Developer mag refs you could use (PDF link): 2012 Sept p52 (on influence), 2013 May p59 (on what Kanaga is doing next) czar ♔ 14:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Mischief Makers FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 23:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've had different editors suggest different genres - I'm not sure which one to go with. I think open world exploration game is probably best so I'll make sure that's consistent. As for the anti-game thing, if you look at the sources they largely say "Some people said its not really a game, here's my or other people's opinion as to why it is or doesn't matter." That's ended up being reflected in that paragraph - one sentence saying it was debated and the rest the response. I'll see what I can do about it though... Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I've had exams and very little internet connection, I'll be going through and improving the aspects Czar flagged in the coming week. Sam Walton (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, I believe I have tackled most of your points, please let me know if I missed anything. I haven't changed the anti-game section for the reason above, but if someone feels they can do a better job of it they're free to do so. Sam Walton (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the previous FAC. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from PresN[edit]

Closing comment[edit]

Sorry but having remained open a month with relatively few comments -- in fact none since 5 June -- this nom has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 28 June 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 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2014 (diff).

Vanajan Autotehdas[edit]

Nominator(s): Gwafton (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the story of a defunct Finnish heavy vehicle producer. I have made the article as well as I can, I can't find any missing element. I believe I have got the best available sources. Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett The article needs a thorough copyedit to meet FA criterion 1a. Here are a few examples:

  • "Defence minister Rudolf Walden called up a meeting to find solutions ...". You call a meeting, you don't call one up.
  • "... unwilling Tor Nessling was set to the position of general manager". It would be more idiomatic to say something like "the reluctant Tor Nessling was appointed general manager".
  • "A contract for factory construction was signed off with a contractor in 30 March." Should be on 30 March.
  • "... far below the target of 2 000 vehicles". That should be either 2000 or 2,000. Same with other numbers in the article.
  • "... became available in 12 SAT's locations". SAT's isn't a possessive in that context, it's an adjective. So it ought to be "12 SAT locations".
  • "The factory area was, however, joined from municipality of Vanaja to town of Hämeenlinna". I've got no idea what that means.
    Municipality is an administrative unit in Finland, you can find more information here. The factory area used to belong to Vanaja but it was joined to Hämeenlinna (later the rest of Vanaja was joined to Hämeenlinna as well but that is another story). --Gwafton (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need more information, I'm simply saying it doesn't make sense. Eric Corbett 12:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... both companies got in their use a big share of the limited foreign currency reserves for component supply". Don't know what that means either.
Foreign trade was restricted for a long time. When for example a Finnish paper company sold paper to UK, the payment came in sterling. The money transfer went through Bank of Finland which gave the payment to the paper company in Finnish marks. When VAT bought Leyland engines from UK, the transfer went again through Bank of Finland which changed the Finnish marks into sterling and passed on the payment. Now, if the bank did not have enough of the British currency, some trading was priorised over other and I assume that the Finnish vehicle producers enjoyed a special status whereas the vehicle importers had to struggle. --Gwafton (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kämper products were in between of 14–150 hp." I assume what's meant is something like "Kämper products delivered between 14 and 150 hp."
  • "... a middle engined VLK550 bus chassis". Should be "mid-engined VLK550 bus chassis".
  • ... VAT had co-operation with the French Camions Willème SA." Should be "co-operated with the French Camions Willème SA."

Eric Corbett 00:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. I answered your questions above in between of the text. --Gwafton (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The work needed to get this article to meet FA criterion 1a is very considerable and best done away from this nomination, which I suggest ought to be withdrawn. Eric Corbett 12:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This nomination is premature and I will archive it in a few moments. The prose is very poor in parts; some sentences are incomprehensible. I saw that the peer review was not helpful, but I suggest that a Good Article nomination might be useful, after a thorough copyedit. Graham Colm (talk) 14:26, 18 June 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 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2014 (diff).

Cher[edit]

Nominator(s): Lordelliott (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American singer-actress Cher and her career of five decades. I started working on this article two years ago and although I don't speak English fluently, many users have helped me through extensive peer reviews. User GabeMC, who have helped promote numerous articles to Featured Article status, advised me to re-nominate this article at FAC (the first nomination was in late 2012). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Lordelliott (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I applaud you for your efforts. This article has definitely made leaps and bounds since its last nomination. Unfortunately, the writing is still far from brilliant and I found many POV/unsupported statements, leading the article to read like it was a fan site. Just from the lead:
"Recognized for having brought the sense of female autonomy and self-actualization into the entertainment industry" -> that's a pretty broad and vague statement. Not sure if it's even proper or appropriate to be honest.
That's a resume of her legacy, as seen in the articles of music icons like David Bowie and Madonna. The concept of the "female autonomy and self-actualization" description also seems to be pretty well established in the text, but maybe the actual phrasing in the lede should be reworked. Could you help me with this?
I understand that. Thing is, it reads well on the Madonna article. Not so much here...--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Goddess of Pop"? -> I understand you have some credible sources backing up the statement, however I find this statement just so cliche and POV. Personal taste I guess
This "title" reflects her legacy and importance in pop culture.
"popularized a particular smooth sound that" -> what does that mean? What "smooth sound"?
"Smooth sound" is a soft, warm, more polished style, in contrast to the Motown and British Invasion styles of the era.
You missed my point. Still very vague. I still don't know what you really mean.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"British Invasion and Motown sounds" -> I don't know is sounds is appropriate. Maybe style(s)
Done
with successful singles -> POV/your wording/opinion. What are the facts? #1s, top-tens, million sellers?
Done: "million-selling singles"
Do you have sources that they are all million sellers? I used that as an example.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
songs that deal with subjects rarely addressed in American popular music -> a very vague statement. What subjects? Who says they are rarely addressed?
It is also well established in the text ("Music and voice" section): "Some of Cher's early songs discuss subjects rarely addressed in American popular music such as divorce, prostitution, unplanned and underaged pregnancy, and racism.[1][19]"
Some of her early work. Does that mean each of those songs you mentioned previously in specific?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After the duo's drug-free lifestyle had lost its popular appeal -> Effectively, you're saying they were popular simply because of their wholesome (particularly drug-free) lifestyle. Very icky statement.
That's the fact. How could it be worked in the lede? Need your help: "By the end of the 1960s, Sonny and Cher's music had ceased to chart. According to biographer Connie Berman, "the heavy, loud sound of groups like Jefferson Airplane and Cream made the folk-rock music of Sonny and Cher seem too bland."[38] ... Their monogamous, anti-drug lifestyle had lost its popular appeal among American youths during the period of the sexual revolution and the rise of the drug culture.[40] According to biographer Mark Bego, "in spite of their revolutionary unisex clothes, Sonny and Cher were quite 'square' when it came to sex and drugs."[41] To recapture their young audience, the duo produced and starred in the film Good Times (1967), in which they are featured in childish skits. The movie was unsuccessful.[38]"
returned to stardom -> sounds "fan written". Far from journalistic
Agree. Maybe just "became"? Could you help me with this?
attained immense popularity -> again. POV statement. Let me give you an example. Oprah is successful. How? Her show was the #1 daytime talk show for 20+ years. That is a fact. We don't write "Oprah attained immense popularity and became very powerful".
Agree. There are two statements that could be worked in the lede: 1) The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour was watched by more than 30 million viewers weekly during its three-year run; 2) Together, The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour and Cher amassed a total of 21 Emmy nominations. Which statement do you think is better for the lede?
She became a fashion trendsetter with her daring outfits. -> Just poor, uninteresting/bias prose
Done: removed.
I don't think it should be removed. She definitely has. Just needs to be introduced into prose better.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cher experimented with various musical styles, including disco and new wave, before becoming a successful live act in Las Vegas. -> You go from 1975 when she "dabbled" with new musical sounds/styles and then jump to her 2008 residency? Aside from being jumpy and random, the writing makes it sound like all of the music she's released since 1975 have been experimental.
Let me clarify: she did a Vegas residency between 1979 and 1982. But because this period of her career is so obscure (and due to the subsequent lack of reliable sources), the residency is referred to only once in the whole article: "During the band's active period, Cher was a successful nightclub singer in Las Vegas, earning $300,000 a week." (See 1980s: Hit and misses, film success and return to musical stardom)
The article needs clarification.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cher continued to experiment with musical styles -> repetitious, still reads poorly
I need your help with this, too. How could we rework this phrase?
which features the pioneering use of Auto-Tune, also known as the "Cher effect" -> How exactly is that statement backed up? I'm sure the author goes into detail about the "Cher effect", but did they actually write that her usage of it pioneered the movement to use it and made it en-vogue?
Yes! See the Music and voice section: "The 1998 song "Believe" has an electronic vocal effect proposed by Cher, and was the first commercial recording to feature Auto-Tune—an audio processor originally intended to disguise or correct off-key inaccuracies in vocal music recordings—as a deliberate creative effect. After the success of the song, the technique became known as the "Cher effect" and has since been widely used in popular music.[201][2][211]"
The 2010s kicked off -> fan writing
Done: "Cher returned to film in the 2010 musical Burlesque".
Her other ventures have included fashion designing, writing books and managing -> Really? Her other ventures include writing books?
Agree, she only has two books in her credit. Done, removed. Added: "supporting charitable foundations" (see Philanthropy section).
That's not what I meant. Writing books is poor prose.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best if you had references or notes by each of these "statements" in the lead. With such a long article to navigate, I would rest assure knowing I can access the references to all these strongly worded statements easily.
Recognized as one of the best-selling music artists of all time, she has sold more than 100 million solo albums and over 40 million records as Sonny & Cher worldwide. She is the only artist to date to have a number-one single on a Billboard chart in each of the past six decades.
Done
  • Still needs a lot of fine trimming. Again, I commend you on the progress. Good luck.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 10:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Peter! Your observations were really helpful. Lordelliott (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and help you where I can, but can't promise I'll be of much assistance aside from pointers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for your help in some points, but I understand that you may not be able (time, interest in the subject) to help me. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do alone in terms of prose, and there are not many fluent English speaking users interested in helping too. Anyway, thanks for the review. Lordelliott (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Вик Ретлхед[edit]

  • The second sentence "Recognized for having..." is way too long. It contains information about three things that aren't relatated to one another (impact over the music indystry, singing style, and legacy).
  • There are some issues with the prose, particularly the first sentence from the second paragraph: "as one-half of the folk rock husband–wife duo Sonny & Cher". Perhaps would be better "as a member of...". The text in a FA must be comprehensive at the highest possible level and easy for everyone to understand.
  • Can you make a distinction between her musical and acting career? The third paragraph starts with her starring in a number of movies and winning an Oscar, continues with her experiments with musical styles; the fourth paragraph begins with a summary of her film accolades, and finishes with music record sales and success at Billboard's chart.
  • The references seem to be appropriate and reliable. One note would be to link the actual source (ex. ref number 47 should have a link to [[People (magazine)|People), so the reader can known from what media you obtained the information.
  • Other thing I've noticed is that a few sentences are quite verbose. Ex: "Her father, John Sarkisian, was an Armenian-American truck driver with drug and gambling problems, and her mother, Jackie Jean Crouch, was an occasional model and bit-part actress with Irish, English, German, and Cherokee ancestry." You can re-word this by tranferring the clause regarding her father's drug and gambling issues in the sentence when it is said that he was rarely home. That way, I think, the text would flow more logically.
  • My opinion is that the article is not ready to be promoted to FA in its current state. Perhaps opening a peer review would lessen some problems that the page has at the moment. But anyway, congratulations for your effort in covering such a large topic. Cher deserves to have a proper Wiki article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment I can see that Cher had a multiple decade career and she has inspired many artists including Christina Aguilera and Beyonce. But I can't see any information about that in this article. Simon (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This has been open over a month and it doesn't appear likely that consensus to promote will develop anytime soon, so I've decided to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 16 June 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 (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2014 (diff).

Constitution of May 3, 1791[edit]

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again. A major even in the history of Poland. Last nom stalled without a single support or oppose. Since then the article has been subject to another copyediting, because we can't have enough. It would be nice to see someone take some interest in this, this time... Ping primary contributors: @Nihil novi, Orczar, Logologist, Baffle gab1978, Ceoil, Gabbe, and Crisco 1492: @Mathiasrex, Volunteer Marek, and Malik Shabazz:. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Well, I'm back to FAC from an unexpected Wikibreak. This is far from my usual review topic, but might as well jump in, right? As my usual, sourcing and reference formatting are my main concerns:The Convocation Sejm of 1764 was controlled by

  • Date formats need standardized throughout the referencing. I see mmm dd, yyyy; dd mmm yyyy; and dd-mm-yyyy.
  • Print materials typically do not require retrieval dates. The idea is that web content is likely to change, but print is, well, print, even if mirrored online. I think someone in a previous FAC said you should do this though, so feel free to ignore me here. MOS-wise, it's probably up to editor preference.
  • Authors in the reference section should ideally only be linked at their first appearance.
  • Publication locations are optional, but they're all or nothing. I see Gierowski's work with a publication location, but not much (any?) else.
    • If they are optional, what's wrong with having them for some? Still, they provide no useful information; I removed all instances of that parameter being used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, this has merely been my understanding of FAC/MOS precedent. Sometimes I'm picky by design, sometimes I'm just the messenger. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jacek Jędruch source (ref #5 at the moment) lacks an ISBN number. I believe it should be 978-0-8191-2508-8. But also...
    • There are references to Constitutions, elections, and legislatures of Poland, 1493–1977: a guide to their history, published in 1982 by University Press of America but also to the same title published in 1998 by EJJ books. I presume the latter is a second edition or update or something of that nature; regardless, if you're sourcing this material from physical copies, as is ideal, it would probably be preferable to avoid citing multiple editions of the same work, unless the source changes make that necessary.
    • Standardized; I used only one copy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This article cites two pages of George Sanford's work 26 times? His Wikipedia article isn't very informative as to whether that might represent undue weight. Regardless, I guess those are some information-dense pages?
    • I'd expect he provides a lot of useful facts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I'm adding up all the various citations to Jacek Jędruch, it looks like you lean very heavily on him, as well. That's not necessarily an objection, just an inquiry to ensure that the literature here has been thoroughly surveyed.
  • The "Lietuvos TSR istorija" reference doesn't seem to be properly formatted, and so I can't make much sense of it. It's also pretty clearly in Lithuanian, which needs to be noted. This is the sort of source where an OCLC number is ideal (since there's presumably no ISBN assigned).
  • Not sure what's going on with the large untranslated quote in the Maria Konopka-Wichrowska reference. Hmm, actually, it looks like you're citing this source merely for its quote from Bogusława Leśnodorskiego. If so, can you cite Leśnodorskiego?
  • The Google Books link to the Jeremy Black source is broken, at least for me.
  • Is the Carl Bucki source a reliable source? The site identifies it as the "[t]ext of a presentation made at the Polish Arts Club of Buffalo on the occasion of the celebrations of Poland's Constitution Day on May 3, 1996." And I don't see any particular qualifications for the speaker? I'm open to being convinced otherwise, though. In any case, he shouldn't be cited with the Hon(orable) prefix if the source is retained.
  • Is the publication date for Reddaway correct? I can't find anything that matches that entry. An OCLC identifier would be vastly preferable to Google's internal identifier, also.
  • The Machnikowski reference is missing his first name (it's Piotr).
  • Okay, I'm sorry for this, because template mismatching is one of those awful things that's no fun to pick on and a pain to fix, but the Rafał Kowalczyk and Łukasz Kamiński doesn't have the same templating as your other references. For example, the language tag is formatted entirely differently from the other non-English sources, and it has a comma after the author names instead of a period. There's probably another template available to help match styles, or else there's always the hard way of manual formatting.
  • The Kramnick reference is not formatted correctly. "Introduction" should be quoted rather than italicized, and you need to make some reference to the original publication date, even if you're working from the Penguin edition. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were certainly not submitting new work in 1987. Kramnick's introduction doesn't make him the author of the actual work there, either. And there are some other formatting problems with this entry, too.
  • And actually, it looks like there are a few more sources that use the same templating as the Kowalczyk and Kamiński entry. But that still doesn't match the rest.
  • Why is Polonia Music a reliable source?
  • The Carrington source gives the author in last, first order instead of the first last order used elsewhere. Looks like there's a stray character after the volume number, too.
    • Fixed.
      • I'm still showing that volume number as 88'. Is that intentional (I wouldn't think so, but I've seen weirder numbering schemes, so...)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, I missed your prior comment on this.
  • On the Michalski source, I'm fairly certain that he's the author of the cited article, but not the entire work, which means we need more bibliographical information for the work itself (author or editor, specifically). Is this a reprint of an older source or an actual 2011 publication? If the latter, it almost certainly has an ISBN. If the former, again, an OCLC would be ideal, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what work you're citing here from the WorldCat entries.
    • Chapter title added. Here's the Worldcat entry: [1]. How to chose the correct ISBN? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me try to figure this one out. I'm seeing 2011 as the publication date just for volume 47, and 2002 (I think) for volume 41, and that's making it sort of challenging for me to determine what the right identifiers are here. I'll try to get back to you, but I don't suppose you've got this physically on hand to just look? I can hope, right? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sadly, no. I only took scans of the pages with text, not of the title page. If it helps, the work is Polish Biographical Dictionary. Year 2002 for that volume is confirmed by their official page at [2]. The reason for multiple ISBN may be this: A new tome of PSB is first published over few years as a series of smaller issues, then collected into the big full volume. An educated guess would be that those ISBNs are the collected ISBNs for the issues plus the final collected volume one. I was using the collected volume, but I won't be able to check the book until summer time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an extremely big fan of Further Reading sections. Especially when these have retrieval dates and basically look like they're just references that got cut from use. If they have something to say that's germane to the article, cite it. If not, why do we need them?
  • The Original Prints section is nonstandard. I'm entirely on board with supporting a link that lets readers see the original document in question, but that belongs in External Links, not a custom section.
  • The External Links need to be contextualized better. Some of these are pretty much bare links, and that's not okay. And at least a couple of them seem redundant to referenced works. Surely, with how much the article cites him already, Jacek Jędruch's work doesn't need to be an EL also?

