Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2006

Søren Kierkegaard

I've been working on this article for several months, motivated by a previous fac. I think I've improved this article since November; I've addressed comments from the peer review and got this to be an good article. This is a biography containing details about his life, his writing methodology, his journals, and his critics and supporters. His philosophy and theology have been extracted to other articles and a summary has been left behind for those aspects of his work. I've also cited references throughout the article. Poor Yorick 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks very good. I suggest that there is still some copyediting to be done; there is some overuse of passive voice, a few instances of odd phrasing, etc. One minor referencing problem; the 2002 Danish demographic information is referenced to a Wikipedia article, which is something that we want to avoid doing. The sentence could be safely removed without any impact to the article, in my opinion, but if I'm missing its importance, it needs better referencing. Jkelly 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok removed, that 2002 ref; shouldn't need it since kierk didn't live in 2002. looking for those passive sentences now. Poor Yorick 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support I only have several minor issues with the article. WP:MOS states that the headings of articles should not start with the word "The" when possible. In addition, non-proper nouns should not be capitalized outside of the first letter of a heading. Finally, could footnotes be provided for the several quotes also? AndyZ _t 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok removed "the" from the article headings, removed caps, and added footnotes for those quotes Poor Yorick 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - How did Kierkegaard make his living after leaving University? The article makes no mention of it (or it is not made explicit). --Knucmo2 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article mentioned he was born to a wealthy family, so I've elaborated that K lived on his inheritance. Poor Yorick 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative Support. The content is there, but I don't have time to read it really closely at the moment. Ironically, I have to read a chapter of Crime and Punishment for my English class tomorrow. RyanGerbil10 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Full Support. Upon having more time to read the article, I lend it my full support. RyanGerbil10 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good; I see no problems reading through it. One thing is the possible overuse of long quotes, particularly in those quote boxes. They look clever when small in number, but this article is rife with them. It bothers me a little bit, but not too much. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:40 UTC

• Support. This article is certainly up to, if not beyond, the standards of Wikipedia featured articles. Ig0774 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Supplementary comment: I kind of like the quote boxes, except in two places where they are (at least in my brower) a visual distraction — the first quote box and the picture of Regina Olsen overlap as does the one next to the Journals. That said, I don't think visual distractions like that really matter when it comes to considering a page for FA status — it seems to me that it is more about content (see [WP:WIAFA]).
    • Personally, I kind of like the overlap, as the first quotebox (about Regine) overlaps with Regine's pic, while the other quote (about the journals) overlap with the journal pic. Poor Yorick 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. This article is well written and well referenced. My only problem is, as Cuivienen also noted, the use of many quotes. In my opion it disrupts the flow of the article and I'm reminded of why Wikipedia should be based on secondary or tertiary sources. If you pick 2 or 3 really good and short ones it would work better. Another technical problem is that the quote box doesn't look all that good in combination with thumbnails or infoboxes. --Maitch 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright guys, removed some quote boxes. Poor Yorick 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've made a few emendments to the article, such as the age at which Michael expected his sons to die (it was 33, not 34), and a few more clarifying edits. It is worth noting that although the University did regard Kierkegaard's thesis as wordy, they converted it to a doctorate! He conducted his dissertation defense in Latin, a condensed version of the original Danish text. Other than that, I like the article and can find no other inaccuracies at present. Perhaps there might be a little more made of the "Edifying Discourses", but I understand there is an article solely devoted to his philosophy. Nevertheless, I feel a little more mention should be made of them. --Knucmo2 11:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • About the 33/34 thing, it's sorta similar: the previous version is something like < 34, this version now says something like <= 33. Back then, it was a masters, and K was awarded an MA, but nowadays that kind of coursework would be awarded a doctorate, which is kinda of a ripoff for K, LOL. And yes, his philosophy is treated in another article (I'd like to try to keep this article under 50k). Poor Yorick 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kolkata

Article on a metropolis of eastern India. Major works have been done on the article from February 2006. The article has passed through a peer review and further reviews by wikipedians, and edits have been done accordingly. The article has been selected as a good article. I request your support for making this article an FA. Thanks. --Dwaipayanc 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - it is indeed a comprehensive article , that is not just well written but also gives a good insight into the fabric of Kolkata.--Jordy 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support it needs a light copyedit. Rama's Arrow 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support; I don't see any major reasons why not. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to put in the Indic Text template. --Osbus 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This has now been done. Rama's Arrow 18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: is there any reason why the Indic Text template is in the middle of the History section? Shouldn't it be either at the top or the bottom of the page? AreJay 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll transfer it to the bottom - when placed at the top, it was creating formatting issues. Rama's Arrow 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was already there at the bottom! I placed the template one or two days back! --Dwaipayanc 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious....I missed it completely. Rama's Arrow 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too...I thought it was just my browser acting up! This is a good article. I am happy to support it, congradulations to the authors.AreJay 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Only one issue. Since there is a separate article on History of Kolkata, why does it need to have such large a redundancy in the History section in the Kolkata article? Also the lead-in section is way too streched out. --soUmyaSch 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened and copyedited the History section. Rama's Arrow 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support A few more books rather than websites as references would be good, otherwise fine. History of Kolkata needs a lot more work. Sikandarji 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sikandarji for pointig out that the daughter article History of Kolkata needs a lot more attention. We shall soon work on that article.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work, congratulations. Joelito 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the editors have transformed this article and it meets all the criteria for featured article. Green Giant 01:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support + Question First of all, this article has my full support. But I've always wondered why articles related to India are among the highest quality on this site? Is it an interest of Brits who have a strong attachment to the country and thus put so much effort into it, or is it an equal contribution from all English speaking regions on a subject that fascinates many many dedicated people? Thanks. Sean WI 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No sir - it is the effort of Indian editors that is by and large responsible for the work. In 2006, there has been systematic and determined activity amongst Indian Wikipedians to elevate many articles on Indian subjects to FA status. Plus folks like user:Nichalp had already done fabulous work since 2004. Rama's Arrow 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the comment of Rama's SrrowArrow should slightly be modified. Not only Indian, as a whole South Asian wikipedians are doing good work lately.--Dwaipayanc 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll let the secret out: Firstly, we have two reviews: an internal review by Indian editors and the normal peer review. We use peer review to obtain comments from the community, especially those not familiar with India-related topics. The internal review gets a lot of constructive comments, and since many Indian reviewers do have FAs to their credit, the article is shaped well after their comments have been sorted out. Thus, listing it here becomes a mere formality (one of our articles was featured in just 5 days). Secondly, we do have model India-related featured articles to quite a few categories. Hence, all we have to do is to use that as a template and match it section to section, and better it if possible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a need of the name of the city to be in the introduction section? It may be put in the History section. --soUmyaSch 05:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no harm in having the name listed in the lead. Having it merged with the history will be difficult. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - a really good article. By the way, I don't know too much about the other nations on Wikipedia, but I know for sure that Indian Wikipedians are organized and know what they want (in terms of aims and goals). We've also got some really good Indian admins that are consistently improving articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, I don't know how many things I've had to "borrow" from WP:INCOTW to help improve WP:USCOTW ;). (Oh and by the way, support!) AndyZ _t 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support : Nice work by the editors. --Ragib 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well-referenced article, good work with the contents. --Andy123(talk) 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- having closely worked on it for many days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- I have worked extensively on this article and feel that it is of the same caliber as other FA city articles. --Blacksun 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Provides a very rounded and well-balanced description of the city. Saravask 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent work! SwiftRakesh 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A beautiful page in every respect. Informative, comprehensive and skilfully written. Two of the images are of tremendous quality and interest Image:Flowermarket.jpg and Image:Kolkataslum.jpg give an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page. Another (obscure) link in the page has conveniently filled a gap in a page I am writing myself, I actually found this page through google while researching my own new page - which proves This is wikipedia s it should be. Giano | talk 18:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Nicely written. A few random fact and reference checks worked out fine. Beautiful pictures. Balanced in all respects.--ppm 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support, brilliant. Well written, great images, a solid FA -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Once again another great South Asian article. joturner 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose Sorry to be going against the grain here. In all, the content of the article is excellent, and it would have my strong support, aside from a few minor objections. Firstly, it requires a light copyedit to remove the instances of passive voice which are throughout the article. Sentences such as "During World War II, the city's port was bombed twice by the Japanese" need to be reconstructed. Quite easy to do. Secondly, the references are badly cited. For instance, the reference "Spiegel online article URL accessed on 23 April, 2006." Is a nice reference, but who wrote it and when? The same argument applies to "Air quality monitor on 16-17 March, 2006 URL accessed on 20 April, 2006 " and others throughout the article. In the case of "R. Gandhi, Patel: A Life, pp. 497 " What is the ISBN of the book? Is it a book? When was it published? Who by? Thirdly, there are not enough references. Finally, the format of the references throughout the article is not consistent. Do we have a space between the reference and the period/comma, or is there no space? This is not consistent. These are minor objections and should be quite easy to fix. Support Well done. --Bob 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to address your points, but I believe that in British English, which is the main source of Indian English, it is passive voice which is emphasized, unlike with American English where the active is stressed as a better way. Rama's Arrow 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in citations. We have fixed them. Some sources lacked the name of the writer. Some sources lacked a definite date of writting. Otherwise, all references have been updated and formatted. Please let us know if we inadvertantly missed something.