No prose review at this time. Most of the above bits are formatting tweaks and similar "light" work, but I'm frankly concerned that this just isn't a systematic review of the literature. A small number of sources provide an immense share of the referencing, and a cursory search revealed a substantial body of literature not addressed by the article, especially in scholarly journals. See: here (although you do cite Lukowski quite heavily already), here, here, here. The Hillar source is particularly one that I think warrants examination, at the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that addresses most points. I'll review those sources, but I doubt they can add much than trivia. Is there any particular aspect you think we are lacking with regard to being comprehensive? We cannot cite each and every work on the subject, particularly when it is major enough to have spawned numerous books and articles on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, obviously, a comprehensive review of literature doesn't mean "cite everything ever". But it does mean there's a need to ensure that the broadest range of reliable sources and positions are covered, and that authors' voices are given due weight. This article owes a lot to Sanford and Jędruch, and is fairly light on scholarly journal sources, despite there being quite a few available. That may or may not be an objection, and I haven't really had the time to look, but I'm merely raising it as a concern. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. 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 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the other sources added:

  • [3] mentions this constitution in a passing sentence and as such as irrelevant here;
  • Lukowski (2009) has been incorporated in those diffs: [4]. Most of what he discusses seems either already covered or too detailed, although I used his introduction to add a sentence on some major academic works on the topic. I will provide comments on the remaining two articles over the next few days.
  • Brzezinski provides some useful historical overview and was incorporated thus: [5]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Squeamish Ossifrage: Regarding the last article, [6], it's in The Polish Review, a publication that annoyingly (given my interests) is not available to either of the two academic institutions I've library accounts at. [7] and [8] also look worth reviewing. Fortunately, I should be able to read them through JSTOR free access soon (it allows access to 3 new articles every two weeks). Neither of my institutions have also the access to [9] which also could be worth reviewing and which doesn't have any free access options ( I'll ping User:DGG and User:Phoebe who may be able to obtain this article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Unfortunately JSTOR free access doesn't seem to work for me anymore (I have the three articles added to my JSTOR shelf, but when I try to access them it shows me as logged out - I tried Firefox, Chrome and IE, no lucl). So unless someone can send me copies of those articles, I am afraid I am unable to review them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Piotr; I don't have access to the J. Baltic Studies article. Do you have access to interlibrary loan? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I've finished reviewing all relevant papers. You can find my notes at User:Piotrus/Sandbox/Notes/3maj#articles, and you can see the changes and expansions to the article in the recent diffs. I hope you are now satisfied the treatment is comprehensive. (Please note that while I could've added citations to the said academic articles throughout our discussed article, I didn't feel the need to reference many sentences with numerous refs when the existing ones are sufficient. While we could replace some existing refs with the journal ones to make it look less reliant on the current sources, it would be a purely cosmetic change that I doubt would be helpful). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support - Great prose and grammar and well-written, high-quality style. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. High time to recognize it for what it is, a Featured Article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It was a fine article to begin with and now that the minor issues have been addressed it's even better. Great article! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

  • Lede:
    • You call Poland-Lithuania "a dualistic state". Wouldn't dual monarchy work just as well?
  • Background:
    • "The system, of whose primary beneficiaries was the Polish nobility (szlachta)..." There's something wrong here. Maybe "The system, whose primary beneficiary was the Polish nobility (szlachta)..." might work better?
    • "The Constitution was a response to the increasingly perilous situation in Poland, or more precisely, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth..." could probably be shortened up. "The Constitution was a response to the increasingly perilous situation in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth..."
    • Similarly here: "...had condemned the individual and collective weaknesses of the Commonwealth." Why not just "had condemned the weaknesses of the Commonwealth"?
    • Passive voice problem here: "As their warnings failed to be heeded and sufficient reforms failed to be implemented..." Who failed to heed their warnings? It makes the sentence more informative to say.
    • You say that foreign interests promoted use of the liberum veto, but then say foreign interests promoted the confederated sejm to get around it. Which foreign interests? The same ones, or different ones?
  • More comments to follow. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coemgenus: Fixed most. Regarding the warnings, I hope that shortening the sentence did the trick (who failed? the government, the political elites in general...). Regarding the confederated part, the foreign interests kept the system dysfunctional unless they needed some law passed, in which case they tried to make this particular session immune to disruption (which otherwise they encouraged). I am not sure how to make this more clear - perhaps you could c/e it in such a way that you'd like? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll fiddle with it a bit and see if I can make it work.--Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early reform:
    • "The Convocation Sejm of 1764 was controlled by the Czartoryski family's reformist Familia party and was backed up by Russian military forces, which the Czartoryskis invited." The Russians favored reform? That seems to contradict the earlier part about how Russia liked the liberum veto. Did they change their policy?
      • @Coemgenus: The partitioning powers on occasions allowed the Sejm to pass some laws if they wanted something else. In this case, the Russians and Prussians wanted to Sejm to acknowledge some claims of Russia and Prussia to Polish territory. I attempted to clarify this in the text thus; is this sufficient? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made some copyedits to this section. Please revert if I've inadvertently changed the meaning.
    • The paragraph beginning with "During the 1768 Sejm..." I'm not sure this adds much to the story of the Constitution. The whole "early reform" section is kind of long, considering it's meant only as background to the main subject of the article.
    • "The Bar Confederation had a patriotic focus on limiting the influence of foreigners in Commonwealth affairs, but was conservative and restrictive with regards to religious tolerance." Could probably be more succinct. Perhaps "The Bar Confederation focused on limiting the influence of foreigners in Commonwealth affairs, and did not promote religious tolerance."
    • "This was justified on grounds of anarchy in the Commonwealth and its refusal to cooperate with its neighbors' efforts to restore order." There's a lot of passive voice in the article. This sentence, for example, might be made stronger my saying who justified it. E.g., "The three powers justified their annexation, citing anarchy in the Commonwealth and its refusal to cooperate with its neighbors' efforts to restore order."
    • The paragraph with all the redlinks is kind of jarring. Don't get me wrong, I like redlinks where they might encourage the creation of articles on those topics, but unless you plan to write them, I'd eliminate the ones that link to things those people wrote. Most individual books or pamphlets never get articles about them.
  • Adoption
    • I like the photo gallery in the sidebar.
    • Instead of "...preponed the debate on the Government Act by two days from May 5..." perhaps "began the debate on the Government Act two days early..." would be more clear.
  • Features
    • "King Poniatowski" I've never heard a King referred to by his last name. Why not "King Stanisław"?
      • If you search on Google Books (or Google Scholar), you'll see this is not an uncommon practice for Polish kings, particularly of the period of elected kings. King Stanisław is problematic, as there were more than one, and they didn't use numerals, so a common variant is to use both first and last name. That said, all other references to him in the article where either King Stanisław August or King Stanisław August Poniatowski. We should probably standardize them to one; I think the full one would be better. Would you agree? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds fine to me.
    • "Personal security (neminem captivabimus, the Polish habeas corpus act) was extended to and empowered the townspeople (including the Jews), who also gained the right to acquire landed property and became eligible for military officers' commissions and public offices—such as reserved seats in the Sejm itself and seats in the executive commissions of the Treasury, the Police and the Judiciary." This sentence is long and confusing. I'm a lawyer, and I can't figure it out.
    • "With half the nobility disenfranchised..." Was this explained before? It kind of took me by surprise. Why and how did this happen?
    • You could probably just have footnote "c" once.
    • "It would take the Second Partition and Kościuszko's Proclamation of Połaniec to deal the matter." might be better as "Not until Kościuszko's Proclamation of Połaniec in 1794 would the Polish government begin to abolish serfdom." Or something like that.
    • "Prawo o sejmikach, the act on regional assemblies (sejmiks), passed earlier on March 24, 1791 (Article VI), was similarly recognized." I'm not sure what you mean here. Did the new constitution incorporate the act on regional assemblies?
    • "Active voting rights were also taken from nobles who held property granted them by magnates or the king, to remove the temptation to vote so as to please their benefactors." OK, now I see you're explaining the disenfranchisement I mentioned above, but it's still unclear. How do these magnates differ from those who were not disenfranchised. Did other magnates have a different land tenure or something?
      • It reads clear to me, let me explain: previously, all nobles could vote. Now only those who held property could, but not all property was eligible. I believe this sentence refers to nobles who rented land, or held it on non-hereditary leases, but as I don't have access to source, I've just removed this sentence. It was too much detail anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A common practice at that time, voting was limited to males of at least 18 years of age." You could lose the first clause here.
    • "The eligible voters would elect deputies to local powiats, or county sejmiks, which elected deputies to the General Sejm." So voting for the legislature was indirect? It seems out of place here, maybe move it to the next paragraph?
    • "In 1807, however, Napoleon persuaded Frederic Augustus to become the king of the Duchy of Warsaw established by the French Emperor." I'd cut this or move it to a note.
    • I'll return with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fall and aftermath
    • The title could probably be just "Aftermath".
    • "Magnates who had opposed the constitution draft from the start, Franciszek Ksawery Branicki, Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki, Seweryn Rzewuski, and Szymon and Józef Kossakowski, asked Tsarina Catherine to intervene and restore their privileges—the Cardinal Laws abolished under the new statute." I'd trim this a bit. Maybe "Magnates who had opposed the constitution from the start asked Tsarina Catherine to intervene and restore their privileges."
    • "The Confederates aligned with Catherine and asked her for military intervention." I'd lose this whole sentence. It's kind of repetitive.
    • "self-exile" sounds like exile from the self. I'd say either "exile" or "self-imposed exile".
    • I'd tighten this up:

      To their own surprise (they thought they had a deal worked out with Catherine II), the Second Partition of Poland ensued.[70][113] With new deputies bribed or intimidated by the Russian troops, the Grodno Sejm took place.[70][119] On November 23, 1793, it concluded its deliberations under duress, annulling the constitution and acceding to the Second Partition.[120][121]

Instead, maybe something like:

To their surprise, the Grodno Sejm, bribed or intimidated by the Russian troops, enacted the Second Partition of Poland.[70][113][119][120][121]

  • Kościuszko Uprising and Third Partition: the whole section feels like it's getting beyond the scope of this article. I'd cut it, except for maybe adding a sentence in the previous subsection with appropriate links.
      • Considering that one of the consequences of the Constitution was erasure of Poland from the map for 123 years I'd argue this section is rather important. I have however removed the heading/main separator for this short section, and retitled the preceding subsection into " War in Defense of the Constitution and the Final Two Partitions." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • "May 3 was declared an official Polish holiday" could probably lose the "official".

Comments by Dank[edit]

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. (Note that I'm just copying text without links.) This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. I started at Adoption, since that's where Coemgenus's last comments come from. All this stuff is from that section:

  • Agreed with Coemgenus's comment about "preponed".
  • "Russia and Austria were at war with the Ottoman Empire, the Russians found themselves simultaneously fighting in the Russo-Swedish War, 1788–1790.": comma splice
  • "A new alliance between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Prussia seeming to provide security against Russian intervention and King Stanisław August drew closer to leaders of the reform-minded Patriotic Party." I can't make sense of this. Also, there may be good reasons for the long link name, but at least consider whether it's possible to shorten it to new alliance.
  • "During the Sejm's first two years it passed few major reforms but the subsequent two years brought major changes. The Sejm first adopted several lesser reforms ...": I can't figure out from the following paragraphs when you transition from lesser reforms to major ones. One solution would be to follow WP:Checklist#chronology, and don't mention "major changes" until you actually get to major changes.
  • "the cities, burgher (townspeople) rights and voting rights": nonparallel in meaning: I don't know what it means to address a city, at least not in the sense of addressing voter rights.
  • "notably the 1791 Free Royal Cities Act—addressing the cities, burgher (townspeople) rights and voting rights, which was incorporated as a formal constituent of the final constitution.": Not wrong, but the reader has to backtrack to assign that "which" to the right noun. Also, the last clause is redundant. One suggestion: "... Act, which addressed the cities [? See comment just above], burgher (townspeople) rights and voting rights, and which was incorporated into the final constitution."
    • I rewrote this before seeing this, I hope my version is adequate.
  • "while many opposed deputies": while many opposing deputies
  • "coup d'ėtat": I don't recognize the accent over the e. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "While the Sejm comprised representatives of the nobility and clergy, the reformers were supported by the burghers—who in the fall of 1789 organized a "Black Procession" demanding the full political enfranchisement of the bourgeoisie.": Not a big point, but you've got 5 em-dashes in this paragraph. I like em-dashes too, but you're overusing them and using them in places where a comma would be better, such as here.
  • "threatened with violence from their opponents": threatened with violence by their opponents
  • "It was the first time in the 18th century that a constitutional act had been passed without the involvement of foreign powers.": I can't read the Polish source. Add "... passed in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth ..." if it needs that.
  • "supported the constitution": Missing full stop/period at the end of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edits. I'm sorry, I'm not doing as much FAC copyediting these days, so I'll have to stop with that one section, I hope that helps other reviewers finish it up and support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing myself from delegate duties, I must reluctantly (because I can see a great deal of work has gone into this) oppose promotion on prose grounds, at least for the moment. I was hoping to simply pick up from Dan and take care of any minor issues but the lead and first few paragraphs of the main body don't give me much confidence in the remainder. Based on what I've seen and altered so far, I think it really could do with a copyeditor of the calibre of a John or Eric to get it to FA-quality. I know Dan would do it if he had the chance, I may be able to do more at a later stage if it remains open longer but I'll have to leave it to Graham to adjudicate on that. On last thing, in the first two paragraphs of End of the Golden Age, you use/link Russia and Russian Empire but the terms -- regardless of the piping -- seem interchangeable in the context. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Look, Ian, I've been begging copyeditors to work on this for years know. And this was reviewed by several ones, including User:Coemgenus and User:Dank. Prior to this nom, User:Baffle gab1978 worked on this as per my old request at Guild of Copyeditors (backlogged for many months; this was supposed to happen prior to FA3 :>). It received several reads-through by User:Nihil novi. That's four copyeditors, at least. Is their work not good enough? How many copyeditors have to check off on this before people are satisfied? I am a bit frustrated as I simply cannot help with that, and I find it somewhat unfair when some copyeditors say the article's is ready, others disagree, and sometimes they even start complaining about one's another changes (as in - some content that I was asked to correct was already read, approved by or fixed for a prior copyeditor). :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can well understand the frustration, Piotr, and it may be a case of 'too many cooks' as far as copyediting goes. Were it simply a matter of preference for certain phrasing then I wouldn't be registering an oppose but, as I think my edits demonstrated, some of the grammar is still not up to scratch and that's a concern at this stage of the article's review. This is why I think that if anyone is to make a further pass at it then it should be someone experienced at FAC but relatively new to this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the compliment of being asked. I have had an initial look and I can see what needs to be done. I am a little busy at the moment, both in real life and on the project, but I should be able to look within the next few days. --John (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from hamiltonstone.

  • Features section: the liberality of its provisions, "fell somewhere below [those of] the French, above the Canadian, and left the Prussian far behind", but did not equal the American Constitution" This has either one too many quote marks, or one too few. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - as there is no consensus after more than two months, I have decided to archive this nomination.

Comment by Madalibi

  • @Ian Rose, GrahamColm, and Piotrus: – I know it's too late, but for what it's worth, I did a fairly thorough copyedit of the article that should help for the next FAC. The diff, which can be found here, includes 6 intermediary edits by hamiltonstone. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:50, 18 June 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 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (diff).

Tunnel Vision (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a song recorded by American singer-songwriter Justin Timberlake which is called "Tunnel Vision". It was released as third single from his third studio album The 20/20 Experience. I believe this article deserves to be a featured one because I have worked hard on it since the day I created it and was released. Many thanks to other reviewers who helped me while building it. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • The thing with that one is that it needs password for access, meaning it can't be fixed.
  • The "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance" sections are fairly short by comparison with other sections in the article; I would suggest maybe merging them into one "Reception" section with the option of subheadings for "Critical response" and "Commercial performance" if desired.
  • Done
  • In the "Music video" section, I would suggest grouping "Conception and fashion" into one subheading and "Critical reception and ban" into another; to me, it seems that the clothing connects more with the overall vision of the clip, while discussing the ban fits well with the extensive critical commentary surrounding the nudity.
  • Done
  • Can you find a source the the radio edit track length?
  • The source is in the iTunes and 7digital release references already.
  • Generally in "Release history" sections, I place citations under a separate column, although this is just a matter of personal taste if you're interested in that option.
  • The template for Ref. #76 (iTunes Store) appears to be broken.
  • It perfectly opens for me :/.

The article was already in great shape when I reviewed the article for GAN last year, and I'm happy to see that it has only gotten better from there! There is minimal and appropriate usage of non-free content where needed, and the article is supported by numerous reputable sources. After the above comments are addressed, I will be happy to give my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Oppose for the following reasons:

General notes:

  1. The article seems to be inconsistent with use of publishers. Either use them for all known or none.
  2. You never need to use the same ref more than once in a row within a paragraph per WP:OVERCITE.
  3. When using different articles from the same source, just link the work and publication in the first ref used, and not the rest.
  4. Avoid contractions unless part of a quote or title (something I fixed myself)
  5. ′ should be ' and ″ should be " per MOS:QUOTEMARKS (something I fixed myself)
  • I believe this is all DONE. ;)

As for other bits.....

  • "Timothy "Timbaland" Mosely, Jerome "J-Roc" Harmon" → "Timbaland, J-Roc".
  • Not done per the official booklet of the album, they are credited as Timothy Mosley and Jerome Harome respectively for writing and Timbaland and J-Roc for producing, thus this option is the best.
  • I should've been more specific- in the "writers" section of infobox the real names are fine, but in the lead and body it's better to use the WP:COMMONNAME and in this case is more concise. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (only in the lead though).
  • Please also correct the redirects to J-Roc.
  • Done
  • "Timbaland's signature ad-libs"..... I wouldn't include "signature" here as not everyone reading this article is automatically going to know what Timbaland's previous material is like.
  • Done/Removed
  • The Huffington Post shouldn't be italicized as it is an online-only publication. Publisher is Arianna Huffington. However, I recommend replacing these refs with better sources if possible.
  • Sorry, it's not possible since all of them are reviews, and I strongly believe in the reliability of this source. Also the title of the article on Wiki is italicized, so I think we should respect it's policy.
  • I see it is italicized, and take that bit back on italics. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, user reviews from Sputnikmusic shouldn't be used. Unless I'm reading things wrong, this seems to be a user review.
  • I removed the publishers
  • Done
  • MTV Buzzworthy → MTV News
  • Not done, the publication is not the same
  • E! News and E! Online should just read E!, and publisher is NBCUniversal
  • Done
  • You forgot one that has now been fixed by yours truly :P XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Robin Thicke picture isn't really needed. Try instead having someone who was in the music video (not counting Mr. Timberlake himself)
  • Oh yeah his picture is relevant, he gave a response to the video also it was very heavily compared to his video so his picture can stay. Also there is a screenshot of the video upwards.
  • I've noticed the screenshot, though was referring to other people who star in the vid if identities were known. You've got a point on Thicke's commentary, though- there was controversy between the videos for this and the one for "Blurred Lines" XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops, my mistake
  • I'm skeptical about using New York Daily News
  • Why questioning a totally reliable source?
  • Mostly since it is known for being involved in a "tabloid war" with New York Post (as Forbes describes it), though I will grant you that NY Daily News is significantly more reliable than NY Post. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Mirror needs to be replaced with a better source
  • Done, replaced it
  • "Entertainment Wise" should really read "Entertainmentwise", and I've recently found out this actually isn't a good source.
  • Removed it
  • MTV UK → MTV
  • Again, different regional version
  • (2013—14) → (2013–14) per WP:DASH
  • Done

There's my 2 ¢. You'll have my support after fixing them all up. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback @XXSNUGGUMSXX:. I really did my best to do your picks and explain the other ones. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome :). This is on its way to FA, but isn't there just yet. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Petergriffin9901[edit]

  • Oppose

Reference formatting

  • Rap-Up & The Huffington Post are online websites, hence they shouldn't be italicized

Reference credibility

  • What makes "Hollyood.com", "Drowned in Sound", "HipHopDX", Fact & "Video Static" reliable and up to FA standards?

Prose/factuality/trivial content

  • Timberlake isn't a singer-songwriter. Maybe you mean singer and singwriter
  • his third studio album The 20/20 Experience (2013). -> his third studio album, The 20/20 Experience (2013).
  • Timberlake proclaims that he has a tunnel vision for his love interest and uses several voyeuristic references.
  • most of whom praised Timbaland's production and compared it to his work with singer Aaliyah. -> I see one critic making such a comparison
  • its album's highlight. After the album's release -> repetitive prose
  • The song debuted on the singles chart in South Korea at number 27 and sold 6,670 digital copies. -> In its first week or to date?
  • It was most successful on the UK R&B Singles Chart where it peaked at number eight. -> I see it peaked at #2 in Indonesia?
  • Timberlake and Timbaland stare at three nude women and perform choreographed dances. -> Weak prose
  • Critics labeled the video as NSFW and drew strong comparisons to the visual for Robin Thicke's 2013 single "Blurred Lines". -> Total switch in tense/not proper sentence
  • was shortly reinstated with the condition that viewers are required to confirm their age. -> awkward/improper tense shifts
  • Other instrumentalists on the song were Harmon, -> Is he no longer featured on the song?
  • How is instrumentation vintage?
  • The instrumentation, produced by Timbaland, is vintage and features "fizzing" beats assisted by the producer's ad-libs, vocal record-scratches, heavy drums, "syncopated backbone amidst frenetically shifting bass melodies", wide-ranging orchestrations and "vacuous" synths that all connect into "fuzzed out boom-bap" -> run-on - weak/improper incorporation of quotes
  • "Tunnel Vision" features "thrilling" evolution on both, the detailed production and the arrangement which falls exactly at right time with Timberlake's vocals. -> awkward
  • The unusual and sharp changes that the song features enjoin the track together as it ebbs and veers through its running. -> extremely vague and confusing
  • Due to its similarity, "Tunnel Vision" borrows the "dark alley" rhythm of the third track on the album "Don't Hold the Wall"; on the song, Timberlake sings in his lower register which spreads out an "exciting" upward arpeggio. -> Due to what similarity? This sentence reads very awkwardly
  • Simultaneously, Timbaland uses Timberlake's voice as a "flexible instrument to enhance his tech savvy soundscape" -> Your usage of quotes is very random and out of place, often making the review difficult to understand
  • as he constructs "layers of production elements into towers of sonic force." -> more of the same. I suggest paraphrasing (it's becoming tiresome to read) or being more precise with your execution.
  • Lauren Martin of Fact regarded the song as a start to Timbaland's "Bollywood influenced 'Indian Flute' era" and a teasing element that features Timberlake's voice redistributed with wider range and suspense -> very choppy/no flow. We also have that tense shift again..
  • In a review of The 20/20 Experience, Jean Bentley of The Hollywood Reporter called both "Tunnel Vision" and "Strawberry Bubblegum" the album's "electro-tinged jams". -> Seems misplaced. Nothing critical in this sentence at all, just a short description on its production
  • Clyde Erwin Barretto of Prefix Magazine praised the production, which he felt can excite listeners. -> praised, excite
  • Spin magazine's Jordan Sargent wrote that with the song, Timbaland proves that he can still produce otherworldly beats. -> Not really what he says in the review
  • The Guardian source redirects to the homepage
  • Jordan Sargent of Spin said that the set pieces in which projections of Timberlake interact with the nude dancers represent "a fractured dynamic that mirrors 'Tunnel Vision' itself". -> confusing. What set pieces? In which projections of T interact? You mean 'projected onto their bodies'
  • wrote that Timberlake drew on Thicke's video. -> awkward
  • a "great" song with a video that objectifies women, who according to her enjoy dancing naked to the song's lyrics. -> The latter part doesn't fit at all
  • In a review of the video, Rachel Maresca of New York Daily News wrote that Timberlake blurred some of the explicit lyrics of the song in its music video. -> doesn't really make sense
  • Clash's Robin Murray noted that pop music has lacked raunchiness and sex appeal for a while so that's why according to him the return of Timberlake was needed, "Lavish, lush and 21st century in a direct, shocking fashion, the video finds Justin Timberlake on perfect preening form." -> poor prose. 'That's why according to him the return of T was needed'?
  • In a review of the concert, John Balfe of entertainment.ie wrote that, "Even the album's more well-known songs like 'Tunnel Vision', 'Mirrors' and 'Suit & Tie' don't yet have the same weight in the setlist as some of JT's more established hits and it was songs like 'SexyBack' that really got the 40,000 strong crowd to move." -> trivial/fluff. Says nothing on the actual song
  • The list goes on. The article needs more work in terms of its execution. I find much of your paraphrasing to be questionable, and your quotes to be heavy-handed and misplaced.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid that with no activity for a couple of weeks and many comments yet to be addressed, it's time to archive this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 11 June 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 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2014 (diff).

Ralph Townsend[edit]

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito

This article is about the American writer and activist Ralph Townsend. My belief is that this article uses every publicly available source of significance on the subject and so I'm interested in having it built to featured level status.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment - The lede is much too long for an article of this length. The whole article is less than 20k characters, while the lede is five paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes. What do you think of it now?CurtisNaito (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Hi Curtis, welcome to FAC. I think the best way to approach building this article would be to first try for good article status as a stepping stone for further improvements before trying for FAC. In terms of the featured article criteria, the article unfortunately isn't quite ready yet. For example:

  • All citations should be complete enough to allow someone to easily verify them - for example, articles from periodicals should include page numbers
  • Featured articles need to follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which includes such details as correct italicization of publications, correct use of hyphens versus dashes, etc
  • Generally we don't allow non-free book covers on articles not about the books themselves, and the cover image's fair-use rationale is not really strong enough to justify its inclusion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could fix those things now. For starters I deleted the image, italicized the journal titles, and I think I replaced the hyphens with dashes where necessary. The only thing that won't be possible is the page number for most of the periodicals. Although I do have the page numbers for the Washington Post and New York Times in my notes, most of the time the librarian wouldn't give me the whole page when I requested newspapers articles so I was never able to figure out the precise page number for the large majority of the newspapers. However, these newspapers printed no more than one issue per day so in most cases the date should be sufficient to allow others to locate the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Unfortunately this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly -- pls take on board the comments that you have received. If you wish to, you can renominate at FAC after a minimum of two weeks have passed from the time this one is archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 11 June 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 withdrawn by SilkTork (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2014 (diff).

Savile Row[edit]

Nominator(s): SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I landed on this version of Savile Row in December 2012, and decided to give it a clean up. I took it to GA in June 2013. Recently I looked at it again as part of a sweep through all GA Places articles, and I feel it is a solid article on a famous London street, so I'd like to see if it can be become a Featured Article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As a drive-by comment, " where customers have included Lord Nelson, Winston Churchill, and Jude Law" reads weirdly: these seem like a random set of people (Nelson and Churchill aren't well known for being well-dressed, and Jude Law is in unusual company with two of the greatest figures in British history) and I'd suggest cutting this as it makes the article look a bit shallow. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment, and thank you. I think those are often quoted in sources to suggest the range of customers as regards type and era: figures from the past, figures from the present, military, nobility, political, the media, the stylish, young and old, etc. There are other names mentioned in various sources, but those three seem to crop up quite often - the disparity and yet iconography is part of the interest. I think when sources are looking to mention a selection of names, shallow is the opposite of what they are looking for. Cary Grant is also mentioned quite often, and perhaps he could be added to balance out the military leaders, but then there'd be two film actors. Perhaps Jude Law could be dropped for Beckham or Jay-Z, who have been mentioned, though not as often as Jude Law. I think the choice of names could go on and on. When sources mention customers, they tend to select three, and I think that's appropriate. There is a tendency to over-list. And any selection is going to displease or be unclear to somebody. Those three are perhaps as good as any. Would Nelson, Cary Grant and Beckham indicate a greater range of customers, or be even more shallow? Would Nelson, Churchill and Prince Charles be more impressive, but leave out the media stars that are strongly associated with the street. Given Jude Law's status as a fashion icon, and an "apparel ambassador", he does seem to be quite fitting, and that's probably why he is chosen so often. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The term bespoke as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row, and came to mean a suit cut and made by hand..." is referenced to a clearly erroneous quote ("The term "bespoke" originated more than a century ago on Savile Row—which is sometimes referred to as the "golden mile of tailoring"—because after customers chose the bolt of cloth from which they wanted a suit made, the fabric was said to "be spoken for." - nonsense frankly, see the OED) from "Bloomberg Businessweek", very dubious, and should be removed. Bespoke/n and the verb "bespeak" in the sense of commissioning something go back centuries before the street was laid out. Pretty much all middle and upper class (and probably most working-class) clothing was "cut and made by hand" until the 19th century. Generally, the sourcing seems pretty scrappy, and internet-based. There is no shortage of excellent modern books on the history of London, but none are used here. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of the term bespoke went through a number of variations, which included a more detailed account of the history of the word. In the end, it was felt that most of that could be dealt with in Bespoke_tailoring#Meaning_of_the_term, which is linked from this article, and the relevant part, "The term "bespoke" as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row", would be enough. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the source - Bloomberg Businessweek is reputable, and the author, Kate Norton's Businessweek articles are used as sources for books: [10], and [11]. If it is felt that the phrase "The term "bespoke" as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row" is not clear enough, I'll look into rephrasing, and bring back some of the definition history. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure she is an RS for writing up a press release or interview on "Nokia's Grand Plans for 2007" (as linked), but that doesn't mean she is a good source re British 19th-century tailoring or etymology, though I'm sure she is faithfully reporting what someone "on the row" told her. Not at FA level. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded. Do you think that works? If not, please directly edit the article to see if we can get it right. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GabeMc[edit]

Lead
  • with the arrival of designers like Richard James, Ozwald Boateng and Timothy Everest
like → such as or including
  • Traditional hand made bespoke suits
hand made → handmade
  • The second sentence of the first paragraph is exceptionally wordy. Please split into two or more.
  • The term "bespoke" as applied to fine tailoring is understood to have originated in Savile Row, and came to mean a suit cut and made by hand; though, after a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority in 2008, modern bespoke suits may be made more cheaply by machine, as long as they are still "made to measure".
1) This is a bit wordy, and 2) this seems wildly off-topic for the lead of an article that's about Saville Row.
1) You link this twice in the lead. 2) The first one is piped in such a way that it violates WP:EGG. Why not link to Bespoke tailoring? 3) The Savile Row tailoring article contains around 2,200 words, and this article has 829 words dedicated to tailoring at Saville Row. So this article seems to repeat more than 1/3rd of the material at Savile Row tailoring, violating WP:SS. IMO, these two articles should be merged and the combined material brought to FA-quality.
  • the Apple office of the Beatles at 3 Savile Row, where the band's final live performance, later shown in the film Let It Be, was held on the roof of the building.
The second to the last clause is off-topic for this article.
  • Tailors started to appear in the area in the late 18th century
This is an odd construction, particularly the use of appear. Consider: "Tailors began to open shops in the area in the late 18th century" or similar.
  • opened an entrance to his tailoring premises at 32 Savile Row
This is awkward. Do you mean to say that he "opened a tailoring establishment at 32 Savile Row"?
  • modernised the style and approach of traditional Savile Row tailoring; a modernisation that
Avoid using "modernized" in such close proximity with "modernization".
  • Traditional hand made bespoke suits, as of 2012, cost upwards of £2,000.
This is off-topic for the lead, as the point has next to nothing to do with Saville Row.
  • Traditional hand made bespoke suits, as of 2012, cost upwards of £2,000. The term "bespoke" as applied
Why is "bespoke" set in quotes at the second mention in this example but not the first?
  • as long as they are still "made to measure"
Per WP:CITE, all quotes need in-line citations.
  • The freehold is owned by the Pollen Estate
What's a freehold?
Thanks for that, some useful observations. It's up to you how you do it, but I have a preference for people doing copy-editing directly on the article. If there's an edit I disagree with or don't understand I will raise it here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
opened an entrance to his tailoring premises at 32 Savile Row - I have struggled with this and tried several wordings to get it said quickly and easily. His father had tailoring premises on an adjoining street, and Poole opened an entrance from those premises onto Savile Row. How about: opened an entrance to Savile Row from his tailoring premises in Old Burlington Street? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freehold. That's a good point. It's a commonly understood word in the UK - but I just looked, and it's a UK only term. I've now linked to the Wiki article, but I may reword to make it clearer to non-UK readers. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bespoke is a term strongly associated with Savile Row. For many, bespoke means Savile Row, so it seems appropriate to spend a little time to indicate that the word's meaning, as normally understood, has recently had a significant change which impacts on Savile Row both in terms of its association with the word, but also in terms of trade and business. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you thoughts on merging this article with Savile Row tailoring? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created Savile Row tailoring as a split from this article, as there was too much detail on the tailors for this general article on the street as a whole. If readers wish to know more about tailors and tailoring on Savile Row, they have the option to go to that article. And there is room to expand that article further. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • with the arrival of designers like Richard James
like → such as, or including
  • In July 1968 the Beatles moved their business
business → company
Elsewhere in the article you favour the use of commas after introductory dates, but here you do not. They are not required, but please make consistent.
  • The Beatles' final live performance the final words of the band
Swap one of these "final"s with a "last"
  • working in partnership with Westminster Council to protect the street's tailoring heritage
protect → preserve
  • the site of what is now No. 1
The convention that I'm familiar with regarding chart positions would render "No." as "number", but maybe this is not as common when referring to addresses.
  • occupied by a series of ladies and earls
I'm not certain that readers outside the UK will understand what you mean by "ladies".
  • on freehold land known as Ten Acres
Link freehold in the lead and at the first mention after the lead.
  • belonging to a William Maddox
I'm not sure the indefinite article is necessary or desirable in this construction.
  • The original architectural plan
"Savile Row's original architectural plan"
  • which was to have some influence on English architecture in the 16th century
"which influenced English architecture in the 16th century"
  • in the court-yard
I'm by no means an expert on hyphens, but I think this one is incorrect.
  • which possibly established the current appearance of the façade
Can this be made more clear? "Possibly established" is vague.
  • including into Asia, Africa, and the South Pole
I'm also not a comma expert, but the third one looks like a serial comma, which you do not use throughout.
  • In 1871, just after the Royal Geographical Society moved into Savile Row
Omit "just" as unnecessary.
  • so did the Savile Club. The Savile Club
Savile Club appears three times in a short span. Avoid this repetition.
  • called Savile Street; and Irish-born playwright and MP
I'm not sure that semi-colon is the best choice here before a coordinating conjunction.
  • When Jules Verne wrote Around the World in Eighty Days, he placed his lead character, Phileas Fogg, in 7 Savile Row
"Jules Verne placed his lead character in Around the World in Eighty Days, Phileas Fogg, in 7 Savile Row"
  • It is thought that the affluent and influential nature of the residents of Savile Row attracted dealers in luxury goods.
This is vague. It is thought by whom?
  • in an earlier raid that month
Was the raid in the early morning? Consider: "in a raid earlier that month"
  • A studio was built in the basement, though was poorly designed, so a new one was constructed in 1971 at an estimated cost of $1.5 million.[24] Various artists, including the Beatles, Badfinger, and Mary Hopkin, recorded in the basement studio there until it closed in May 1975.
This seems to imply that the Beatles recorded there after the 1971 remodel, which is of course not possible as they broke up in 1970.
  • as they were stopped performing by the police
"as the police stopped their performance"
  • with the arrival of designers like Richard James
like → such as, or including
  • Some tailors had expressed concern in 2005 that an increase in commercial development in the area could lead to the death of the business locally, as tailors, many of whom traditionally manufacture their suits on the premises, in basement studios, could be priced out of the local property market.
I'm not sure how tailors manufacturing their suits in the basement connects with being "priced out of the local property market", which is an economic concern that does not seem related to this specific business practice.
  • The association objects to the American retailer Abercrombie & Fitch's store at 7 Burlington Gardens next to Savile Row, which opened in 2007
On what grounds exactly do they object? Because A&F is an American company, or because they do not tailor clothing, or some other reason/s?