Regarding the use of passive voices, I think using it is grammatically correct. May be it is less beautiful than active voice. Could you please specify where should we change voices? (I have very less idea of British and American English differences, as Rama's Arrow pointed out. So specific portions you want to see changes, along with proper rationale, would be very welcome and also a learning experience for a person with weak English grammar like me.)

Regarding the number of references, WP:WIAFA does not specify any number. Still, 5 to 6 book references are not really inadequate in number, I guess. Even then, if you would like to see citations/ references on specific comments in the article, please let us know. Specific citations from the reference books have been denoted with inline citations. Other than those specific citations, the books listed as reference have been used as a guide to create the article.

Thanks a lot for your extremely alert review of the article. We have tries to fix the inconsistencies. Please comment. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to support after some work was done rectifying some instances of passive voice and references and notes were correctly cited using publisher/author names of the works. --Bob 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support BengalRenaissanceEccentrica 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any need to change passive voice to active, I find properly used passive voice beautify the prose through their slightly roundabout and flowing way of saying things. Loom91 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good article.--Raj d0509 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Many improvements since my last visit.--Victor.P.Das 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Kolkata was in a very bad shape 6 months back. But now seems to be perfect with the nitty-gritties worked out. --Aryasanyal
• Strong Supportfor this well documented contribution.--BobClive 08:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - present state of article is comprehensive and excellent. Pradiptaray 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Halloween (film)

this is the seminal late-70s horror film that launched the slasher genre. as Tenebrae (film) went through FAC so successfully i feel this article, about a film from the same era and same genre, could do the same. what is best is that many of the sources are scholarly print publications, its not just rehashing material from the dozens of web fanpages. it also successfully avoids trivia, fancruft details and original research. article appears to be comprehensive, neutral and well-written (i copyedited).