In progress ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protect is not quite the same as preserve; the sources use protect, and I think this is because it is felt that traditional tailoring is under attack rather than it is dying. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. for number is used several times in the article - it's used when the number alone is given, as in "the Beatles moved into No. 3"; though when the street name is also given, the usage is "the Beatles moved into 3 Savile Row"; this usage seemed to be the most common I found when reading sources, and seemed helpful; however, it could be changed to "number" if it is felt that it is confusing: "the Beatles moved into number 3". SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've looked into all the copy-editing queries. I think you have a good eye for detail. Can I again suggest that you edit the article directly. I do find this method very slow and difficult. And surely it must be quicker and easier for you to simply edit the article rather than make these lists. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done[edit]

  • Dead links
  • The use of fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for Google Books links
  • GBooks links can be truncated after the page number
  • Given that iUniverse is a self-publishing company, what makes that book a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN19: retrieval date
  • FN23, 45, 43, 49: ISBN? Check for others
  • Compare FNs 33 and 34
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in whether website names are italicized or not
  • Compare FNs 51 and 58, and check for other inconsistencies between similar sources
  • Use a consistent date format
  • FN53, 54: missing italics
  • Be consistent in whether books include publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info.
thesuitsofjamesbond.com is reliable because of the author Matt Spaiser who is quoted by other sources on the topic of the clothes of James Bond. He is the expert on the topic.
iUniverse. Thanks for that. I've changed the source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Book cite retrieval dates are not something I use these days - at the time I worked on this article I used a tool that entered them automatically. As they do provide some, albeit minor nonetheless potentially useful, information on when the source was found and that it actively online on that date, I see little value in removing them, though would have no objection to anyone doing so if the dates bothered them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this. These are convenience links rather than true online sources, and they are not archived by Wayback, so retrieval dates serve no purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compare FNs 33 and 34 - One is a website, the other is a journal, which has the article on the website, both are published by Forbes. The website is marked forbes.com, and the journal is marked Forbes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the cite web template when work= is used it puts the name in italics, when publisher= is used it does not. My understanding is that they meant the same thing: the website where the article was published. I have changed them all to publisher= for consistency as requested. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I meant was things like "murrayonhawaii.com" - sometimes these were italicized, sometimes not. Publications like The Independent were properly italicized, as they are works whether online or in print. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few quick comments since I stumbled here from my nomination:
  • FN1: The New York Times is always a work; its publisher is the corporation called "The New York Times Company". I remember it like this: the "work" is an abstract concept, a publication, while the "publisher" is always a legal entity like a corporation or a person. The title of a website, which might be its domain name, is also an abstract concept, so it's a "work".
  • PDF should be capitalized since it is an acronym for Portable Document Format.
  • I would also suggest harmonizing the titles to use a single case. Some are in Title Case, and some are in Sentence case. Our MOS doesn't have strict rules on this matter, allowing either style, but here it's a matter of consistency and polish. I will note that in the APA style guide, article titles are supposed to be rendered in Sentence case regardless of the original publication's format, and MOS:CT would seem to prefer that we use Title Case. My guess is that unless our MOS is ever modified to explicitly prefer one over the other in citations, we are free to pick, but we should be consistent. Imzadi 1979 → 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about the work= field. I think when using the title= field I have always stuck with the source, but you're right, Wikipedia's house style should take precedence for consistency. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about PDF - I assumed the template would put it into the appropriate format. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently some editing taking place on the article which is taking it backward - creating small sections which inhibit reading flow, and causing image clutter with images now spilling over into neighbouring sections. The editor responsible has been approached, but feels that his edits are making an improvement, and he intends to add more images. Rather than engage in what would likely be a protracted editing dispute, I am stepping back. As this FAC has not yet attracted a support comment, and I am taking the article off my watchlist so won't be maintaining it or taking further part in this FAC, I suggest this FAC is closed. Thanks to those who did take an interest and suggested improvements. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:43, 9 June 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 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2014 (diff).

Oxford English Dictionary[edit]

Nominator(s): DavidPKendal (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was previously (imo) of Good Article status though it had not been tagged as such. I've spent a few days adding more information, standardizing the style, and researching to add more citations, bringing it up to featured-article standard in my opinion. DavidPKendal (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hi, and thanks for engaging in our FA process. Sadly, the prospects of promotion are not good at this stage; there a too many uncited facts. At FA level, every fact should be cited to a reliable source and we expect to see a least one citation at the end of each paragraph, as a minimum. Expect to see opposition because of this, unless you can act quickly. Graham Colm (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe every claim is cited, though in some cases the citation may not be directly attached to the claim (may come a sentence or two later). Could you sprinkle {{cn}}s in the places you expect to see references so I can add them? DavidPKendal (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have the time. Graham Colm (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made some improvements to the referencing and will continue to do so. DavidPKendal (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This article is Start-Class. Even though it's not necessarily required, I'd strongly suggest you get it to Good Article status before considering nominating it again. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are prose problems, too. You might want to run this by the Guild of Copy Editors. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Are there any particular areas of the article that have these problems? DavidPKendal (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Oxford University Press": I've always heard it without the "the", but check this.
  • "descriptive": descriptive
  • "As well as describing English usage in its many variations throughout the world, it traces the historical development of the English language, providing an authoritative resource to scholars and academic researchers.": It never covered all varieties of English. The OED was "authoritative" for some purposes in the 20th century, but at FAC, we're rarely comfortable with claiming that anything is the "authority" on a very broad ... anything.
  • "replaced the name ... to": ... with
  • " In 1933, it fully replaced the name in all occurrences to The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in its reprinting as twelve volumes with a one volume supplement and more supplements came over the years until in 1989 when the second edition was published.": Bit of a run-on sentence. "in all occurrences" raises the question of what kind of occurrences there might be; "In 1933, it became The Oxford English Dictionary" might be better.
  • "until in 1989 when": not idiomatic.
  • That's all in the first paragraph, and I see "2007,then" in the first section. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 10:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the Oxford University Press: This Google Ngram query doesn't work, sadly, so here's a few manual searches: at, by, from, with, to. It seems that when used in the dative case, there's a significant minority who still use the 'the' in 'the Oxford University Press' (perhaps further investigation could turn up precise situations in which a majority still use 'the'). It sounds stilted to me without it, so I've left it.
authoritative: A tricky one. I've changed it to 'comprehensive', which I think captures the intention of the use of 'authoritative' here without the problems of that word.
I've corrected your other concerns and one or two others I spotted. I'll keep an eye out for similar problems. DavidPKendal (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Thanks for your diligence, but there's more here than I'm going to be able to comfortably cover during one FAC. PR would be a good way to go from here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment: The article is graded Start-class, not because that's its actual standard but because it has never been reviewed. It is informative and interesting, probably worth a B as it stands, but alas at present nowhere near a FA. It is badly in need of some close review treatment from editors who know their way around FAC and can help to bring it to that standard.

A few basic problems, gleaned from a very quick look-over:

  • Organisationally, it's not a good idea to begin with a section that essentially records trivia.
  • The first sentence of that section is somewhat garbled: "According to the publishers, it would take a single person 120 years to "key in" text to convert it to machine readable form which consists of a total of 59 million words of the OED second edition, 60 years to proofread it, and 540 megabytes to store it electronically."
  • There's an overtendency, particularly later in the article, to write in very short single-sentence paragraphs rather than in fluent prose.
  • The article looks unbalanced, with 95% of its content dealing with history and production, a very short section on "Criticisms" and nothing at all on cultural impact, significance etc
  • A significant number of statements throughout the article are currently lacking citations

I don't think these issues can be adequately addressed in the timeframe of this FAC, so I'm opposing at present, but I'd still like to encourage the article's development. If it is withdrawn from here and taken to peer review, I'll be happy to give it a closer look there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Opening section: Yes, on reflection I agree. Perhaps a new section as you suggest on cultural impact, significance, etc. could be inserted there.
Copy concerns: I'll look at those.
Criticisms: Honestly … it's hard to find serious criticism of the OED, especially on matters that haven't been addressed by the editors in the third edition. There is some less serious criticism that could be mentioned (though that particular case is, imo, frivolous and irrelevant to the article), as well as perhaps the tendency of the general public to overreact upon news of the addition of 'WTF' or 'LOL' or whatever happens to have reached the dictionary's pages in the most recent update (though quite often this is a case of mistaken reporting, and it is the ODE not the OED which has received these additions).
Cultural impact, significance: could you suggest something that might be a citable source for cultural impact? The section on the second edition already mentions the accolades it received upon its publication, mentioning its significance, etc.
Peer review: Sorry, I'm fairly new to all this. What do you mean by 'taking it to peer review'? DavidPKendal (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PR. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Thank you for participating in FAC, David. Reviewing the comments above, however, and taking a quick look at the article myself, I think the nomination is premature so I'll be archiving it shortly. I agree that Peer Review is the best avenue for getting this article up to scratch before another nomination at FAC, which you can undertake a minimum of two weeks after the archive goes through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 10 June 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 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2014 (diff).

Box Cutter (Breaking Bad)[edit]

Nominator(s): Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This good article is about an episode of fourth season of the television series Breaking Bad. Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is pretty good, at least a solid GA, but has its main contributor User:Hunter Kahn been informed of the nomination? Does he think it is ready for FAC?—indopug (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will inform him now. Thanks! Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not aware of the FAC nomination prior to being notified, and I haven't worked on the article for quite some time, but I see that Fanaction2031 has done a bit of work on it. I'm sure it was comprehensive and used every available source at the time that I wrote it, but I am not sure whether there have been any new sources published since then. (Perhaps Fanaction2031 is aware of this.) But in any event, I'd be happy to help in any way I can with the FAC process if it moves forward. (I'd also be happy to be listed as a co-nominator since I'm the main contributor, but that can be up to Fanaction since he first nominated it.) — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen this situation arise before. I think it would be appropriate for Kahn's name to be placed first, followed by the editor who did some recent enhancements. I have to say though Fanaction, your actions look a bit selfish to say the least.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fanaction is the second major contributor, and Hunter Kahn hasn't worked on the article in eight months. If both are happy to proceed with the nomination there's merit for review. As a religious BB fan I'll be happy to review the article (after seeing if there's additional material that could be mentioned). CR4ZE (t • c) 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd just like to note I'm not accusing Fanaction of any ill intentions or anything like that. I assume he made the nomination in good faith because he legitimately thinks it could be an FA, and I don't read anything into my exclusion with the nomination. And again, I'm happy to work with him or anyone else in getting the article up to the proper standards. — Hunter Kahn 19:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry for not mentioning to Hunter earlier about the nomination. So where are we with this guys? Thanks by the way! Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be taking a look at the article within the next few days. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks CR4ZE for taking the time to do this! Let me know if you find/need anything. Fanaction2031 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be doing a review as well in the near future, though I expect Kahn's name to be slapped on there asap..--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CR4ZE[edit]

  • The Plot section should be written with as broad an audience as possible. The unfamiliarised reader has not seen previous episodes and cannot understand "who insisted that if Gale is dead, Gus could not kill them as he had planned because he would have nobody to produce meth for him". This begs the question as to why Gus is planning on killing them. Somebody like myself who has seen every episode of the show will understand this, but others won't. Would Gale to death be violating WP:EGG?
  • A big problem for the article is the Production section, which is quite disorganised. The first paragraph is different facts about the production that seem to have been pieced together. For example, it begins to discuss Gale's death, but then in the second paragraph there's more explanation about Gilligan's final decision to kill him off. This information should be kept together within a paragraph. I think the entire section should be reworked as such. There may be merit in splitting off into sub-subsections.
  • "the audience reaction to "Full Measure" made Gilligan and the Breaking Bad writing staff" – What was the audience reaction exactly?
  • The fifth and penultimate paragraphs get into thematic analysis that doesn't really fit. Should certainly be split off, either as a sub or its own standalone section.
  • Reviews to me feels lacking in concision. It would work much better if paragraphs were organised by individual aspects instead of by reviewer. The paragraphs feel too bulky and lacking flow. "However, he said it felt like [...] the two main protagonists" doesn't feel particularly relevant, but it could be reworked into a new final paragraph addressing criticisms. "could make the actor worthy of contention for an Emmy Award"—not the right word choice.
  • The article needs some TLC, but the issues are not completely unassailable. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks to me like this review's gone stale, because the nominator has barely been editing lately. On those grounds, you can take my above comments as an Oppose vote. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per everything and above. I suggest we close this nomination.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:33, 5 June 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 Last of Us[edit]

Nominator(s): URDNEXT (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Last of Us, a 2013 videogame developed by Naughty Dog, and published by Sony exclusively for the PlayStation 3. The game tells the story of Joel (voiced and motion-captured by Troy Baker) escorting the young Ellie (Ashley Johnson) across a post-apocalyptic United States that has been ravaged by infection. The player uses firearms, improvised weapons and stealth techniques to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures infected by a mutated strain of the Cordyceps fungus. The Last of Us received worldwide critical acclaim for its writing, voice acting, sound design, level design, and art direction. Its narrative was praised for its characterization, subtext, and critical depiction of the human condition, dealing with themes of sacrifice, loyalty, fate, and hope. Considered one of the most significant titles of the seventh generation video game era, The Last of Us received over 200 Game of the Year awards from numerous publications. It was also a commercial success, and became the second-largest video game launch of 2013 (after Grand Theft Auto V), selling over 1.3 million units in its first week. As of March 2014, the game had sold over 6 million units worldwide. The article for the game is the BEST video game page I've seen on the site, and I don't know how it hasn't been featured yet.


URDNEXT (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportI think it's the best game article on Wikipedia, at least for software.
Comment: I don't see your name in the list of contributors. Have you consulted any of this article's most active editors about the nomination? If not, then you should know that a new editor nominating a FA based on personal preference, when it hasn't been peer-reviewed or achieved Good Article status yet, is unlikely to prove successful.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure, but what do you think about the article? And how can an article be considered a good article?User:URDNEXT (talk)
It must undergo a Good Article nomination, which is too typically nominated by one of the most active editors. However, you could call for a peer review, then get your edits in by addressing whatever concerns are in said review. That being said, I believe this FAC should be closed. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
URDNEXT, I strongly advise you familiarise yourself with the FAC instructions in future. You could alternatively take the article to WP:GAN, only after consulting with the article's major contributors (and fixing the numerous problems). This article is nowhere near ready for an FAC. I strongly recommend speedy archiving. And for the record, going through a GAN is not a prerequisite for FAC, but it's generally the way we do things. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can adm close this nom? URDNEXT (talk)
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 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2014 (diff).

Megadeth[edit]

Nominator(s): Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Megadeth, an American heavy metal band. I've been actively working on it since November 2013, and since then it has successfully passed the GA procedure. Additionally, it has been copyedited and went through a peer review recently. I'm aware that there might be some weak areas, but in general, I believe the article covers well the band's history.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

I'm going to take a look at the prose—I'm not checking to see how well it reflects what's in the sources. I did some copyediting as well. Feel free to disagree with anything here:

Infobox[edit]
  • "associated_acts", I beleive, is supposed to be about acts that are directly related to this one (spinoff acts, etc). Metallica may qualify, but I'm pretty sure Slayer and Anthrax don't (even if Kerry King happened to play some guitar with them)
—These four bands are actually referred to as the "Big Four", in addition to occasionally touring together and etc. I'm not a big fan of adding spinoff groups because Megadeth had over 20 members throughout its career, and listing dozens of anonymous bands won't be helpful, in my opinion.
I'm aware of that (they've been called that for decades now). The point is that that is not what the field in the tempate is for. For example, for Paul McCartney, you'd have the Beatles and Wings; for Soundgarden you'd have Temple of the Dog. That's not the relation The Big Four have. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, made a few adjustments according to your advice. Honestly, I wasn't aware that the parameter had such a usage.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • considered highly influential in the underground metal scene, was released in October 1986.: is it considered highly influential on today's undergraound metal scene, or was it in the 80s?
  • being prominent to thrash metal: or "prominent in"? I'm not familiar with the wording "prominent to".
  • including Countdown to Extinction, certified double platinum: maybe throw the release year in parentheses? I'd prefer to see "certified double platinum" dropped, since it follows immediately from "platinum-selling albums, including ...".
  • , and has been featured on all recordings since: I'd drop this; it's implied, I think, unless stated otherwise.
  • , which has been hosted several times over the years.: is it annual? Irregular?
  • A pioneer of the American thrash metal movement: is a "movement" the same as a "genre"?
  • Since its inception: I might replace this with an "As of 2014"
  • Is Vic Rattlead not worth a mention?
—It was consider influential back in the day and nowadays. As for the second point, do you think "prominent to the growth of thrash metal" is suitable enough? Thrash had a few scenes back then (German, Brazilian, British, etc.), so I think the "American movement" covers things fine. Mentioned Vic Rattlehead in the lead. As for Gigantour, the festival's editions were held occasionally. An advice on how to word this would also be welcomed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the usage "prominent to" at all. If it's normal wherever you're from, then okay, I won't make an issue of it, but it sure sounds unnatural to me. As to the different scenes, I wasn't objecting to "American", but to "movement", which sounds to me more organized, or even political. I'd change "movement" to something like "scene". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm not English-born speaker neither, but somehow I'm sure I've seen that construction somewhere else on Wiki. I've changed movement to scene.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early days[edit]
  • Before establishing his new band, Mustaine's intention was to play faster and heavier music than his previous band.: that was intention before—did he give up this intention upon forming the band?
  • while it is in itself a misspelling of the term megadeath: from this wording, it sounds like the "misspelling" is a mistake
  • After hiring bassist David Ellefson immediately: if Mustaine and Ellefson cofounded the band, how did Mustaine hire Ellefson?
  • the meter changes in music well: from this wording, it sounds like meter changes are normal in music in general
  • fellow contemporaries: ???
  • referred to as the 1984 Demo': by whom? Fans? The band? Heavy metal doctorate students?
  • before replacing Rausch with jazz fusion drummer Gar Samuelson: you might want to make it clear that he wasn't playing jazz fusion in the band (or was he?)
—Well, Samuelson kept playing his unique jazz style during his tenure with Megadeth; the band was even referred by Spin as a jazz-metal band. I dropped the clause with the 1984 demo tape because that title was obviously invented by the journalist from Metal Forces. Certainly not much important since it was previously mentioned that the demo was recorded in 1984. The other issues were addressed by a fellow colleague of mine, L1A1 FAL.
Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! (1985)[edit]
  • given US$8,000 by Combat Records: given this is an American band recording in the US, we can assume the dollars are American ones (and delink, per WP:OVERLINK)
  • I'm not a fan of jumping forward in the chronology with the "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'"; also, I think it's too much detail for this article. Why not cut it down to a sentence or two, and leave the details to the album's article?
—First point done. As for the second one, I transferred the details about the reissue to the album's page, as suggested.
Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? (1986–87)[edit]
  • before the band officially began the recording process: but after they had unofficially begun?
  • On the other hand,: this sounds like you're weighing opposing arguments—maybe "meanwhile" is better?
  • I feel like the Samuelson and Poland stuff should be in the same paragraph, since they were canned at the same time for similar issues.
  • Jeff Loomis of Sanctuary, and later Nevermore,: are the band's he was to play in relevant here, or is this just anachronistic trivia?
—Omitted "unofficially", added "meanwhile", dropped the second band from Jeff Loomis' biography.
So Far, So Good... So What! (1988–89)[edit]
  • Mustaine and Lani had an estrangement: is there not a more elegant way to word this?
  • David Ellefson's drug problems, for which he was treated immediately: I thin we know which Ellefson this is at this point, so I'd drop "David"; also, immediately following what?
  • were inconsistent (on the 1988 tour) because: is "(on the 1988 tour)" an interpolation? I believe those go in [square brackets]
—A suggestion on how to re-word the "estrangement"?
Mmmm... "Mustaine and Laine became estranged"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rust in Peace (1990–91)[edit]
  • though it appeared: to whom?
  • was universally acclaimed: seems unlikely
  • rhythmically complex progressive edge: is this "progessive" as in "prog?
  • Described as a genre-defining work by critics: I see one critic there, not "critics
—Three notes done. I didn't link progressive to progressive rock because I think the term "progessive" (in the case of Megadeth) it is more similar to progressive metal. I believe leaving the word unlinked is the best solution.
Okay, leave it unlinked then. Too bad there isn't an overview article on the different kinds of "progressive". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break here. Feel free to ping me if I forget to return. I may be slow to respond. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]
  • I haven't done a ref check, but I noticed "Mustaine, Dave (2010). Mustaine: A Life in Metal" isn't actually cited anywhere. Move it to "Further reading"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—Correct. The book was moved to another section.
Countdown to Extinction (1992–93)[edit]
  • after he successfully handled the mixing: I assume "successfully means it pleased the band, rahter than "did not fail"; I might reword it to something like "as the band was pleased with his mixing of"
  • Ellefson revealed that; Ellefson later admitted that: careful with words like this, as per WP:CLAIM
  • that were a little broader: what does it mean for a song to be "broad"?
  • too, assisted by Max Norman, our producer.": I'd drop "our producer" from the quote. Is there some reason this was quoted, rather than paraphrased?
  • included Diamond Head as a performing act: you could safely drop "as a performing act".
  • removed from the bill after fewer than six shows: so, like, after five shows?
—Alright, every note from here was addressed, except for the last one. Spin reported that the band was dropped in "less than six shows". I think I've read somewhere that the band was dropped only after three shows, but I think it's better to rely on Spin than on my own memory.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'll be stopping there again—I managed to squeeze this in during my lunch break. Feel free to revert any of the copyedits I've made if you disagree with them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Youthanasia (1994–95)[edit]
  • reunited with co-producer Max Norman to begin work: he was referred to as "producer" last time—was he co-producer last time as well? If not, maybe reword to "reunited with Max Norman to co-produce"
  • at a slower<!--than what?--> tempo: the comment should probably be dealt with—slower than on previous records, or slower than originally written?
—Consider the notes done.
Cryptic Writings (1996–98)[edit]
  • Due to a problem with the album's original artwork, the album cover was replaced with a voodoo symbol and the album: this seems out of scope to me—or is there some significance to the replaced artwork that merits it not being relegated to the album's article?
  • "One part of the record was really fast and aggressive, one third of it was the really melodic, in between stuff, and the final third was really radio-orientated music like Youthanasia.": again, is there some reason this should be quoted?
  • because he had lied about having cancer: did he actually lie?
—Paraphrased. About whether Menza had lied about having cancer, the sentence opens with "Mustaine said that...", which implies that Mustaine is suggesting that. The viewpoints of both sides are presented here and it's up to the reader to make a conclusion.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it should be left to the reader to decide, but the way it's worded, it comes off as Mustaine confirming the Menza lied–it's not clear whether there's a conflict of stories or if it's just ambiguous text. Maybe "because he believed he had lied"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With "he believed Menza had lied" it turns out that Mustaine had a personal misconception about Menza's injury and he had unfairly fired him. The thing is we don't know if Menza had really lied, so the best solution is to present a conflict of stories.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the conflict of stories should be presented as a conflict of stories, but that's not how it reads at all. With the statement about Mustaine coming suddenly at the end of the paragraph, it comes off as Mustaine revealing that he had discovered Menza had lied. As I said above, "it's not clear whether there's a conflict of stories or if it's just ambiguous text". Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this edit did the job?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Risk (1999–2000)[edit]
The World Needs a Hero (2000–01)[edit]
  • their departure was imminent: doesn't "imminent" mean "about to happen"?
  • some critics felt the album fell short of expectations: who?
—Attributed the author and changed the wording referring to Megadeth's departure from Capitol Records.
Sorry, I didn't mean "imminent" should be changed to "about to happen", I meant the word itself didn't make sense in the context. How about just "their departure was because of"? Now we have "but the Orlando Weekly's reviewer"—what makes the Orlando Weekly's reviewer so significant? It seems weird that that one random paper would be singled out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote imminent in the first place, what I meant was that the departure was unavoidable. But nothing to worry, I think even with "about to happen" the sentence reads fine. As for the journal, I picked that review randomly because it seems that all of them think the album was disappointing to a certain degree (not the "comeback" they expected, I guess). Any suggestion on how to improve this?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's no longer "about to happen" at this point—it has already happened. They're just wasted words.
With the review, it's not really acceptable to choose one and call it representative of other reviews. If a source has mentioned that many reviews were like that, then it's best to use that source. If there isn't a source that sums up these reviews, then it amounts to original research to choose one as representative of what you've seen. It may be "true" that reviews were like this, but unless other sources have summed it up in the way, we can't really add stuff like that to the article. Can you find a source that talks about the album's disappointing reception? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, replaced the Orlando Weekly with a retrospective review by the Rolling Stone Album Guide, which called it "a step back for the band". What is the best solution for "about to happen"?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just drop it—change it to "their departure was due to ongoing tensions" or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
etc[edit]
  • {{sfn|Rees & Crampton|1999|p=658}}, {{sfn|Ellefson & McIver|2013|p=118}}: you know, you can just do {{sfn|Rees|Crampton|1999|p=658}}, {{sfn|Ellefson|McIver|2013|p=118}}, and in the {{cite book}}s you can specify "|ref = harv" instead of using an {{SfnRef}}
  • Alt text would be nice for the images (for accessibility)
  • using ";Current members", ";Former members", ";Footnotes" to bold a "header" is incorrect semantics (it's used for definition lists), and doesn't play well with, for example, screenreaders. Why not just do "===Footnotes==="? Or just bold it (although "===Footnotes===" would be more semantic)?
    • The ref formatting thing is totally unnecessary to reach FA—I was just pointing it out because it's easier—but the whole point of formatting it that way is so that you don't have to use {{SfnRef}} at all—you can just specify "|ref = harv", and the template handles everything automagically. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that manually replacing "&" with "|" all over the page was quite exhausting. But I've noticed that many of the older FAs only use "ref=author name (year) page X", without a link to the book listed in the bibliography. I think it's not that important whether we will use the "sfn" or "harv" option as long as the link points to the right book.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many different acceptable referencing styles—I was just pointing this out to save you time and effort in the future. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another break ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup (2002–03)[edit]
  • that triggered a relapse of his addiction: do we know what he was addicted to, and what drug triggered the relapse?
  • Mustaine re-recorded some parts that were lost over time: How were they lost? The tapes went missing?
—The original tapes were missing actually. Should I re-write it more concisely, or is it good in this state?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd reword to make it clear that the tapes were actually lost—these things can be "lost" due to damage or decays, as well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
United Abominations (2007–08)[edit]
  • In May 2006, Megadeth announced that their eleventh studio album, United Abominations, was near completion. Although its release was originally scheduled for October 2006, Mustaine later revealed that the band was "putting the finishing touches on it", and postponed the release to May of the following year.: I think this is awfully verbose—why not just say it was scheduled for October but pushed back to the next May?
  • Dave Mustaine wanted a shorter lineup: shouldn't this be "smaller lineup"? I know "lines" are short or long, but I'm pretty sure band lineups are large or small.
—Both done.
Endgame (2009–10)[edit]
  • In May 2009, Megadeth finished recording their twelfth album, and the following month the album's title was revealed to be Endgame.: again, awfully verbose—I'd kick the whole "the folowing month ..." bit into the album's article. It's trivial at this scope.
—Done.

Breaking here again ... sorry I keep doing this! Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen (2010–12)[edit]
  • first we have "big four", then we have "Big Four".
—Yep, I've missed this one. I've made it consistent using small letters, though the disambiguation page uses capital letters.
Controversy[edit]
  • Mustaine filed a countersuit: what was the countersuit about?
—Advertising issue. I've explained it in the article.
Influences and style[edit]
  • Is "constantly creating new material" a "routine"?
  • A fan of George Orwell's work, he has written songs based on Orwell's novels.: sentences like these can be easily compressed: "... and has written songs based on George Orwell's novels." That he was a fan can be assumed (if he was basing lyrics on a writer whose works he disliked, that would be worth drawing attention to).
  • "poetry about Satan": literally?
—Reworded the sentence about Orwell. As for the band's early Satanic lyrical preoccupations, I copied that clause from a Billboard review. I thought it would sound less dully that writing "they had a number of songs whose subject matter was the devil". But if you think otherwise, we can always alter it.
Well, the way it's written, it seems like scare quotes rather than an actual quotation—it gives the impression that the lyrics appear "Satanic" but really aren't. I'd rewrite either to attribute the quote, or to make it clear the lyrics were actually about the devil. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would be adequate to plainly write just "satanism"?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be fine. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy[edit]
  • Having sold over 50 million records worldwide,: as of?
  • one of the few American underground metal bands from the 1980s that achieved mass commercial success: I might reword it to something like "one of the few bands from the 1980s American underground metal scene"—they haven't been anything like "underground" for decades now!
  • directly responsible for the birth of death metal.: maybe "a direct influence on"? "directly responsible" sounds like they had some active role in the death metal scene
  • the expansion of extreme metal to places where it had previously been unknown: what are these "places"? Physical? Musical? Mental?
  • a number of next-generational thrash metal bands,: what was the next generation—in the '90s? The 21st century? What consititutes a "generation" in this context?
—I thought writing "bands that originated in the 21st century", but that would be repeating with the first sentence from the paragraph. A suggestion perhaps?
?? I don't see anything about the 21st century in that paragraph? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ment that the verb "originated" would be used twice in the same paragraph. But nevermind, all of the changes were done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could switch up "from" for "originated". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful comment, thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Members[edit]
  • I don't think there's any semantic reason to split the current & former members into separate columns—it's also not vertical screen-friendly. I'd drop the columns entirely.
  • As these are not definition lists the use of the colons is not semantic—they are not meant for bolding headers.
—Done. Just to ask, can we lose the backing vocal credits because basically every member (apart from Mustaine and a few others) had this duty?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem vital to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff[edit]
  • I'm surpised there's nothing on Mustaiune bragging about screwing Hammet's girlfriend—I've heard him go on and on about it in enough interviews, I'd've though it'd be in the "Controversy" section.
  • You could throw in a {{Portal|Heavy metal}} in the "External links" section
—The link to the portal was added. I'll search on Google these days to find out if there's any journal who wrote about Mustaine's statement.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my small "investigation", I've found a couple of videos on Youtube in which Mustaine says he had slept with Hammett's girlfriend after being dismissed from Metallica. There are also a bunch of forums which discuss stuff like this, but other than that, there aren't any reports by the media that can confirm this speculation. If you ask me, this looks like a gossip that barely has any encyclopedical value. Furthermore, there's more than enough text about "Mustaine versus Metallica": the songs on Kill 'Em All, the VH1 documentary, the St. Anger movie, etc.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mustaine's gone on and on about it enough that I assumed some reliable source would have commented on it. No big deal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take another run-through on the prose (hopefully before too long). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some ref stuff[edit]
  • It doesn't appear to be a hard and fast rule, but footnotes normally come before citations (see WP:FNNR).
  • The "Bibliography" section should be alphabetized by surname.
  • Cite #12 & #56 read "p. Chapter 7" & "p. Chapter 13"—when using a location other than a page you should use "|loc=" instead of "|p="
  • Cites #3, #28, #35, #70, #83, #91, #100, #125 appear to be dead links
Updated the links; they weren't dead, I assume they were directing somewhere else. Anyway, these notes are done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File check[edit]
—I'm sure I've seen the image (of Megadeth performing in 1986) at the band's official website. As for the infobox image, I'll look at some photos with low resolution which are not licensed, in other words suitable for Wikipedia.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever the image comes from, the chances of it belonging to Thrashzone666 are close to nil. Copyrighted images are not a problem per se, but they do need to have the correct copyright information. Unless it can be proved that this "Thrashzone666" owns the photo (highly unlikely), it had better be taken down. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I'm aware that the band owns the photo, but my suggestion was to keep it because it's the only image available from that period. If the guys from Wiki Commons delete it, it's easy to remove the file name. As for the samples, I'm currently awaiting an upload of "Peace Sells", so I'll be dealing with that issue later. And is it permitted to put the logo at the top of the infobox like on the Macedonian edition?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, "just keeping it" is not an option. The copyright information must be correct, and it's not. If you can track down the correct copyright information, tag the image appropriately, and move it from Commons to Wikipedia, then fine; otherwise, it has to go. If this isn't done, the article automatically fails criterion #3. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you've got a fair use rationale for it now, but there's no link to where you got the image. I've looked around the band's website, and I can't find it anywhere. The problem is that the image needs to be attributed. If it is indeed from some magazine, then it likely belongs to the photographer or the magazine rather than the band. We can't just assume the band owns it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was a remake of this (third row in the middle)?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not upload that one instead, then, since it doesn't have a crease across it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
etc[edit]
  • Not a fan of the Jon Hadusek quote box—it doesn't seem particuarly encyclopaedic to me.
  • You still have non-semantic semicolons being used to bold "headers" (such as "Studio albums", "Current members")
—Done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A closer look at the lead[edit]
  • I'm not sure about the lead—the logic escapes me. The opening sentence is fine, but then it jumps immediatley into a history of the band that, for reason I can't figure out, is split between this and the next paragraph. Thinking of the reader (especially one not familiar with the band), I think it would be better to devote the first paragraph to a description of their sound and image, and then bump to the history to the next paragraph or two.
  • known for its distinctive, technical instrumental style: I'd drop "distinctive"—it doesn't really tell the reader anything
  • thrash metal's creation, development, and popularization: I'd cut this down to "thrash metal's development and popularization"—there may be a difference between "creation2 and "development", but it's hairsplitting, especially in the scope of the lead.
  • and ranks as one of the most successful American heavy metal bands.: of course this is true, but what statement in the body backs this up?
—I've somehow re-ordered the intro. Can we manage to reduce the term "thrash metal" because it is mentioned three times in the first paragraph? Let's say "responsible for its development and popularization"?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like:
Megadeth is an American thrash metal band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 1983 by guitarist Dave Mustaine and bassist David Ellefson, shortly after Mustaine's dismissal from Metallica. Along with Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer, Megadeth is credited as one of the "big four" bands who pioneered and popularized American thrash metal. Megadeth is known for its technical instrumental style that often features fast rhythm sections and complex arrangements; their lyrics convey gloomy themes including death, war, politics, and religion.
—although you'll likely offend someone if you call religion itself "gloomy" (WP:NPOV). You could also drop "American" from the first sentence, since that should be obvious once it's stated they're from LA. Also, you should be consistent in whether to call the group "it" ("... its technical instrumental style ...") or "they" ("... their lyrics convey ...") ... or you could avoid it with "... a technical instrumental style ..." and "... the lyrics ..." ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, forget the thrash issue. I'll correct the inconsistency with its/their.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished notes[edit]
  • I'll need a few more days to finish the duties regarding the non-free media. I'm planning to use a sample of "Holy Wars" in the "Artistry" section, as well as one from "Peace Sells" (which I'm currently awaiting). So I'll be dealing with the rationales then.
  • As for the photos, I received a bot message which requires proper licensing for the recently uploaded image. Which one should be used and is the rationale the one that is needed?
I'm not really sure about that 1986 image at all now—it appears it would be okay if it were promitional material and there were no alternatives. Can't be sure if it's promotional material, nor if there really are no alternatives. Probably best to ask at Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
No worries, I've decided to remove it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't have much luck in finding a image with all the current members that is under Wikipedia standards (low resolution, not authorized, etc.), so is there any appropriate picture from Commons to use maybe?
Take a look through here to see if there's anything you like, but it doesn't look like they've got a good recent full-band one. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This far, I've experienced a complete fiasco in uploading images. I'm afraid I can't do much here. It seems that the current photo is the best one we have. I just hope this won't hurt the nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It won't hurt anything—I was just hoping for something better. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the source about Megadeth being a successful heavy metal band—should I back it up with a ref in the lead? I think the sentence is derived from the "Legacy" saying the band was one of the few American underground bands from the 1980s achieving commercial success.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Acheiving commercial success" is not the same as being "one of the most successful". I'd drop that line, since the other info (sales, awards, "big four" status) already tells us they're very successful. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not getting rid of all of the sound files, are you? It won't hurt the nomination to lose them, but the article would definitely be better with at least one sample of their sound, and the use would be easily justified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I removed "Rattlehead" because it was a file from the album's 2002 reissue, and it wasn't really showing the "fuzzy" sound as explained in the article. I'm intending to incorporate an audio of "Peace Sells" as soon as Dawnseeker2000 gets it; the line with the "political cynicism" would be moved to the song's caption then.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images[edit]

Is there any photo on the Internet of the band during the 1980s or 1990s that's suitable for Wikipeida? I know Wiki has VERY strict policy on this topic, but really, seeing only walls of text in the first five sub-headings isn't quite pleasing.