• Support per nom Zzzzz 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Why is Moustapha Akkad described simply as a financier. Even if he did the financing, wasn't he more important than that creatively ? Bwithh 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I added some additional information about Moustapha Akkad in the Sequels section. All the sources that I have seen give little (if any) credit to Akkad for creative contributions to the film, mostly just his role as financier and executive producer of the other films in the series. If you know of anything to the contrary, let me know. Dmoon1 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Myles Long 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comments I have some minor problems with the article All below concerns have been addressed:Hal Raglan 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence: "The film is generally considered the first of a long line of slasher films inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960)." While undoubtedly true, as written doesn't this contain weasel words? Shouldn't this say something like "Some critics have referred to the film as the first..." then have a link to at least one or two reliable sources saying that?
    • Fixed this. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph, it reads that "Original drafts of the screenplay were titled Babysitter Murders" But in the "Production" section it says the title was discarded while Carpenter and Hill "began drafting a story". Which is it? If the latter, I think reference to the title should be removed from the lead, as its not an alternate title or early shooting title for the film.
    • Clarified this (I think). Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, makes more sense now. Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Direction" section: "Film critics contend that John Carpenter's directing and camera work made Halloween a "resounding success." This seems like pure POV/hyperbole to me. Does the referenced book actually say this? If so, sentence should read, "According to Nicholas Rogers, film critics contend that..."
    • Yes, this is a direct quote from Rogers, but he is a historian referencing other film critics. Fixed anyway. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Reception" section: "Renowned critic Roger Ebert..." This seems like a pure POV-insert from an Ebert fan. How about just simple "Roger Ebert"?
    • I used "renowned" just to emphasize that Ebert is considered an important critic. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand that, but after all your recent edits the only thing that still rubs me the wrong way about your otherwise fine article is referring to Ebert as "renowned". It really seems completely POV to me...what makes Ebert more "renowned" than, say, Vincent Canby, who also wrote extremely favorable things about Carpenter's film in the New York Times?Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I guess that I put renowned also because most people would recognize Ebert's name over others' like Canby, regardless, I removed "renowned". Dmoon1 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Ebert won a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. Ebert can be seen by anybody in the US with a TV set, being on a major network (and also an occasional guest on late night talk shows). Renowned may not be quite the right word, but award-winning and well-known is quite true. Шизомби 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I just don't think its encyclopedic to qualify Ebert in that way. Yes, it is true he's well known--I'm not arguing that he isn't famous. If, as you say, he can be seen by "everybody in the US with a TV set", then it really doesn't need to be said that he is well known, does it? It seems very POV to specifically say "Famous/Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Roger Ebert..." For any young film fan who reads the article and doesn't know who Ebert is, they can click on his link and read the wikipedia article on him for the details of his career. I also think it would be just as POV to refer to Pauline Kael as "Influential (or National Book Award-winning) film critic Pauline Kael", or to Donald Pleasence as "Beloved character actor Donald Pleasance". True statements, but not encyclopedic. Hal Raglan 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Reception" section: "Once-dismissive critics were impressed by the simplicity of the film's camera work and music and surprised by the lack of blood, gore, and graphic violence." Is this saying that critics who had originally given the film a negative response changed their minds ("once-dismissive critics")? The linked review says no such thing, and I certainly don't recall this happening. Also, the sentence indicates these same "once-dismissive" critics were impressed by the "simplicity of the film's camera work". I've never heard this before; I seem to remember many reviews being impressed by the relatively stylish widescreen cinematography. Again, the linked review indicates that the music was "simple and unsophisticated" but says no such thing about Dean Cundey's camera work.
    • This is referring to the fact that serious critics did not bother to even review the film until The Village Voice wrote a positive review--hence they were "dismissive." Clarified "simplicity" quote. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Criticism" section: "Negative reviews by film critics of the early 1980s are near impossible to come by.." I don't like the way this is phrased at all. First, the film was released in 1978, so why the reference to reviews by critics of the early 1980s? Second, its not near impossible at all to find negative reviews: Pauline Kael hated the film, and Cinefantastique's original review of the film was extremely negative. McCall's called the movie "sick". I'm sure there are others. I'd rewrite to something like, "The film received a mostly positive critical response at the time of its intial release..."Hal Raglan 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these references. Incorporated Kael's review (having trouble finding Cinefantastique and McCall's online--I'll keep looking). Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the Kael quote is probably enough to balance things out. The Cinefantastique review probably isn't online, but if you are interested its from the Forbidden Planet double issue, Vol 8 No. 2/Vol 8 No. 3, pg 73, written by Dave Schow. From the review: "...Halloween broaches intriguing twists on standard themes, only long enough to abandon them for obvious and easy climaxes. Though Dark Star really didn't get any careers off to flying starts, Carpenter's "apprenticeship" in film is taking too long."Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - One other comment, tho. Take a look at Casablanca and my own Tenebrae and see how the references have been formatted. During the peer review/featured article candidate stage for my article, it was recommended that I use that new format; after making the change, I have to admit it looks better. Just a suggestion.Hal Raglan 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Fine article. One style nit: (===Casting===) I hate the sentence "Laurie's other promiscuous friend, Lynda Van Der Klok..." It's clunky as an introduction of the character but I'm not sure how to revise and keep in the promiscuous part. Fuhghettaboutit 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Smoothed out description of P.J. Soles in Casting sub-section. Does this work better? Dmoon1 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Much, much better.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Circeus 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While the article itself is surprisingly well-referenced, I notice most related articles are not referenced at all, fr example Halloween (film series), Michael Myers (Halloween) or Halloween II (film). Circeus 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • NOTE: I updated/rewrote the Halloween II (film) article this morning; it has nits that need picking. Dmoon1 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, not too bloated and easy to read. --Osbus 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well done. Cvene64 07:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support definitely, and suggest this could be used as template for other film FAs. Marskell 22:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Hi All - After 8 days of revisions, analysis in peer review, I've decided to submit this article to FAC. I think all objective and poignant criticism that remains to be given will only be obtained here. I'm prepared to listen to and address all concerns, and I request your support for making this article an FA. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know there will be some concern about describing Jinnah as an "Indian." There are many reasons for this: (1) Pakistan did not exist till 1947 (2) Jinnah himself said: "I am an Indian first second and last". He lived in "India" for most of his life, save one year. (3) Up till 1940, he was an Indian nationalist politician. In terms of content for an encyclopedia, I think it is justified to describe him as an Indian who became the founder of the state of Pakistan. Rama's Arrow 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. Rama's Arrow 16:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this image needs its copyright status resolving. —Whouk (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - it should be a PD-India or PD-Pakistan, given that the date of this pic being taken is definitely in the 1930s. Rama's Arrow 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All issues raised in Peer review were well handled and the writing is very good, well structured and balanced. I'll see if I can't dig in again to see if there is anything left that I can find to improve, but I don't see anything as of yet. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Followed the peer review where the issues raised were addresses properly. Describing Jinnah as an "Indian" should not give rise to discontent as it is well-referenced. With well-placed inline citations and references, the article is comprehensive.--Dwaipayanc 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A well written and well referenced article. --Andy123(talk) 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Really well written article — however, can you clarify the source and the tag for the image Image:Mazare Quaid.JPEG? It dosen't look like the image exists in the source CC gallery. There is a Noman Janjua image there, but it is different from the one used in the article. AreJay 15:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply' - I will have to ask user:M.Imran to clarify this. In the interim, I will remove this pic. Rama's Arrow 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

With the image in question out of the way, I'm happy to vote Strong Support. Great work as always, Rama's Arrow! AreJay 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• request Could you upload an audio pronunciation of his name? lots of issues | leave me a message 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Humm....I'll have to ask somebody...dunno who does audio around here. Please wait about this. Rama's Arrow 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:Ambuj.Saxena. He produced the audio version for the India article. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The uncle is on a wikibreak - I've asked Nichalp. Let's c. Rama's Arrow 00:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. And I am not an uncle (if at all you were refering to me). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support: This article is a prime example of what Wikipedia is all about. Great work! I found couple of minor typos that I corrected. Otherwise, referencing and text looks great. --Blacksun 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. Saravask 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ganeshk (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You need references in the intro. For example, some historians say needs a citation. Btw, I think that's considered a weasel word. --Osbus 22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Hi Osbus - all facts/assertions in the intro are mentioned in the main paras and referenced thru there. An intro is a summary, so I personally guess its ok. I'll address the weasel word issue. Why the double referencing? Rama's Arrow 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi to you to...I guess it's ok. But over citing never hurts. --Osbus 01:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - Excellent and committed work by the Arrow. Green Giant 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: On a cursory reading, this article seems to have a wealth of information. However, it could do with shorter paragraphs, and if possible, a reduction in article size. Use summary style. The lead definitely needs some reduction in size. The section titles could be made more "encyclopedic" avoiding, for example, the double quotes around a part of a section title. I know that these comments are too demanding, but this is just my greedy wishlist. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to fulfill them - I can reduce the intro size definitely, and I'll work on article size reduction. Please clarify more what you believe is necessary to make this more "encyclopedic." Rama's Arrow 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not able to characterise which subsection titles could make the article more "encyclopedic". Besides being unactionable, it's not a major issue at all. Support This article is highly informative and very well-written. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have slashed the lead and cut 5kb and some pics from the article. I don't think I should go further in cutting, as valuable info will be removed. Rama's Arrow 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Nicely done article. Neutral and everything properly cited. Mercenary2k 3:20PM 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is amazing how you single-handidly turned this article around from where it was to on the verge of featured status in less than two weeks. I do however have minor issues with this article that can be corrected quickly. First, there seems to be a desire to include both Americanize and British English forms in this article. I suspect it is due to the fact that some of the content remained from its previous version. However, just searching for the term "organize" and "organise" reveals that both forms exist in this article. As far as a I know, the general consensus on articles about Pakistan is to use the British English and I'm fairly certain the articles about India also use the British form. And secondly, another minor issue, is with the dashes. For some reason, some of the dashes are longer than the others, and I see no justification for it, or rather, for some of the dashes to be smaller. I know its a manual of style concern, but since I am not proficient in this whole MOS, I leave these corrections for others. Nonetheless, I Support. Pepsidrinka 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - your first concern is my fault - I generally use American English, and sometimes forget to differentiate when it comes to such articles. The second concern comes from the use of not "-" but "&mdash ;". This is as per WP:MOS and I was advised to do this by Saravask. I will work to fix the first issue. Thanks for your feedback. Rama's Arrow 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please convert the hyphens to dashes (&mdash;)

• Comments:

1. List the location of Kaithawar
2. Christian Missionary Society High School -- location?
3. Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta -- who were they? list them for the benefit of those not familiar with the India independence movement. Similary for Annie Besant et al.
4. English better and more regularly than his mother tongue, Gujarati. -- could it be summrised to "Spoke English more fluently than ..."?
5. Child Marriages Restraint Act -- italics?
6. wakf? -- context
7. Sandhurst committee -- wikify/ expand
8. Wikify Neville Wadia,
9. "mission of British minister Stafford Cripps" -- split into 2 wikilinks
10. Use of Bombay -- convert to Mumbai, The first instance of the word should be written as: Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay)
11. Sikander Hayat Khan? -- who is he?
12. May 16/ June 16. I'm sure it was known as "16 May" and "16 June" plans. If this is a proper noun, it need not be wikified (eg the movie 16 December)
13. U.S. -- remove the full stops
14. Caucus Case -- wikify
15. I've noticed some missing information:
    • Ruttie was his second wife. Details needed on his first
    • That Ruttie and Jinnah were estranged and that her death devasted him
    • Jinnah, despite being Muslim, used to consume pork and alcohol [1]
    • That Jinnah envisioned India and Pakistan coexisting peacefully together and that he hoped to return to Jinnah House. (This source can be taken from the ToI references I've added to Jinnah House last May)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - your points have been addressed. Thanks for your input. Rama's Arrow 16:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would still like to know about his first wife and why he remarried. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Emibai is already mentioned in the second para in "early life" - she died a year after he moved to London. He married Rattanbhai 20 years after Emibai's death. Rama's Arrow 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The cirumstances surrounding Jinnah's marriage to Rattanbai are written in "Early political career." Rama's Arrow 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How did I miss that? Support now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A google for 'Emibhai' and 'Jinnah' comes up with two links both of which say that she was 14 at the time of marriage. The article says that she was 16. Can you pl. cross-check the sources. Tintin (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While the Pak-gov site asserts she was 14, no other site says so. Ndless, I will insert that "she is believed to have been between 14 or 16 years old." Rama's Arrow 04:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support (with some comments): Nice article. However, there are two red links now Caucus case and Khurshid Ahmed, these should be fixed. Also, the article states that Jinnah had Hindu ancestry; while that is a known fact to south asians, a reference should be provided to back it up. Thanks. --Ragib 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed your points - I removed the Hindu ancestry mention becoz I couldn't find any independent source. Rama's Arrow 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure there would be some history books that can support this. I believe I read a reference to it in "Freedom At Midnight", but I don't have the book with me. You can check that book if you can find one. Thanks. --Ragib 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That book is generally frowned upon for being dramatized. Thanks for your feedback. Rama's Arrow 20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Should definitely be promoted to FA status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Looks alot better than before, looks like there has been lots of improvements (Fast track 21:06 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

Self-nomination: I put a significant amount of work into this article in December 2005, but more notably in early April 2006. Now I believe the article is comprehensive, detailing the history, significance, and design of the mosque. There are a great number of references as well a great number of images that supplement the topics discussed throughout the article. joturner 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Support I recommended that the article be improved to be featured a month ago. Since then it has improved well. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Support This article is so good it shines. I'll read it more in depth tomorrow, but at first glance it seems up to snuff. Only problem I have is with the use of the picture of the Dome of the Rock. It isn't a mosque, it's a shrine. Find another pic of a gold dome as an example. There are thousands of them. --Jayzel 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the image, but this one has a blue dome instead of a gold dome. I don't think you'll object though. joturner 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very promosing, but I had a few issues... mostly with the intro...
  • Intro is too short for an article of this length, see WP:LEAD. Doesn't really seem to be an overview of what the article covers... just focuses on the meaning of the name and its english usage. Article covers way more than that.
  • Although iwans and minarets are associated closely with mosques, mosques originally lacked these elaborate features. - confusing sentence as it doesn't tell the reader what the potentially unfamiliar words "iwan" and "minaret" means. Minarets are discussed at length but it never exactly explains what they are! I just found this a little annoying.
  • special tarawih prayers are offered another instance of an unfamiliar word being used without really saying what it means without requiring the reader to open a new page
  • The last two paragraphs of "Ramadan events" section seem to be uncited (probably not a huge problem since there aren't any POV claims there). There are some other uncited sections, such as "Social events".
  • Article, at 44k, might be a tad too long. Some of the repetitive descriptions of functions where larger mosques buy food and smaller mosques bring food for potlucks, etc. could perhaps be scrapped or move to subarticles. --W.marsh 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As the article (esp. not including references) is actually < 30,000 characters (although on the high end), two paragraphs is sufficient. However, I or someone else could work on expanding that. I tried to clarify the information about iwans and minarets; hopefully you are satisfied with the changes. Tarawih prayers are explained in the same paragraph they're introduced; they're nightly prayers during Ramadan in which the entire Qur'an is recited. I added the word "optional" before tarawih, but it seems to me as though the explanation is sufficient, as there really is nothing more to that. If you want more information, you can always click on the link. Yes, those two paragraphs aren't cited; I tried very hard to find sources for those sections to no avail. But as you said the information isn't controversial and therefore shouldn't be a big problem. And 44kb certainly is a bit large, but take a look at Canadian federal election, 1993 (FA of the day - 2006-04-12) and Antarctica (FA of the day - 2006-04-09). They're 50KB and 43KB, respectively. If you believe there is information that does not need to be included, certainly I'll consider removing it, but if you believe we should delete a bit of information only because the article is a bit large, I don't think that's necessary. I couldn't discern which of the two you were thinking. joturner 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your pleasant reply. Yeah I mentioned the stuff about where the article goes into who brings food to what events as stuff that is probably beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, regardless of overall legnth issues. But as I'm not terribly familiar with Islam I didn't want to remove it without research. Anyway my main reservation is with the intro... which does need to be improved before I think this is an FA. I will take a look at it tomorrow if no one else has gotten to it by then. --W.marsh 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nitpick: footnotes should go after punctuation (i.e. "...statement." instead of "...statement."
  • Support.--Fallout boy 06:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I move the footnotes to before the periods as you requested. joturner 13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Nice article with lot of references. Perhaps would have been better with slight less length.--Dwaipayanc 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's hella tight. No criticisms at all. Fantastic job! The Disco King 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe you should include info about the geometric art in Mosques. --Osbus 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could work on that section later, but since the article is quite long already, I'll have to keep it brief. But certainly, that was something I overlooked. On the other hand, I want to make sure I stay specific to mosques and not delve to far into Islamic architecture; talking about the geometric art may do that. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment very nice article, although one thing that seems rather odd is linking to Allah while labeling the link God. Why not label the links appropiately? It's not like we're talking about unfamiliar terms. Besides, these kind of links are misleading. Sheehan (Talk) 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Allah is just a translation of God, I decided to use the word God in the article, but like to the Allah article. I don't want to give the impression that Muslims worship a different god than the ones Christians and Jews worship. I could have also linked to Islamic concept of God instead. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support with a few notes:

The location of the mosque was declared as such after Muhammad hosted the first Friday prayer.

I don't get this line. Does it mean Muhammed preached somewhere and declared the spot a place of worship?

Today, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and the Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina are considered the two holiest sites in Islam, respectively.