As for the infobox picture, I've found File:Megadeth2010.jpg and File:Megadeth in Porto Alegre.jpg on Commons. The members aren't quite visible, so I wanted to ask if you could somehow shape the photos and make the members look bigger (something like File:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg→File:Megadeth at Sauna crop.jpg).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image could be cropped to just the band members, but it would display at the same width, so the members would remain just as small. I wouldn't worry about the infobox image—the FAC doesn't depend on it. Technically, walls of text won't hurt the FAC either, it would just be nicer if we could have lots of appropriate images. As I poited out above, you should probably throw the logo into the article somewhere—as a text logo, it's subject to trademark but not to copyright, so we're free to use it for our purposes.
(One other option is that you could contact the band and ask them to release an image under an appropriate license. No guarantees, and it probably won't happen quickly, but some public figures prefer that to having a shitty image of themselves at the top of a widely-viewed Wikipedia article.) Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, I will, though I don't have high hopes to achieving it quickly. As for the image of the first lineup, I really don't get it why we can't use the "promo material" license (even if I manage to find something where all members are visible) since it is being used for promotion of the band. But heh, what else can you do? Those two shitty photos are all we got, and if size of the members will remain the same, there's no need to modify the pics.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one issue is that we don't really know where the photo came from. It's part of a gallery rather than a press kit (which is what is required for it to fall under Fair Use, apparently). The photo might not belong to the band, and the photographer is uncredited (which means we can't credit the photographer). Plus, there are quite a number of free images of the band available—just not great ones (actually, a few of them are pretty good, just not the full-band ones). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the last unfinished note (proper rationales for samples) is now officially finished. Thank you so much for the review. If I get this promoted, you should deserve credit for it as much as I. And if you find some free images of the band, regardless of the period, please send me a link or upload them yourself if you will.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Eric Corbett[edit]

This article suffers from a problem common in articles of this type, a confusion between singular and plural. A few examples:

  • "In July, Megadeth was added as the opening act for Aerosmith's Get a Grip Tour, but were removed from the bill after fewer than six shows". That's also a bit vague, as zero would be fewer than six shows.
    • Vic pointed out above that the source he has says "fewer than six shows", and he doesn't have another source that specifies how many shows there were. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So? If the sentence can't be made more precise then it needs to be rewritten. What about "no more than five shows" for instance? Eric Corbett 22:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see the improvement. I'd prefer "a few" or something—at least be clear you're being imprecise. It's a moot point now—Vik's discovered it was three shows (though I don't see that number in the source). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me try and spell it out for you then. Minus infinity is less than six. Is that how many appearances they made, minus infinity? I really can't understand your reluctance to write clearly and without ambiguity. Eric Corbett 23:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "Let me try and spell it out for you then. Minus infinity is" no more than five. See? We can both math. I have no "reluctance to write clearly and without ambiguity", I have a reluctance to replace one wordier-than-necessary ambiguity with another wordier-than-necessary ambiguity. Perhaps you could demonstrate how four words ("no more than five") is less ambiguous and more clear than three ("fewer than six"), or better than two ("a few"). At least "a few" won't cause readers anxiety by implying the possibility of "minus infinity". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You clearly can't do "math", as the statement was "fewer than six". If this kind of attitude is maintained and the singular/plural issue isn't sorted out then I will have no hesitation in opposing this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      A fluent speaker of Gibberish, I see! I'm impressed. An oppose based on an inability to parse a fellow reviewer's comments would fall squarely within "inactionable" territory, so oppose away. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not doing your case any favours. Eric Corbett 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you just say "In July, Megadeth was added as the opening act for Aerosmith's Get a Grip Tour, but left after a few shows"? It doesn't really matter whether they played 4, 5, -47.22143 or e squared shows, does it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that exactly what I said above? It's a moot point, though, as Vic has long since tracked down a source that states it was three shows. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1985, the group released its debut album through Combat Records ... and they soon signed to Capitol Records.
  • "Megadeth is an American thrash metal band ... Their first major label album ...".

Eric Corbett 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a British thing, in the main. If the first example was made plural, it'd be fine (although I'm sure there'd be a few more things to fix). Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that it's a British thing to be consistent? Isn't that a good thing even for Americans? Megadeth is either singular or plural, I don't much care which, but it can't be both in the same article. Eric Corbett 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a British thing to use verbs and pronouns differently from articles when dealing with collective nouns. So you might say "A heavy metal group" but "they recorded". but that's the limit to the difference, it needs to be consistent in that convention. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not. The distinction is between the members of the group acting together as a single body or as a collection of individuals. For instance, did they each sign individually with Capitol Records? Eric Corbett 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the important thing is to be consistent. Even if a US reader jarred as seeing the band referred to in the singular, they'd jar even more when confronted with prose that swaps between that and plural. That's not what FA 1a compliant prose should be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just to chime in. I addressed the first issue; as for the second and third, it's a bit tricky. I was leaning towards the American way, as the band comes from the US, but there seem to appear some awkward situations. "They soon signed to Capitol Records" would sound unusual if we write it as "it signed with Capitol".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "American way"; there's a right way and a wrong way. I agree with you about potential awkwardness whether you chooose singular or plural, but that's easily dealt with by rephrasing, as I've done with the first example. Eric Corbett 19:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the sentence. By saying the American way I meant that I've chosen to refer to the band in third person singular, not that I've intended to use a different syntax.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you meant, but if you choose to refer to the band in the third person singular (and no reason why you shouldn't) then you must do so consistently. That's all I'm saying. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vic, you'll have to track down a RS for the number of shows Megadeth played in the Get a Grip tour—the source provided is the one that says "fewer than six". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article doesn't meet FA criterion 1a, and efforts to move it in that direction are being met with abuse. Eric Corbett 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, appologies for forgetting to add the source, I was in rush over repairing the lead. Hope you can reconsider your call.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Igordebraga[edit]

Think the musical samples will work better in boxes than embedded in the text, preferrably with a description that explains about the song's music and lyrics (I just added one to the Artistry section that could serve as an example). igordebraga ≠ 14:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think whether the audio sample will be placed in a box or embedded in the text is a matter of aesthetical taste. I removed the explanation about "Peace Sells" because it was going into unnecessary detail.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be aesthetical, but separating highlights the sample, and even adds some detail akin to the image captions. Just see Metallica and Jimi Hendrix to see how it works. Also, given Dave Mustaine is the band in a way, an image of just him could also complement (if only because after the infobox, the first image comes just on the 2004 section). But enough about media, I'll check on the text later. igordebraga ≠ 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Ritchie333[edit]

I've read through some of the article and have the following comments:

Lead[edit]
  • Do we need to say the band is "American", as opposed to what the infobox says which is "Los Angeles, California, United States". Okay, not everyone may know that California is in the US, but I think it's reasonably likely most readers will. It also helps avoiding starting off with two sentences that both say "American thrash metal"
I'm aware that the prose is problematic here, but almost every musician's biography begins with a sentence in which the nationality is mentioned.
  • "the lyrics convey gloomy themes" - I think it would be better just to mention the themes and leave it up to reader to decide whether they are "gloomy" (Nigel Farage thinks politics are a great reason to go to the pub and have a drink, for example!)
Corrected
  • "through Combat Records, an independent record label" - suggest "the independent label Combat Records"
Corrected
  • "and soon Megadeth signed to" - I'm not sure about using "soon" here - it's a bit vague. Maybe something like "which led to the band signing with"
Corrected
  • "aided in bringing" - "helped to bring"
Corrected
  • "without bassist David Ellefson" - should be "without Ellefson", per WP:LASTNAME and the fact we've already been told what his role is
Corrected
  • "as he had taken legal action against Mustaine" - suggest "who had taken legal action"
Corrected
  • "Ellefson rejoined the group in 2010. In the summer of 2005," - why did the narrative just jump back 5 years?
I was unsure about this one too. I haven't mentioned Gigantour before because the narrative about Ellefson's history with the band would be detached.
I've done a copyedit, and though it still "jumps" I think it's now less jarring. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group has experienced controversy over its musical approach" ... "the band's mascot, Vic Rattlehead, regularly appears on the album artwork" - reading this, I got the impression that Vic Rattlehead was something controversial, following on from the previous sentence. This might want rewording
Will change it; if you have any suggestion, please go ahead.
I'm thinking that it would read better if the three sentences that are there now were reversed—how this?—
As of 2014, Megadeth has sold 50 million records worldwide of its fourteen studio albums, six certified platinum in the United States, and the band has received eleven Grammy nominations. The band's mascot, Vic Rattlehead, regularly appears on album artwork, and from 2010 in live shows. The group has experienced controversy over its musical approach and lyricism, including canceled concerts and bans of albums. MTV has refused to play two of the band's videos that the network considered to condone suicide.
Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early days (1983-34)[edit]
  • "Upon starting the band, he and Ellefson had examined about 15 drummers" - examined sounds the wrong word, suggest "auditioned"
They didn't hold an audition, they simply researched a number of potential players.
  • "Kerry King from Slayer took duties on lead guitar." - just say "played" rather than "took duties". Also, what happened to King, and why was he required - as by the 1984 demo tape, Mustaine appears to have been happy to handle lead vocals and lead guitar.
Well, you need two guitarists upon starting a band. Mustaine was one, and King was asked to be the second one.
I think in the thrash world it was taken as a matter of course that a band needed two guitarists, and it was common to call one "lead" and the other "rhythm", even when both handled both duties (as in Metallica, with Hetfield supposedly on "rhythm" and Hammet on "lead"). I've switched up "filled in" for "took duties", at least until something better is suggested. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before replacing Rausch with jazz fusion drummer Gar Samuelson." - per earlier comments, how is "jazz fusion" relevant here
The drummer was playing jazz fusion before he joined a heavy metal band.
Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! (1985)[edit]
  • "After spending half of the album's budget on drugs, alcohol, and food, the band was forced to fire the original producer" - did the band spend the budget, or the producer, or both?
The band did. I think that is easy to assume reading the previous sentence which says "the band was given $8,000 by Combat Records".
  • "making the sound raw and unpolished" - this sounds like a personal opinion, in which case it would be better to attribute it as such
All of the album's reviews, all books in which the album is mentioned, say that it had "raw" and "unpolished" sound, thus making this statement a fact.

I have to agree with Eric that the prose, while worthy of GA status, doesn't really have that "gosh, I'd pay money to read this" factor that I get from, say, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Frank Zappa or Pink Floyd. I'll see if I can get through the rest of the article before giving a final judgement, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Turkey[edit]

  • Hey, Vic, we keep reading about Mustaine's struggle with addiction, but do we know what he was addicted to? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I can't find the name of the drug. The closest thing I came to was MTV's report that "he relapsed after over a decade of sobriety".
Googling around, it looks like it was heroin, but I haven't turned up an appropriate source. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's this, and it looks like there are others like it if you search Google Books. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you've added that it was a heroin addiction now, but you haven't backed it up with a source—the one that follows where you put "heroin" doesn't mention heroin at all. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thoght you were going to add the source. On which page from the book I can find the information?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think a lot of us were inconsistent [on the 1988 tour] because of the guy we were waiting for after the show.": We all know who that "guy" is, but in an encyclopaedia it's best to be explicit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it me, or I just can't figure out who "the guy" is?
  • the band completed what fans considered to be the "definitive" version of Megadeth.: fans at the time, or today? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think the author was speaking retrospectively: "The Rust in Peace lineup would be regarded by many fans as the definitive version of Megadeth"
  • and started to write songs with refined arrangements.: what does "refined" mean in this context? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an alternative for the word "melodic", which is used multiple times afterwards.
  • their jeans and t-shirts for a more conscious appearance: can we get brief examples of what they did wear? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible since the source doesn't state that.
  • Due to a problem with the album's original artwork: What kind of problem? Is it really worth mentioning that it was changed at all? Sounds like trivia to me. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected
Corrected
Corrected
Turk, what about the "definitive lineup" and "refined arrangements"? Should we modify them somehow?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change "fans considered" to "fans consider" and it'll convey that that's the view held today (right?); "refined" definitely doesn't mean "melodic", so that'll have to change. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • except for Mustaine and Ellefson, the episode showcased numerous past members,: with "except" it means Mustaine and Ellefson weren't in the show—is that the case? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the word with "beside". Mustaine and Ellefson were featured in the movie.
  • While rehearsing for the tour, drummer Nick Menza left the band: the last we heard about Menza, he'd been kicked out of the band already. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • filmed and recorded for a live DVD and CD released in the second quarter of 2006.: was it a CD/DVD set, or a separate CD and DVD? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two discs in one package. Corrected.
Removed them. The source couldn't be verified. I adressed some of the issues, and responded above to the ones that weren't/couldn't be corrected.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more Turkey[edit]

  • "the instrumental virtuosity of the NWOBHM with the speed and aggression of hardcore punk": this seems to imply that some of the bands previously mentioned were hardcore punk—I've never heard of the Pistols classified that way. Are there any specific hardcore bands that can be named (or maybe move the Misfits earlier than this quote if we are going to consider them hardcore)?
No, the author doesn't list any bands from that genre; the Misfits are mentioned as a lyrical influence.
Well, the hardcore influence just jumps out of nowhere. Maybe just drop it? Or replace it with a similar quote from someone else? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is UFO neither metal nor hard rock? Listing this band with the Beatles makes it sound like they were some pop band, especially when you've got lists of metal and hard rock bands preceding it.
They are cited as an influence by Mustaine. We can not place them above because that will cause WP:SYNTH.
Well, something has to be done about it. Maybe a list of NWOBHM followed by a list of "metal and rock" bands? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟
Oh, you think it's awkward to place the Beatles and UFO in the same basket? Blabbermouth asked Mustaine to list 5 recording that influenced him at his early stages, and he listed albums by the Beatles, UFO, Led Zeppelin and AC/CD. Since Led Zep and AC/DC are previously mentioned, I wrote that albums by UFO and Beatles also influenced him (nowhere did I mentioned genres in that sentence).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue of organization—it looks sloppy. Anyone who knows who UFO is will be bewildered by why they are grouped with the Beatles rather than the rock or metal bands. We don't have to follow the sources slavishly in their own organization—regrouping the lists would not necessarily constitute SYNTH. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drummer Shawn Drover stated that Mustaine had saved many riffs over the years and that some recent material is based on those demo recordings.: "recent" as of when?
  • because Mustaine believes it to provide a superior melody compared to alternative methods of tuning: what does guitar tuning have to do with melody? Can you double-check what the source says? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checked. Sounds confusing, but that's the quote: "I feel that the guitar needs to be tuned to A440 so you can get the correct response out of it. And I believe that if you play some of those low-tuned songs on a guitar in standard tuning, you’ll hear that a lot of them don’t have good melodies. It becomes almost atonal and percussive."
I think I know what he's talking about, and I'm pretty sure it's not what the article is saying. I might just drop it—it's not like playing in standard tuning is such a surprising thing that it needs to be justified. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mustaine is described as rhythm guitarist, and then Pillsbury calls Friedman "Megadeth's other lead guitarist". Can we find a better way to transition into this?
  • Mustaine drunkenly and confusedly dedicated the song to the "cause" of "giving Ireland back to the Irish!" Before the final song, Mustaine said, "This one's for the cause!": did he dedicate it to the "cause" twice, or is this being repeated? Was "Anarchy" the last song?
    • Perhaps a short footnote on the meaning of "the cause" would be helpful?
He dedicated it once before the performance of "Anarchy" as the final song; a foornote describing the event and the "the cause" is added.
  • Ellefson suing Mustaine: how is "profits" different from "merchandise and publishing royalties"?
Profit can be made of various things (records, equipment, etc.), not just merchandise and author's rights.
  • Mustaine allegedly threatened to cancel shows: who alleged this?
Decibel reported it, but why does that matter in the big picture? The important thing is that Mustaine intended to cancel the show, not the magazine who published it. Or I can just omit "allegedly".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the word "allegedly"—see WP:ALLEGED. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

——— Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This review has been active six weeks and I can't see it progressing to consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 4 June 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.

Sega Saturn[edit]

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

The article was not promoted.


Nominator(s): TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that was released during a period of significant upheaval in the industry. 3D gaming hit its stride and Sony's PlayStation shifted the paradigm with unprecedented mainstream success, but for every successful gamble there were those that didn't pan out. Certain companies and genres fell by the wayside, as they failed to foresee the threat posed by the admittedly rudimentary early 3D games. The Nintendo 64 stuck with cartridges over CDs and lost much of the third-party support Nintendo's previous systems had enjoyed. Although Sega's Saturn launched before the PlayStation and the Nintendo 64, and enjoyed moderate success in Japan due to the popularity of Sega's Virtua Fighter and a few RPGs exclusive to the Japanese market, the console's commercial failure was arguably the beginning of the end for Sega as a hardware manufacturer. The Saturn was a troubled system--tainted from birth by the last-minute addition of an extra video display processor to compete with Sony, rushed to launch in North America months before most software was ready, a catalyst for disagreement and division between the American and Japanese branches of Sega, abruptly discontinued to make way for the upcoming Sega Dreamcast--yet it is still revered by hardcore fans as perhaps Sega's finest hour as a game developer, and remains the subject of much debate over things Sega might have done differently.