"Respectively" seems out of place here. The sentence is constructed in a way that the locations are attached to the specific mosques. If you mean one is considered holier than the other, I suggest rephrasing.

I removed the word. I was trying to say the Masjid al-Haram is the holiest site while the Masjid al-Nabawi is teh second-holiest, but I removed the word altogether because that's really irrelevant. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the provisions allowing non-Muslims to enter mosques, there is still a difference in opinion, even in countries where Muslims are the majority, over whether Muslims should be permitted to enter. The Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca, for instance, remains the only mosque in Morocco open to non-Muslims.[54] However, mosques in Turkey are open to everyone.[55]

I think there's a typo here. I think it should say non-Muslims in the bolded spot. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the mistakes you mentioned above. About the first one, that was what I was trying to say. The Prophet Muhammad hosted the first Friday prayer at the location that was later declared the Prophet's Mosques. Hopefully my rewording of that sentence clarifies things. If not, go ahead and fix it. joturner 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - this meets all FA criteria as far as I can see. Sheehan (Talk) 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose based on the extremely poor quality of sources due to which the article has been delisted from good articles. The article relies extensively on unacademic web sources like about.com, Enyclopedia of the Orient (run by a Norwegian programmer), IslamOnline, sunnipath.com, modernmuslima.com, or no source at all. See Talk:Mosque#About.com_-_Dubious_Source.3F for more details. It's an utter disgrace to Wikipedia that an article on such a thoroughly researched topic uses virtually no relaible academic sources; it should never have been nominated for the featured status in the first hand. Pecher ^Talk 10:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I'd like to point out that Pecher was the one who delisted the artilce from Wikipedia:Good articles. Regardless, I'm working on rectifying this at least partially at this moment. joturner 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Encyclopaedia Britannica to which you've just provided a couple of references, here is a statement from WP:RS: "Note that unsigned encyclopedia articles are written by staff, not by experts, and do not have the same level of credibility." That's certainly an improvement over Enyclopedia of the Orient, but still not enough for a featured article. Pecher ^Talk 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Doesn't it also say There is a wealth of reliable information in articles signed by experts that appear in tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica...? joturner 14:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica's article on mosque is not signed; correct me if I'm wrong. Pecher ^Talk 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've, for the most part, replaced the not-so-good sources. There are maybe three more I'll replace, but because it's approaching 3:00am where I'm located, I'm going to retire for the night. Sometime tomorrow, in between or after some reality work, I'll finish up the final sources. In the meantime, feel free to comment. joturner 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have eliminated all of the bad sources, including the encyclopedic ones. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be surprised by Pecher's conduct. He is pretty much opposed to any article that shows Islam in a positive light. He will drag you down using normal Wikipedia policy and will never be pleased with your changes. I suggest doing your best to address whatever issues he's states but realize his desire is to make sure the article does not make it as a FAC. User247 17:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ideally the article should avoid citing the Council on American-Islamic Relations as well. Andjam 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see why citing them is a problem, especially here where these are poll results and not, for instances, comments on the oppression faced by American Muslims. joturner 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain.Object. This is a good article, but the 'Functions' section - while much better than I expected - is not comprehensive, I am afraid. The 'Education' section mentions nothing about woman (can they attend the schools?), 'Social events' and 'Charity' sections are but a stub sections and a cursory glance at the literature about social functions of mosques indicates that we are missing any reference to the use of mosques as government propaganda machines, as well as discussion of relation between mosques and the local communities.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will mention something about women being allowed into Islamic schoools. However, what in the link you provide refers to mosques being used as propoganda machines? The relationship between mosques and the local communities I believe is discussed in a subsection under History. Perhaps I could expand the 'Social events' and 'Charity' sections, but I don't want to give undue weight to these subjects, especially in an article of such great length already where other more relevant topics are discussd. Nevertheless, I will most likely add a bit of (but not too much) information to the sections while I working on addressing Pecher's concerns. joturner 00:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• For propaganda and government control, see this. I am not an expert on mosques, but I definetly think that more sociological information and references should be added to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added information regarding Saudi influence on foreign mosques. See my latest comment in below in response to Tickle me for more information. I didn't want to go over-the-top with the subject as that would be giving it undue weight. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the changes. I still think that the article would benefit from more social science academic citations and sociological perspective, but as I am not a specialist in sociology of religion I will change my vote to abstain for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. I see that concerns on link quality are being addressed, however right the first entry of Piotrus' list informs about the issue of governmental influence on mosque building and it's political implications. The Islamic Supreme Council of America cites an extensive piece from the Washington Post, relating political issues concerning the building of mosques all over the world:

• "...70 percent of [US] mosque leaders were generally favorable toward fundamentalist teachings, while 21 percent followed the stricter Wahhabi practices."
• "...The survey also found that the segregation of women for prayers was spreading, from half of the [US] mosques in 1994 to two-thirds six years later."
• "...the kingdom established ... 1,500 mosques and 2,000 schools for Muslim children in non-Islamic countries, according to King Fahd's personal Web site."
• "In the United States, Saudi Arabia's infrastructure of preachers and money started as a bulwark against the spread into American mosques of radical Shiism, which surged after Khomeini deposed the shah of Iran."
• "...Hathout, an outspoken critic of Wahhabism, said the result was the increasing isolation of women in American mosques starting in the 1980s. 'Mosques became gender-segregated, which didn't make any sense at all,' he said"

The issue of gulf states, mainly Saudi Arabia financing new mosques to propagate Wahabism and Mosques as centres of Islamist activities is not being dealt with at all, as is the controversial role of mosques as focal points for political islam. The New Republican writes on the "Saudi government-backed Muslim World League and other clerical endowments continu[ing] to finance mosques and seminaries in every Arab country", detailing the struggle for dominion on political orientation against rulings in more secular Near East countries regarding the curricula taught. At the moment the article reflects what a conservative Muslim government might report on the topic, avoiding politics and controversy if possible. --tickle me 14:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll certainly add this information to the article. But not at the moment; the real world calls. joturner 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think I addressed the concerns. It seems like the subject of foreign Saudi influence could warrant its own article. In the Mosque article, I only discussed information that related directly to mosques. The article you told me about, as well as a few other sources I found, talks extensively about the connection between Saudi charities and terrorism, but that is irrelevant to mosques and thus omitted it. I also didn't go over the top with the information on Saudi influence in other countries as that would give the subject undue weight. joturner 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written. The idea of adding unrelated items of terrorism on an article solely addressing Mosques is unwarrented. If someone has an axe to grind then they can create a new article focusing on it. Great work and let me know if you need any help. User247 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object This article could greatly benefit from a section on the mosque’s political role throughout the Islamic world and in the west. To say “the mosque is the center of the Muslim community” doesn’t sufficiently describe its importance.

I’d also like to see a section on mosque’s role in contemporary social conflict, particuarly that resulting from mosques being built atop the sites considered holy by other religions; e.g. Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid, which was destroyed in the 1990’s after the claim - apparently accurate - that it had been built over a Hindu temple destroyed by the Mughals, and most especially Al Aqsa, the importance of which to international political and military conflict can scarcely be disputed, built atop the most (arguably the only) sacred site in Judaism, yet now considered one of the most important mosques in the Islamic world.

In Iraq over the past few years, we've seen both issues coming up front and center, with mosques as the bases for populist political factions as well as staging grounds for insurgent activity and ensuing battles.

There's a lot of good work here, but these serious, highly salient points of interest are far too relevant, both contemporarily and historically, to be left unaddressed.Timothy Usher 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As my spring break has drawn to a close, I will have less time to devote to improving the Mosque article. However, I will consider adding a section (with a daughter article most likely) on the political role of mosques, especially if others agree it is relevant. But you shouldn't expect a 24-hour turnaround time. joturner 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't expect that. I realize that content creation requires a lot more time and effort than content criticism, as I'm engaging in here.

A better candidate for a daughter article would be entitled something like “Architecture of Mosques” or “Mosque design”, and would include “Features” and “Types of Mosques”, which are in both cases about design (where one might have easily considered “types” to mean Sunni, Shia, etc.), their role in city planning (“Mosques as focal points”), perhaps also including sections of sections of “Diffusion and Evolution”, wherefrom it could be aptly linked.

We might also consider a daughter article Mosques in Islamic Practice - obviously Mosques are only important because of Islam, but some have objected to length, and it would be an appropriate place to go into the details of religious practice at some length, such as the "Ramadan events" section which strikes me as somewhat out-of-place in the main article.Timothy Usher 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably create the new section late Friday night or Saturday. joturner 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the new section. I hope your concerns have been addressed. joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely - there is still no discussion of Al-Aqsa, the most salient of political issues - but you've done a lot of good work here. I went throught the advocacy section and am pretty satisfied. I eliminated the last sentence, which I hope is alright with you - I'm not sure what the rules are here - if they are that other editors don't touch it, simply revert it. I don't dispute it's a small number, but I feel it better to let the facts, once presented, stand on their own and let the reader judge their significance for him/herself. Still looking at the other sections.Timothy Usher 10:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is comprehensive and the references are neutral. This article most certainly meets the featured article criteria. Pepsidrinka 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is well written, neutral and seems to meet FA criteria. -- Underneath-it-All 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Occasional stylistic bumps, but they can be ironed out easily enough. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• abstain Still Abstain (until NPOV issues addressed) NPOV is missing, The article could benefit from a section on the mosque’s political role throughout the Islamic world and in the west. To say “the mosque is the center of the Muslim community” doesn’t sufficiently describe its importance. Zeq 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I may have addressed this one with the new section (although I was intending to address some of the other concerns, not yours specifically). joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you but it is not enough. It is also using words like "small number" without any sources for that statement. There is areal anti-Jewish anti-west incitment that goes on. Since you "took ownership" of this article I leave it to you to practice NPOV and write the facts as they are. If you wish me to step in I'll be glad to. Zeq 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to await others' comments. If I still hear complaints of POV, perhaps something can be done. I used words like "small" as you indicated in the FAC because I didn't want it to sound like one can step into any mosque and just hear condonements of bombings and terrorism, as that clearly is not true. joturner 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lead section has citations, and mentions stuff that isn't in the body of the article. Andjam 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• What's wrong with citations in the lead section? And what is mentioned in the intro but not mentioned in the rest of the article? joturner 15:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• The lead section is a summary of the body of the article, so the citing should be done in the body, not in the lead section. An example of something being mentioned in the lead section but not the body is the word "sajada". I've also left some comments in the article's talk page. Thanks, Andjam 00:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• From Talk:Mosque...

• Citations in lead section is a problem.
• The word "sajada" is mentioned in the lead but not in body. This'd be in conflict with how a lead section should be.
• Saying mosques could once only be found in middle east seems a little awkward.
• Starting the history with a negative statement (about minarets) seems a little odd.
• There is an inconsistent hyphenation of Masjid Al Haram
• "has acquired the nickname of city of a thousand minarets" - does this have a citation?
• The change from Egypt to Sicily and Spain in "Diffusion and evolution" is a bit sudden
• "While only two percent of the country's mosques appeared in the United States before 1950, eighty-seven percent of American mosques were founded after 1970 and fifty percent of American mosques founded after 1980." The "while" doesn't seem right to me. Any thoughts?
• There seems to be a bit of repetition between the history and Features section about architecture stuff.
• The phrase "images of spiritual figures or other animals" seems odd - it'd be suggesting that a spiritual figure is an animal.

• I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except for the

second-to-last one (about the repititon). I don't seem to agree. If you can give me one or more specific examples, I'd be glad to fix them. joturner 07:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article looks pretty nice. Wow, lots of pictures! :) --Aminz 08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is no way near FA status. Not comprehensive. Thumbs down. Amir85 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per Amir85. --ManiF 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrae (film)

an early 1980s italian whodunit/slasher film by legendary director dario argento. the article is on a par with existing FAs on individual films, covering it throughly from all perspectives in a comprehensive and neutral manner. the sources for the major assertions are the world's most acknowledged argento experts: mcdonagh, jones, lucas, so very reliable and easily verifiable. any other bold assertions are inline-cited. peer review suggested lack of detail so article was massively expanded in response. the film is not argento's most famous or influential so info regarding its legacy remains somewhat scarce, but i think it does a good job summarizing what is out there. appears to be well-written, i copyedited the article (not written by me) and found very few things i needed to change.