This article has gone through a number of restructurings to reach the level of quality you see today. Indrian's thoughtful historical research and keen insight has assisted me in polishing Red Phoenix's Good Article to the point where it now surpasses the wildest expectations I had at the time of my first edit. It is my honor to submit Sega Saturn here for consideration as a FA, as I believe it fully satisfies all of Wikipedia's criteria for what a FA should be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • Fair point. The backup cartridge isn't even mentioned in the article.
Personally, I'd make a collage of four images for the bottom one (it allows for a larger thumbnail and thus easier viewing). I'd cut the Model 2 controller. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that one of the four links used for the graph of Sega's financial trouble has died. If this is going to be a problem, I will gladly remove it. Because all of these images were here before I began involvement, I can't really say why both the Japanese and International logos are used, although I would speculate it may be related to the fact that the Saturn sold more units in Japan than the rest of the world combined.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it's standard practice in these articles to use the two major relevant logos. If only one is kept, I would say it should be the JP logo. But, ideally both should be there. (I have not contributed anything to this article, at least not that I recall). After I go through and do my images review on Sega CD, I'll take a look at this article and consider a review.--SexyKick 22:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Genesis, it appears you are correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and yes; it would be great if you could remove the background from the Arcade Racer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TTAAC, you know you can get link archives if a link dies on you, right? Even if the link is already dead, crawlers like web.archive.org might have an archived version of the page, or if it's a link from a publication, you could always remove the URL and cite just the publication itself if it's available in print. Just a thought. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but it seems that even the Wayback Machine stops working on occasion. I wouldn't feel comfortable citing a print version of Sega's 2002 Annual Report, because I've never seen it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Did you let Red Phoenix know about this nomination? I mean he did help get this article to GA status. GamerPro64 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged him both in the talk page section where I first suggested nomination, and in my comment above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of this nomination. Total props to TTAAC and Indrian for fine work here. I'm too significant a contributor to support or oppose in my opinion, but not enough of one to take credit for the FAC nom at all - all of that goes to the nominating editor in this case. Depending on my available time, I may have a look and suggest some comments, however, given it's been some time since I've really looked it over. Also, quickly to TheTimesAreAChanging - congrats on your first FAC. Red Phoenix let's talk... 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

Hi there. This is my first time participating in a FAC, so please correct me if I make any mistakes. For the references I review, I will correct any minor issues myself. References that have issues that have not be addressed with be indicated with a bold "!". If there are multiple content issues with a source, I will indicate which instances of the citation have issues by using their letter designations. I have individually checked the content of each reference (unless otherwise noted).

  • Ref 1 (!)(3 cites) - Added URL to online reprint of original article (reprinted with permission) hosted on Sega-16.com. The first two claims are fine, but third claim that "After the holiday season, however, interest in the 32X rapidly declined" is not supported by the citation. The article makes no mention of the 32X.
  • Ref 2 (!)(3 cites) - Missing page numbers. See last paragraph.
  • Ref 3 (!)(5 cites) - Added publication year.
a - supports the claim that "the release of a CD-based add-on for the Genesis, the Sega CD (known as Mega-CD outside of North America), had been commercially disappointing." While the article tangentially implies that the Sega CD was a commercial failure ("despite having some impressive titles...failed to catch on with the Sega faithful"), the article is almost exclusively about the Sega 32X (a different add-on for the Genesis) in conjuntcion with the Saturn. The only other mentions of the Sega CD's failure (which are also brief and tangential) cover it in terms of its bundle with the Genesis and use in conjunction with the 32X. The citation could easily be replaced with a source that more strongly supports the claim. Might also consider adding the failure of the 32X in with the Sega CD (since they're both peripherals for the Genesis that suffered from similar pitfalls).
b - the claim this supports is "... the Saturn's design was largely finished before the end of 1993," but the only mention in the cited article about the Saturn's timeline is for the release date (November 1994), not the when production was completed. The rest look good.
  • Ref 4 (1 cite) - Added year. Good.
  • Ref 5 (5 cites) - See last paragraph.
  • Ref 6 (17 cites) - This source is quite lengthy (11 separate URLs in total) and split up into discreet subsections with separate sub headings. Since it's cited so many times, and since only certain sections of it deal with the Saturn (the article overall is about the history of the Sega company), you might consider splitting it into two citations (pages six and eight are the only ones used) with individual page numbers to make this more easily accessible. In fact if this is acceptable, leave a comment letting me know and I'll do it myself since I'm now intimately familiar with the content. I've seen this type of splitting before in featured articles, but I don't know if it's standard practice. (For ease of reference later, I'm printing the page numbers for each instance here).
a - (pg 8) good.
b - (pg 6) good.
c - (pg 6) good.
d - (pg 8) the Virtua Fighter series is mentioned several times, but this is the only page where it's discussed in terms of the Saturn. There's no mention of the 1:1 ratio, but it does support the claim that Virtua Fighter was crucial to the Saturn. Looks tentatively good (pending content check of Refs 5, 22 and 23).
e - (pg 8) Source states "The initial shipment of 200,000 systems sold almost as fast as stores could get them on shelves." Our article says they sold out in the first day. Looks tentatively good (pending content check of Refs 5 and 22).
f through q - (pg 8) good.
  • Ref 7 (9 cites) - all good.
  • Ref 8 (!)(1 cite) - I'm fairly certain this quote is actually from the July 1994 (issue 1) issue of EGM2 , a spin off magazine EGM started up in 1994. As far as I can tell, the July 1994 (issue 60) of EGM does not contain the interview, but I can't seem to find a copy of EGM2. Either way, the citation is missing page and issue numbers.
  • Ref 9 - (!)(8 cites) - the quote on this one is rather lengthy.
a-g - all good.
h - The article states that "The Titan [ST-V] was not supported by Sega AM2's Yu Suzuki," but in the article, the only thing Suzuki says about this issue is "I think it will be hard to develop good software for the ST-V. It's not that I think the hardware is bad, but personally, I've got more interest in high-end machines. But because of the low price, ST-V will be Sega's new flagship hardware for the coin-op market." This seems like a weak support for the claim. At best, Suzuki was pessimistic about how the Titan would do, but I don't think this supports the claim that he did not support it. Maybe it's because 'not supported' in this context is a bit loose. Does it mean he was against it or that he simply thought it was a bad idea?
  • Ref 10 (1 cite) - good.
  • Ref 44 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
  • Ref 45 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
  • Ref 47 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
  • Ref 50 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
  • Ref 71 - added language parameter (page is in Japanese). Not checked for content.
  • Ref 72* - duplicate of ref 65, now merged.
  • Ref 111 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
  • Ref 121 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.
  • Ref 123 - functional redirect. Updated with current URL. Not checked for content.

Other notes:

  • The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World is individually cited in refs 2, 5, 12, 18, 26, 30, 31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 48, 55, 106, and 111. These all cite different page numbers, and the eBook edition I obtained does not use the same page numbering system. I will post an addendum for the validity of these references after I obtain a hard copy from the library.
  • The date format on access/archive dates switched randomly between MONTH, DAY YEAR and YYYY-MM-DD. I've standardized to YYYY-MM-DD for all access and archive dates, since that seems to be the most common, and to MONTH, DAY YEAR for publication dates (since that is most common) per MOS:DATEUNIFY.
  • There is quite a bit of quoting in the citations. I'm not sure what our policy is on this, but the quote in ref 3 "Scot Bayless: The 32X call was made in early January [1994] ... There's a part of me that wishes the Saturn had adopted the 32X graphics strategy, but that ship had sailed long before the greenlight call from Nakayama." This is definitely an interesting tidbit, but it doesn't do anything to further support of the claims in the article that the citation is used for. I haven't read the article in full, so maybe something like this is already incorporated, but if not, here's another quote from the article: "[Saturn] had the advantage of doing the rendering in hardware, but the rendering scheme also tended to create a lot of problems, and the pixel overwrite rate was very high; much of the advantage of dedicated hardware was lost to memory stalls. The X32, on the other hand, did everything in software but gave two fast RISC chips tied to great big frame buffers and complete control to the programmer." If this sort of comparison isn't already touched on in the article, it might be worthwhile to add it.
  • Question - Is it acceptable to link to a web.archive.org archive of a magazine issue? Some of the magazine prints I found were hosted there. It seems like this is a copy right violation on their end, but since we use them for other archives, I wasn't sure.

I'll post a second part with more content review (it takes a while to find and thoroughly check all this stuff) in a day or two. Please leave any comments below my signature, rather than commenting directly under bullet points. I will put a strike through any issues that are resolved. --chrisFjordson (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1-Fixed. I believe Red Phoenix meant to cite the 32X "Retroinspection" here.
  • Ref 2-I provided a different page number every single time I cited Kent. Red Phoenix preferred to use the name of the chapter he was citing, so the chapter could be referenced multiple times. That is why references 2, 18, 26, 38, 41, and 55 have a chapter name and no page numbers. If this is a problem, it would not be hard to add on what pages those chapters begin and end. However, I assume that Red Phoenix has used this format elsewhere, and that it was not an issue when Sega Genesis became a FA.
  • Ref 3-No comment on whether or not a source more specific to the Sega CD should be used for the first claim. The second claim is based on reference 11 (Next Generation), not reference 3. The Bayless quote from reference 3 is simply an additional piece of anecdotal evidence which complements Next Generation.
  • Ref 6-I believe your suggestion is acceptable, I just preferred to keep things simple by citing the source one time. While I cited several different sources on the popularity of Virtua Fighter, the 1:1 ratio is from reference 5 (Kent). Sold out on the first day is from reference 22 (Edge), but I wanted to include other sources that gave a similar account.
  • Ref 8-Fixed. Red Phoenix only added the source at Indrian's request (Indrian was doing the Good Article review), and didn't appear to have a copy himself, so it's easy to see how a minor mistake like that might have slipped in. Good catch!
  • Ref 9-What I meant was that Suzuki didn't develop any games for the ST-V, because of the reasons he gave in the article. (Suzuki's arcade games usually ran on the most expensive and state-of-the-art arcade boards available. The ST-V was supported mainly by Sega's least-talented developers.) If that explanation does not satisfy you, I am willing to rephrase the sentence.
As for the quoting in the citations, I don't believe it violates any policy. It's certainly my doing. I like including additional information to flesh out the claims in the main text, and wanted to include quotes especially from those sources that are not available online.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just noticed the tidbit I mentioned in ref 3 is supported by ref 11 as I was checking it. For the first note on ref 3, it's not an actual problem, but if I find a stronger source as I'm checking references I'll switch it out. As for the quotes, when I said policy, I meant it informally. I literally didn't know when it was appropriate to use quotes but I don't have a problem with it. For ref 9, if you could clarify it in the article it would help. The current wording is a little vague.
Honestly, everything I've noticed so far has been pretty trivial; the references seem solid. I'm going to continue to comb through, but I don't foresee any problems on this end of the review. Nice job on the article, it looks good.--chrisFjordson (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified the statement based on ref 9. Thank you very much for your time and insight; I look forward to the rest of your source review.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's part two (11-22). It was almost uniformally good, only minors issues, I've made any corrections necessary myself.

  • Ref 11 (8 cites) - all good.
  • Ref 12 (3 cites) - content review pending my obtaining a copy of the book from the library.
  • Ref 13 (1 cite) - good.
  • Ref 14 (20 cites) - Noted pages for ease of reference. I'd also like to split this up into individual pages if that's ok. Fixed date format. All good!
a, f, h, i, n, p, q, s, t - (page 4) good
b, c, d, e, m - (page 2) good
g - (page 3) good
j - (page 5) good
k, l, o - (page 6) good
r - (page 1) good
  • Ref 15 (2 cites) - both good.
  • Ref 16 (5 cites) - date and accessdate were switched, fixed. Fixed date format. - all good.
  • Ref 17 (1 cite) - Fixed date format. Good.
  • Ref 18 (2 cites) - Fixed date format. Both good.
  • Ref 19 (4 cites (previously 1)) - content review pending, but I noticed that this and ref 38 are duplicates (both reference the same chapter in the book, no page numbers). Merged under ref name="KSL".
  • Ref 20 (2 cites (previously 1)) - While this article does state the price of the 32X, it does not explicitly state that the console is aimed at players who could not afford the Saturn. I'm leaving this reference in place but supplementing it with Ref 3 which very explicitly states the claim. I've also added this citation to the last claim of ref 3 since it states that sales sagged after an initial rush.
  • Ref 21 (2 cites) - both good.
  • Ref 22 (1 cite) - good.

Other Notes:

  • I split ref 6 as discussed.
  • I thought I had fixed all the date formats in my initial once over, but it looks like there are still some in the YYYY-MM-DD format. Will switch to MONTH, DAY YEAR as I comb through (access and archive dates should stay in YYYY-MM-DD format).--chrisFjordson (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3 (24-49) I've made any corrections myself (all minor) and added two new citations (Eurogamer and IGN).

  • Ref 24 (4 cites) - I absolutely could not find this one anywhere, and no one in our in-house reference library is listed as having a copy. (Edge February 1995, Issue 17). Based on what's in the citation data, it looks ok.
  • Ref 25 - Good. note: Since several references already has it, I'm going to go ahead and add "[magazine name] staff" as the author for references (such as Next Generation Magazine) where the source doesn't supply an author.
  • Ref 26 & 27 - both good.
  • Ref 29 - both good.
  • Ref 30 - added date parameter. The cited source only says "the Sony keynote speaker," it doesn't mention Steve Race by name. Supplemented with Ref 17 (ref name="Tale of Two E3s").
  • Ref 31 - added page number. Good.
  • Ref 35 - Good.
  • Ref 36 - Added archiveurl and archivedate parameters (archiveurl was previously given as url parameter). Good.
  • Ref 37 - Good.
  • Ref 38 - Good.
  • Ref 40 - Added link to article reprint on thefreelibrary.com. Good.
  • Ref 43 - behind a paywall. Based on the free blurb, this looks like it supports the claim.
  • Ref 44 - Good.
  • Ref 45 - Good, but I've supplemented this with a source from IGN to demonstrate his previous involvement in arcade development.
  • Ref 46 - I added this (see above).
  • Ref 47 & 48 - both good.
  • Ref 49 - good.

Other Notes

  • I've added a source from Eurogamer to the claim that the Sega CD was commercially disappointing. This is now Ref 4, so all the refs are bumped up a number; this will be reflected from this comment onward, but not in the previous comments. I'm also going to go ahead and add this to the 32X article since the same source in ref 3 is used for the same claim there.

Alright, I finally got time to pick up a copy of "The Ultimate History of Video Games," so I'm going to go ahead and knock those out.

  • Ref 2 (!) - good, but there's a minor issue on the last instance. The text reads "The Japanese board of directors initially disapproved of the plan, but all four points were approved by Nakayama, who told Kalinske, "I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it." In the source material, Kalinske is recounting his pitch to the Japanese board, and says "As the other guys got up to leave, Nakayama turned and said, 'On the other hand, he was hired to make decisions for the U.S. market, and if that is what he thinks needs to be done, he should go ahead and do it.'" Nakayama is talking about Kalinske, not to him. Either (a) the quotes need to be dropped and the tidbit reworded, or (b) reworked with quotes intacted (eg all four points were approved by Nakayama, who told the board "[Kalinske] was hired to make decisions for the U.S. market, and if that is what he thinks needs to be done, he should go ahead and do it.") I think the latter is preferable since it's a more accurate depiction of the events as recounted in the source, but I would like your input on this.
  • Ref 6 - good.
  • Ref 13 - good. Note: In the part where you discuss programmers having trouble with the Saturn, you might mention that even Suzuki had difficulty with the dual-processors while making the Saturn version of Daytona.
  • Ref 20 (!) - a is good. b, c, and d are a problem. I'm going to copy/paste the paragraph here with my notes in bolded brackets to make this easier (note: the following is all one paragraph, although I have split it up here based on the ref letters). The chapter cited (The "Next" Generation (part 1)) deals primarily with the events of 1994 and, when talking about Sega, focuses almost exclusively on the 32X.
b - By the end of 1995, Sega was supporting five different consoles — Saturn, Genesis, Game Gear, Pico, and theMaster System — as well as the Sega CD and Sega 32X add-ons.[this is found on pg 508, should be tagged with reference 28] In Japan the Mega Drive had never been successful, and the Saturn was outselling the PlayStation, so Sega Enterprises CEO Hayao Nakayama decided to focus on the Saturn.[also 28 (pg 508)] While this was logical for the Japanese market, it proved to be a disastrous move in North America and Europe: the market for Genesis games was much larger than for the Saturn, but Sega was left without the inventory or software to meet demand.[20] [Not this chapter. I know other sources in our reflist have discussed this issue in greater detail. The last sentence of this claim could be supported with one of them.]
c - By contrast, Nintendo concentrated on the 16-bit home console market, as well as its successful handheld, the Game Boy, and as a result Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share,[needs to be supplemented with Ref 40] despite not launching a 32-bit console to compete directly with Sony's PlayStation and Sega's Saturn.[20] [This one is the most problematic. The only 16-bit game discussed here is Donkey Kong Country (released in 1994). At the 1994 CES they unveil the plans for Ultron 64 to reporters (although the Ultron [N64] didn't come out until after 1995), but the chapter never explicitly states anything like "Nintendo concentrated on the 16-bit home console market". The only mention of the Gamboy in this chapter is their plans for the Super Game Boy in 1994 and the fact that by this time Game Boy sales had slowed. The biggest problem is that this chapter does not discuss the release of Sega or Sony's 32-bit consoles. Making this comparison between the three companies using this chapter as a reference doesn't really make sense.]
d - Due to Sega's decision to cut support to its 16-bit business to focus on the Saturn[again, not this chapter], Nintendo was able to capitalize by its continued focus on the SNES and the Game Boy from 1995 onward.["1995 onward" feels a little loose; they released the N64 in Japan and North American in 1996. Also, Ref 20 does not support this statement.] While Sega was still able to capture 43 percent of the dollar share of the U.S. video game market as a whole,[40] [Good] Nakayama's decision undercut the Sega of America executives.[20][not this chapter. If we use Ref 28 for this, it needs a cf. for this instance].

:note: if you can rework this with the right sources then that's fine, but you might want to redo the whole paragraph from scratch. Ref 40 is fine.

  • Ref 28 - All good. Note: this source doesn't actually say "Saturnday", it just says "Sega Saturn Saturday". I know I've seen it in stated as "Saturnday" in other sources. Will update once I find it.
  • Ref 32, 33, 39, 41 - Good.
  • Ref 42 - good. Note: You might want to reword "lighter image", it's a little vague. Maybe softer.
  • Ref 50 - Good. Note: You might want to briefly describe what Gameworks is and/or mention Spielberg's involvement.
  • Ref 57 - All good.
  • Ref 108 - Good.
  • Ref 113 (!) - duplicate of ref 32 (both cite pg 533). Needs to be merged.