• Support per nom Zzzzz 10:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - looks good. You could consider converting the footnotes to the new style. —Whouk (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent example of a movie article. I could only imagine that very minor things could be wrong,but I don't see them. RyanGerbil10 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Dwaipayanc 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As good as November. Batmanand | Talk 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article on a movie I'd never heard of. I edited the one thing that bothered my out (describing the ribbon in the London Underground poster as a "pretty red ribbon"). Staxringold 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Made me want to watch the movie! Well-balanced, seems to cover all the bases. The Disco King 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rama's Arrow 16:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Шизомби 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. However, I too would suggest using the cite.php format instead of the old format.--Fallout boy 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I would like a reference as evidence that this movie was a box office hit in Europe. While not a deal-breaker in my support, I would like to see the notes formatted as references and put in a references section, rather than a notes section. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll start working on reformatting the footnotes, since three of you have indicated you'd prefer they were in the new format. And I'll see if I can locate a reliable reference indicating the film's box office success.Hal Raglan 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So far, an online search for supportive evidence (i.e., exact dollar amounts) regarding the film's box office success in Italy and Europe has been unproductive. I've rewritten the offending portions of the article to remove this unsourced detail. Please advise if the article now can receive your unconditional support. As far as the notes/references reformatting issue, thats going to take some time, and some real patience on my part, but I'll get to it.Hal Raglan 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnotes have now been reformatted as requested.Hal Raglan 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One other suggestion to do with the references: the URLs themselves don't need to be displayed. I'd suggest using the various cite templates (e.g. {{cite web}}) to make them consistent with other articles. I'll try to find time to help. —Whouk (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Done! Thanks for your very helpful assistance in reformatting the footnotes.Hal Raglan 22:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Unconditional support now. Offending section is longer there (please double check, I think it was mentioned twice in the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It was indeed mentioned twice, in the lead and in the "Response" section, and I have rewritten both sections accordingly. Thanks!Hal Raglan 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Partial self-nomination. The United States Bill of Rights recently achieved FA status, so I thought I'd nominate this in the interest of fairness. Just kidding. Seriously though, this has come a long way since the original version. While the Charter has generated so much case law and commentary that an article on it could never be comprehensive, as with the US Bill of Rights information on individual provisions have been forked to their own articles. As an overview of all the Charter, what's here, I think, covers all main bases. Some of the footnotes are missing specific page numbers, but I have easy access to those books and will fill those out in the next couple days. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Page numbers have been added. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support well written. Ardenn 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary object. In other words, I'd be happy to support this teriffic article once the following issues are addressed:
  • You need to define "back-to-work legislation," a concept unknown in the U.S.
  • I would go into more detail on Section 1.
  • Perhaps you should put "notwithstanding clause" in bold on first reference, since you refer back to the term several times.
  • The article says, "some of the Quebec representatives did provide input into the Charter because they shared some of the underlying principles." What do you mean by "representatives" here? Do you mean "MPs?"
  • The phrase "Vriend v. Alberta (1998), which read equal treatment into a law that had been discriminatory toward homosexuals" is confusing. I think this sentence should be rephrased to say, "Vriend v. Alberta (1998), in which the Supreme Court ruled the province's exclusion of homosexuals from protection against discrimination violated Section 15."
  • You refer to "Scholars Morton and Knopff." I think that if a source is not famous enough to have his own article on Wikipedia, you need to say who he is -- e.g., "University of Calgary political scientist Rainer Knopff. At the least, you should include their first names.
  • The section beginning with "Scholars Morton and Knopff" is somewhat confusing. It contains run-on sentences. It also assumes the reader knows what "the living-tree doctrine" is, which most readers probably don't.
  • You probably should explain what you mean by "fundamental justice."
  • I don't know what you mean by "substantively" in the comparison with the Bill of Rights' due-process clause.
  • I think the sentence about the role of the religious right in defeating the ERA is unnecessary.
  • You mention that Mandel and Lipset criticize the Charter for making Canada more like the U.S. You've got to point out that this is considered by many Canadians to be a bad thing. Most Americans probably think other countries want to be like the U.S.
  • You should use an expression other than "launched several charges" in the paragraph about Morton and Knopff's complaints. When I hear "launch a charge," I think of someone filing a lawsuit.
  • I think you ought to mention under what circumstances the courts can rule on charter rights. I know the government can ask the Supreme Court ahead of time whether something violates the Charter (which they can't do in the U.S.). Can private citizens challenge the constitionality of a law directly, or can they only do so by appealing a lower court's verdict of fact? -- Mwalcoff 05:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that feedback. Back to work has been simplified to ending a strike; some more introductory detail on section 1 has been added; Vriend has been revised but the phrase "read in" is preserved, please say if it is now clearer; Morton and Knopff are given fuller introduction, and the sentence is broken up; fundamental justice is described as natural justice, a term known beyond Canada with a long tradition in British law; "substantively" has been revised to "more protections"- as I'm sure due process would be perceived by Americans as consisting of legal protections, hopefully this is clearer; the religious right sentence is temporarily preserved as it helps explain the different circumstances that led to the constitutional difference- if you still disagree I will gladly remove it; Americanization is further explained as being feared; more information is added on how rights claims come before courts. The precise identity of the Quebec representatives is, regrettably, within a source I do not have at the moment- I will retrieve it when I fill in page numbers, in the next couple days, and specify who they are. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As it turned out I misread Chretien entirely on the Quebec representatives; thus the sentence is removed, so there's no need to specify who the non-existent people were. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for addressing those concerns. I would go into Section 1 a bit more in the comparison with the U.S. Bill of Rights. There are a lot of Canadian laws that would not pass muster in the U.S. but which are OK in Canada because of Section 1. Publication bans, for example, and the parts of Bill 101 the courts have allowed to stay. You might also give some real-world examples of how sections 2 and 7 are broader than their American equivalents, since I was always under the impression that the U.S. Bill of Rights was broader. I also think you need a sentence about why Lipset thinks eliminating a US-Canada distinction is a bad thing, if in fact he does. Finally, you still need to address how consitutional issues come before the courts -- which can include Section 21 and "references" from governments to the Supreme Court. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Went into a little more description regarding how section 1 works and gave an example of how rights can be more generous under the Charter; IMO other examples can go into the articles on the sections themselves, as Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms both have "Comparisons with other human rights instruments" as well; the mention of s.7 being broader is referenced. The Lipset paragraph is removed in response to your concerns, and as its point was redundant anyway. Reference question information has been added. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm going to go ahead and support, notwithstanding (no pun intended) the couple of areas where I think the article could be improved. Specifically, I'd like to expand a bit on Section 1 in the comparison with the US Bill of Rights and a bit more on the section where a reference from the government is mentioned. Is that OK with you? -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd be fine with it if it's kept brief here and more detail moved to the section 1 article; but in the comparative journals I looked at I never saw actual references (though I don't doubt the truth of what you've said), and with little discussion in the general references as well I don't think it's absolutely necessary to the article's comprehensiveness. Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I was going to nominate it too. ;) Needs some fixes, but it's a very good article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• temporary oppose
• The refs are a bit confusing:
  • I don't think you need to duplicate titles in "footnotes" and "references".
  • When refering back to a book already cited, giving the full ref again is poor style.
  • There are a few identical refs that should be combined, if you don't know how, I'll do it.
• Circeus 00:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have cut down on redundancies between the footnotes and references, consistent with today's FA Frog; full references are shortened on next appearances, although for Hogg I still used the title since a different book by him is listed in the bibliography and he's also quoted by CBC; I'm not sure what references need to be combined. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object: needs a good copy-edit, if this sentence from the lead is anything to go by.

Desires to improve upon this rights protection, the general human rights and freedoms movement that grew after World War II and was enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and intentions to unify Canadians around a certain set of principles, led to the Charter being enacted by the government of Pierre Trudeau.

Tony 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Revised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment to my objection. The second para of the lead suggests that the whole text needs a thorough copy-edit, not just the examples I've brought to your attention here.

the Charter makes its guarantees and its expectations on the role of judges in carrying them out more explicit than had the Bill of Rights.

"Did", not "had"?

However, courts also gained new powers to enforce more creative remedies and exclude more evidence in trials than was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, being influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, emphasized Parliamentary supremacy.

"However, the Charter gave the courts new powers ..."; this sentence, like many in this article, is too long and complex. Break it up?

The result was that the Charter would inspire both passionate support and fierce opposition among Canadians.

"As a result, the Charter inspired passionate ..."; but the (resulting) logical connection needs to be explicit.

Please try to have someone run through the whole article carefully. Tony 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - It's looking good to me, pending most of the suggestions made by Tony. The Disco King 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, his specific examples have been looked at. Generally I've been going through it and have broken up a few more sentences, and have made other small copyedits. Anonymous editor has also done a lot of copyediting, and I think a few others did too (like Ground Zero). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Duly noted, change to support. Excellent article. The Disco King 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, very informative! Anger22 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. It has improved, but the writing is still not nearly good enough for a FA, especially one on a legal subject. If you can get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it carefully and fix it, I'll change to 'weak support'. Here are more examples I've picked at random.

"Talk of introducing a constitutional bill of rights for Canada became the subject of more serious attention in 1967"—talk became the subject of attention?