The way this source is cited needs to be standardized. I'd like to cite it by page number rather than chapter title since that's the predominate format (plus page numbers make it way easier to check). As it is now several of the page number citations overlap with the chapter citations. Let me know your thoughts on this. I'd be happy to do it myself once the problems with Ref 20 are resolved. --chrisFjordson (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response: As much as Red Phoenix is a tremendously good editor involved with far more Good and Featured articles than I will probably ever be, in his rush to get this page to GA as quickly as possible he did make a few sloppy mistakes (my original goal here was to make Sega Saturn worthy of the GA name, not the FA). Chief among these are the large swathes of text he copied-and-pasted from Sega Genesis and Sega 32X. The whole paragraph about Nintendo capitalizing on their continued focus on the SNES while Sega supposedly abandoned the Genesis has been a problem prompting both trimming and talk page discussion for some time. The original version included commentary about the Sega Nomad being undermined by the success of Pokemon (as well as shout-outs to Donkey Kong Country 3 and Super Mario RPG) and cited "32X Follies" for the claim that Super Metroid demonstrated the Genesis' "lagging capabilities" (there is no mention of Super Metroid in "32X Follies", which cites the Super FX-powered Yoshi's Island instead; RP probably meant to cite Kent, who does mention Super Metroid, but I'm surprised that such errors made it past the FAC review for Sega 32X). Beyond trimming, I have previously challenged the entire premise of the paragraph. It is worth noting, however, that fairly similar text made it into the FA Sega Genesis. This has contributed to my ambivalence about what to do with the material. I am aware of Suzuki's troubles with Saturn Daytona, and would be happy to add that to the article. As for the rest of the issues you have pointed out--I'll see what I can do.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: For the record, the bit about Super Metroid was copied by RP, but User:SexyKick (not RP) added it to Sega 32X in the first place. RP has further explained to me that he used chapters because he doesn't have a physical copy of Kent's book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the paragraph about the 1995 holiday season, added a source for "Saturnday", and tweaked the article in response to your comments.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to the page numbers next, unless you beat me to it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your rewrite of that paragraph looks great. It's more cogent and the sources are good. I'll leave the page numbers to you; I'm going to start in on the next round of references.--chrisFjordson (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like there is a minor issue with ref 40. The URL works if you copy/paste it, but if you click on the reference, it's broken. The URL contains two single quote marks side by side, so Wikipedia interprets it as formatting and truncates the URL (causing the break). Unfortunately, adding nowiki tags inside the URL parameter messes it up even worse. Currently, the truncated chuck is part of the ref title. I have no idea how to fix this. Maybe we could drop the cite web template for this and format the citation by hand? Although I'm not sure that would fix the problem since we'd still need nowiki tags. I don't know. I'm stumped on this one. --chrisFjordson (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could eliminate the link. It's still a published source off the web.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Mega Drive "Retroinspection" is being used as the source for Nakayama's approval of Kalinske's plan, not Kent. In that source, the following version of the quote is used: "I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it." Since both Retro Gamer and Kent are citing Kalinske, it really is a judgement call which variant we use, but we need to decide now so that we know which source to use.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, you're right. The original version of the quote is fine then. And duh, I can't believe it didn't occur to me to just remove the link from the citation. It's a shame we can't include it though. Oh well. I guess if someone is really interested in reading the source they can just google it.--chrisFjordson (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it czar ♔ 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch (57-76) Note: the numbers have shifted a bit since the restructuring of the Kent citations.

  • Ref 57, 58, 59 - good.
  • Ref 61 - All good. Note: the wording in the first instance is a little repetitive. Two back-to-back sentences start with the phrase "Development of the game".
  • Ref 62 - Good. Note: the last paragraph has some minor discrepancies. (1)The source only says "holiday" and "winter" deadline.(2) The article says the work day was 20 hours. Also, that the office move was to "avoid company politics" is not stated in the source. (3) The last bit about NiGHTS happens before the other events in the paragraph, but the way it's currently organized makes it sound like they tried to get the NiGHTS engine in a last ditch effort after the office was moved. You might want to rework the whole paragraph; some of the wording is a little wonky.
  • Ref 63 - Good. Note: You might want to incorporate the sentence "Levels appeared to move around Sonic" into one of the previous sentences. It reads weirdly with it just sort of hanging off the end of the paragraph.
  • Ref 64 - Good. Note: The portion of the paragraph before the claim this citation supports (that the game was pushed back) needs to be supplemented with one of the other citations.
  • Ref 65, 66, 68 - Good.
  • Ref 69 - the info is good, but "some have cited as an example of theOsborne effect." Are there other instances of this besides ref 69? Either way it should be reworded to avoid running afoul of WP:VAGUE, or scrapped all together.
  • Ref 71 - This one is off. Our claim is "In Japan, the console sold 6 million units." In the article, it states "After the company sold some 20 million 16-bit Genesis consoles in the United States alone in the early 1990's, its 32-bit Saturn flopped. Introduced in 1995, only two million of the consoles sold in the United States, and five million in Japan." I think the mix up might be because the article also says that "Sony's Playstation and Nintendo's 64-bit console have each sold more than six million units in the United States alone." Note: I supplemented a claim with this source in the "decline" subsection.
  • Ref 72 - I found this extremely in depth arguement over this very issue, which has a scan of the relevant page of the magazine in question, so this on is good. They also claim in that discussion that Gamespy supports the claim as well, but they don't cite a reference and I can't find it on their site. Our List of million-selling game consoles says that "Famitsu reported 3.58 million in Japan and 25 million for the United States and Europe by the end of March 1996" in Famitsu Weekly, but I also can't find the Famitsu report, and I'd be very uneasy citing it without reading the source. I think this one is fine the way it is, but I just wanted to note here, in case it come up again, that this number has been the subject of some debate, and that consensus seems to be what we have in the article.
  • Ref 73, 74, 75, 76 - good.

Note: I thought this was a weird disconnect so I thought I'd point it out. In the Icons interview we quote, Stolar says "I believe if we look at [the Sega] Saturn, it was a system that shouldn't have been launched. It was too difficult to develop for therefore the games were not fun and the games weren't there.This isn't a matter about hardware, this is about software. Software has always driven hardware. You don't have the software, the hardware will fail," but in IGN Presents the History of Dreamcast "I thought the Saturn was a mistake as far as hardware was concerned," remarked an unrepentant Stolar. "The games were obviously terrific, but the hardware just wasn't there." This is odd to me. It's certainly strange to me to see Stolar completely condradict himself on the issue, and I'm wondering if we should include the quote from IGN since Stolar is obviously of two minds on the subject. The discrepancy from such an important figure might help to highlights the multiple issues the system faced. Just a thought. --chrisFjordson (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the issues with the section on X-treme were caused by the IGN article not being supplemented by the more in-depth GamesRadar article, although their disagreement on the work hours is duly noted. Sales numbers fixed. To be honest, I had previously noticed both of those discrepancies and simply forgot to fix them. (Considering I was still finding errors like the wrong Dreamcast launch date a couple of days after the FA nomination, it's perhaps fair to say I should have done a more thorough fact-checking before nominating, but then again another pair of eyes really helps.) Good catch on the timeframe of STI's request for the Nights engine! I've never been comfortable with the section about the Osborne effect, and neither has Indrian as I recall, so I removed it. As for the Stolar quote, I noticed the same thing you did right away (and Red Phoenix tried to delete it) but the user who added it insisted that we keep it in. Are you saying we should include both quotes?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I actually found the video in that section, and I understand his rationale for wanting to keep it in, but it is a clear discrepancy. Plus the IGN quote is more recent, so I don't know if in the meantime Stolar's opinion did a complete 180 or he perhaps simply forgot what he had previously thought. I thought one possible solution might be to just have both included, one after the other, but I realize from a formatting perspective that might not look too clean on the page. I don't know. I'm not really of a strong opinion on this issue, but it seems weird to include the earlier quote knowing what he's more recently said. But I don't want to just have no quote; I think it adds to the article to have Stolar's perspective on it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Would anyone else like to weigh in?
Also, good call on removing the Osborne effect bit, but I think the article would still benefit from including the quote from Stolar where he says "the Saturn is not our future" since helped to solidify the turning point in Sega's direction. I've seen it in several of the other sources, so we could just add it back in with one of them. And great job so far!--chrisFjordson (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will re-add the Stolar quote from E3 1997 shortly, and add a little more on Stolar in the process. We have two blockquotes from Stolar already, so I am reluctant to add a third, especially since it could appear that Wikipedia is trying to combine the quotes to make a point or catch Stolar in some kind of contradiction. But I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who may be watching this page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth noting that a Next Generation Online article dated July 16 says (regarding Kalinske's departure) that "No official word has come from Sega yet, although an announcement is expected by the end of today." July 16 is also the date given by M2PressWIRE, which suggests that the July 15 date given by Kent page 535 is wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I finally checked the M2PressWIRE article for myself: "Sega also announced that Hayao Nakayama and David Rosen have resigned as chairman and co-chairman of Sega of America, respectively." This announcement was made the same day, July 16, so there is no need for us to copy Kent's vague "within the week" language.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Changes at Sega" section has been revamped for accuracy and detail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about the fact that citing them both might make Stolar look foolish, but you're right. If you're comfortable with just keeping the Icons quote already present, I'm fine with it too. Also, I haven't had a chance to look over your rework of the Changes at Sega section, but I look forward to reading it.--chrisFjordson (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 83 - Good. Note: The SCU's DPS runs at 14.3 Mhz. Also I really appreciate that there was a link for this one, but is it a possible copyvio? For reference, the site hosts a seemingly comprehensive collection of Saturn-related technical manuals.
  • 84 - Good. Note - This and the above look good to me, but someone more familiar with these sort of technical specs might want to give it a once over.
  • 86, 137 - Good.
  • 87, 88 - Good.
  • 89 - Good. Note: Do we have something that explicitly states that the geometric primitives were triangles for the PS and N64? It is strongly implied in the interview, but not directly stated, and although the interviewer mentions the N64, the answers focus on the PS. If there's nothing handy, this one is still fine.
  • 90 - Good.
  • 91-107 - Looks good. Note: I am using Google's page translator for these.
  • 108 - Good, although I'm not sure the page specifically states that the service was pay-to-play (using translate for this as well. The info might be contained in one of the four brochure images, but my translator can't touch those).
  • 110, 111 - good.
  • 112 -
Fighting Vipers, Golden Axe: The Duel, Sega Touring Car Championship - these games are not featured in as one of the 50 games in the article. If they were mentioned off-handedly in one of the other game's reviews, I didn't see it.
Sega Rally - probably supposed to be Sega Rally Championship
Marvel Super Heroes - article discusses Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter, a different game.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Resident Evil, Wipeout 2097 - our article says mixed results for these ports, but this article (the only source) points out only these games strong points and even heaps praise on them. The only possible mixed result is WipEout, but the article dismisses the only flaw it points out. If we're going to keep the mixed results part we need other sources that give them at least some criticism.
Die Hard Arcade - minor note: the article doesn't specifically mention that it's a port, but I think the name suffices.
Tomb Raider - minor note: the article does not mention that Core Design made the game.
  • Ref 113, 114 - I'd feel more comfortable calling it critically acclaimed if we individually cited another review or two.
  • Ref 115, 116, 117 - Good.
  • Ref 118-122 - Good, Note: should we abbreviate "Nights Into Dreams..." as "Nights"? Not just here, but in general. It seems like we switch from the full name to the abbreviation with no apparent pattern. Also, all instances of the full name are standard except for one "NiGHTS Into Dreams".
  • Ref 123-125 - Good.

Note: it looks like the order of the refs have changed a bit more, so I'll go back and hit any I missed after I get to the end of the list.--chrisFjordson (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

112 - The short list of Sega's arcade ports is actually unsourced, although the existence of each port could be individually sourced. It's arguable that it should be trimmed to more well-known games, but it's difficult to determine where to draw the line objectively. That Core Design developed Tomb Raider is common knowledge, but it wouldn't be hard to source, if it is necessary to note the developer. (A GameSpot article on the "History of Tomb Raider" covered this in greater detail, and was the original source, but can no longer be found online.) If Sega Rally is too much of an abbreviation for the third time the game is mentioned in the article, Virtual On must be too. GamesRadar is not glowing in its coverage of Saturn Symphony of the Night, noting that Igarashi expressed his "ambivalence" towards the project and that "Players outside Japan didn't get to sample" the "downgraded graphical effects" and "altered inventory system".
On the Stolar quote, I would advocate using the more recent IGN variant, although there really is no contradiction: Perhaps third-party support was lacking, but Sega's first-party teams were able to use the hardware effectively.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, reading my comment, I feel like it might have seemed a little hostile or overly critical, and I certainly didn't mean for it to be. I just wrote it out roughly because I'm in rush today. I definitely agree that games listed could be trimmed, but I don't really have any suggestions as to where since I'm not too familiar with the various games' notabilities. I think it would be okay to keep the Nights abbreviated, but maybe switch the last instance to either the abbreviation or the standard way it's written in the rest of the article. As for the mixed results, I was taking it to mean that overall reception to the game was mixed, not the comparison of the before and after of the ports, and taken that way this citation is fine. I figured the Tomb Raider bit was common knowledge, but I just wanted to make a note of it. It's probably fine as is. For the Sega Rally, I don't think it's a problem with abbreviating it, but it might be a good idea to put the full title and wikilink it so it's easily accessible to people who might just want to check out which games are on the system but didn't read the rest of the article. If you want to keep it as is, I don't really have a problem with it. --chrisFjordson (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you intend no hostility; you wouldn't be here helping me if you didn't have the best of intentions. I think I have addressed most of your complaints, except the arcade ports listed without a source, and I will get to that soon enough. What do you think of my proposal to use the more recent Stolar quote?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
83 - Next Generation February 1995 also mentions the SCU DSP, but we need this source for the 14.3 MHz figure. If you think the link has to go to avoid copyright violations, then feel free to remove it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - There previously was more material comparing Saturn and PlayStation versions of games like Dead or Alive, Marvel Super Heroes, and Wipeout, which I both added in the first place and subsequently removed. It got far too off-topic with inherently selective sampling of games/reviews. I would prefer to avoid delving too deeply into "console war" territory. Dead or Alive is still a topic of intense message board debate over whether the faster Saturn version is superior due to its faithfulness to its arcade counterpart or the PlayStation version reigns supreme as a result of being completely remade for the system with more detailed graphics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment

Comments from Red Phoenix let's talk...

After what turned out to be a GA review that made me want to pull my hair out, I think I'm finally ready to return to this article to offer my assistance. TheTimesAreAChanging, you and Indrian have done some fantastic work here. On behalf of WP:SEGA, I appreciate very much what both of you have done for this article. Now, while I may have been a contributor to this article, it has been quite a while since I've really looked at it, so while I may not feel comfortable supporting or opposing on those grounds, I can provide some suggestions that may help out. As I can see some thorough image and source reviews have already taken place, I'll take a detailed look at prose, format, and content. (As a side note, for anyone interested, I'm looking for more feedback at the Sega CD FAC.)

  • First real thing I'm noticing, and this one's probably my fault: The Sonic X-treme section is great, and it's also mentioned in the lead, but where in the body do we note that the failure to develop it was a factor in the Saturn's lack of success? Certainly there are comments from both IGN and GamesRadar about its impact in their respective articles, I'm sure, but I don't think it's in the article itself anywhere that I can see. Without that noted specifically in the body and sourced, the section feels out of place.
  • Check your "Launch" section for reference tags out of order - some areas where two or more references are cited have tag numbers that are not in numerical order, and can easily be fixed by moving the ref tags around to line them up in sequence. Launch had the most I can see, but it would be a good idea to skim the whole article for this.
  • I realize image reviews have already been conducted, but can a fair-use image of a Saturn game be added to the Game Library section to demonstrate what a game on the system looks like? We've successfully argued for this before at both the Sega Genesis and Sega 32X FACs, and is in my opinion to the benefit of the article to showcase what kind of game the Saturn hardware is capable of playing. I've often found the best way to do this is to take an already-existent screenshot of another game from another article and expand its fair-use rationale to include the second article it is being used on, keeping our copyrighted material usage at a minimum on the encyclopedia, and I personally like using games that also have further mentioning in the library section for closer relevance (examples include using Doom on Sega 32X, Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega Genesis, Phantasy Star on Master System, Fatal Labyrinth on Sega Meganet, etc.)
  • End of the Game Library section needs to end in a citation, as with any paragraph.
  • Personally, I would try to minimize using in-line citations at points other than where there is punctuation. I've tried to find it in the MOS and been unsuccessful so far, but it does make a paragraph harder to read. Commas and semicolons are good places for in-line citations as well as periods. This occurs several times in the article.
  • Short paragraphs: There are a number of two and three sentence paragraphs in the prose, which feel choppy when reading. The best example I can see of this is at the end of the Reception section. In these cases, can this material be worked into other paragraphs to improve fluency?

We'll start with that for now and I'll take some more time to look a little later. Red Phoenix let's talk... 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to put citations directly behind claims that are likely to be challenged and in order of relevance, rather than lumping all of them together and then rearranging them based on their numerical value. I believe doing so makes material far easier to verify, as demonstrated even in this review when (following "clean-up" of my original organization) Chrisfjordson was confused by instances of the first cited source only partially supporting various claims. However, I have re-ordered the citations per your request. It is difficult for someone of my personal preferences to summon the motivation to go even further and eliminate every instance of citations sans punctuation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph of speculation about the possible impact of a completed X-treme to the "X-treme" section, which is where I feel it belongs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
czar has linked me to WP:REFPUNC, which allows for the use of intrasentence footnotes. I personally disagree with them myself due to readability issues, but as it's supported in the guidelines, I wouldn't worry about that. I'll take a closer look at this later; good work with the X-treme section so far. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This has been open a month and a half without gaining support for promotion; despite a good deal of effort having been put into the review by all concerned early on, it's had no activity for several weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 4 June 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/June_2014&oldid=614725723"