"The Canadian Bill of Rights, which the Canadian Parliament enacted in 1960, compiled many of these rights"—compiled is an odd word in this context.

"some within government and other groups"—the government is a group?

"meaning full sovereignty from the United Kingdom"—"from" is a problem here.

Most sentences need tweaking. Tony 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support though the first section looks kinda messy. pm_shef 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to go. Circeus 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • The article still needs a thorough copy-edit (particularly the opening paragraphs).
  • Under "Features", the rights under s. 2 seem to be given lesser treatment because it is laid-out less prominently than the rest of the section. To be consistent, it should start with "fundamental freedoms" in bold (like the following sections). In fact, it might improve if you have a separate line entry for s. 2(a), 2(b), etc.
  • Section 1 should be given prominence over Section 33; while s. 33 may be "forbidden fruit" and therefore the more interesting topic, s. 1 plays a role in almost every Charter case. Furthermore, if you are contrasting the Charter with the US Bill of Rights, the inclusion of s. 1 ought to be highlighted as a significant distinguishing feature of the Charter.
  • The commentary on s. 25 - 32 is weak compared to the preceding commentary. Section 24 (Enforcement) ought not to be lumped into sections 25 - 31 (General).
  • I agree with your desire to preserve the term "read in" or "read into". While even before the Charter the court could strike provisions of a statute, it is a somewhat radical concept for the court to have the ability to add to (or "read into") a statute language that wasn't put there by a legislature.

-- Overall, a good article, but not "featured article" good.

(Sorry for the afterthought, but it just crossed my mind that this article might benefit from a nomination at Canada collaboration.)

Fluit 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've incorporated some of your suggestions and worked more on the introduction. I've given section 2 its own line, though I'm not sure if multiple lines are needed both because the fundamental freedoms part (like the mobility rights part) only contains one section and thus only a link to one article, and because Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be the better place for more depth. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak object... "Section 16.1: English New Brunswick and French New Brunswick are equal" seems poorly phrased. It would be nice if the image description on Image:Dief Bill of Rights.jpg was as detailed in explanation as that for Image:Canada Act signing.jpg (especially in terms of explaining the legal status) but conversely the template tag on Image:Canada Act signing.jpg has been deprecated (I imagine it should probably replaced with the one use for the Dief image). I often judge an article on the things it seemed to assume I knew (so I didn't have to do background research to get up to speed) and what it hasn't told me at all and I wish it had. On which basis, could the article explain: what was so significant about New Brunswick in terms of Section 16? Was the previous situation biased towards English? Why was New Brunswick the focus of so much of Section 16 - did it constitute a major change of status? A brief mention that the province has a balance of both English and French speakers (does that make it unique?) would be nice for non-Canadians. What about indigenous languages? Did the charter affect them? (There's a section on this but it would be nice if it was more explicit.) When it says Quebec did not ratify, what were the practical effects of that? Was it somehow overridden? When Trudeau was out of office, why did it matter what his opinion the on Charlottetown Accords was? (Isn't the really important piece of information here why the proposals failed? Or was Trudeau able to block them?) Also, there's some statements here that could really do with being referenced, e.g. " Nevertheless Quebec did not ratify the Charter (or the Canada Act 1982), either because it was then led by the sovereigntist Parti Québécois or because it felt excluded from the negotiations." - In my opinion speculation about motives, especially of complex organisations like governments, corporations and politicial parties, should be referenced. Despite all this, it's definitely one of Wikipedia's better articles and I will be easily persuaded to support if either a couple of my suggestions get implemented, or it improves visibly in quality in other areas. TheGrappler 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Hello, I've added more info for the Diefenbaker image.Habsfan|t 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated TheGrappler's other suggestions here and on my talk page into the article as well; another editor a little more unfamiliar with the subject has also promised to give it a copyedit tomorrow. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A great improvement, especially with respect to section 16. Still not sure about its coverage of indegenous minority language rights - could this be clarified somewhere? Also, in the national values section, is "The Charter's unifying purpose was particularly important to the mobility and language rights" talking about what I am guessing it is (i.e. making it easier for French- and English-speaking Canadians to move around, since even if they moved to an area they were a minority they would now have certain language rights, in the hope that this would make Canadian society more integrated/cohesive/mobile)? Not being au fait with the politics of Canada, I can only guess. A more explicit statement of the way in which the Charter was intended to foster national unity would be good. Very nearly tempted to change to a support, by the way... please keep on working at it! TheGrappler 01:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! This article has shown considerable improvement during it's time on FAC, kudos to the editors. I therefore move to support. TheGrappler 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Another editor"? Hmph! ;) Flowerparty■ 03:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

*Object -- Image:SSC-Courtroom.jpg is defended as "fair use", but the article wouldn't suffer for the lack of it; there is no compelling need for this particular image. I note that we have Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg or (anachronistically) Image:Canadian Supreme Court justices circa 1950.jpg, and there are probably others to be found with some searching. Jkelly 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Concur, and have been thinking about changing it. It's gone. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No objections. There are, however, still some rough patches. I'm unclear what we're saying with "In 1999, MP Svend Robinson proposed before the Canadian House of Commons that the Charter be amended to remove the mention of God, as he felt it did not reflect Canada's diversity. Section 27 also recognizes multiculturalism, which the Department of Canadian Heritage argues is prized among Canadians." -- is there a point being made here, or are these sentences unrelated? Regardless, a very solid effort. Jkelly 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they're unrelated- I haven't seen Robinson's speech or petition. Paragraph is split like it was before. And thanks to Flowerparty for the copyedit. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A few things. I really don't think an article can make FA status with red links. Something needs to be done about them. I think the pictures at the top are screwy (sorry, no offence, it's just the word that comes to mind). I think the actual pic of the Charter should be at the top right, and the coloured table below it. It makes the first screen more visually appealing AND it IS the Charter, right? We should see it right away. It's a beautiful document. The section directly below the intro is so 'listy', it's boring and visually unappealing. Couldn't the info be put into a table (an element I think is missing anyway, in comparison with a lot of other FAs)?--Anchoress 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You can have featured articles with red links, today's has a few. There's also less than before; I've started section 4 and 29 since this began. The featured article Xenu also starts with the Scientology template with the Xenu pic below it and the volcano and plane below it. Having the template at the top as with the subarticles allows the reader to click on certain things without the template jumping all over the place. I could put a table in there, but given that there's two places that might be converted to tables here, the rights and the "General" sections, it might seem awkward to have those two tables there. Note also United States Bill of Rights lists its provisions in non-table form (both that article and this one have to double as overviews and disambiguation pages). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think instead of pointing out how the article can be improved, more people shoud get into the trenches and try to help this article along. I appreciate the efforts of CanadianCaesar, but he or she appears to have become a little too close to the text to see it objectively anymore. That happens to all writers, and what makes good writers are good editors. This article needs a lot of polishing if it's to be a feature article. I've tried to do my part, but have rapidly lost interest. I could say keep me in the oppose column, but really, mark me down as don't care. Fluit 06:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying it needs a "lot of polishing" isn't particularly helpful. What parts? The "polishing" you did and evidently had in mind required a lot of fixing in turn. And I can't see it objectively anymore? Really? A lot of changes have been made to this, by me and by others. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[Reply to Fluit, Caesar posted between] Well I think it's important to remember the purpose of this page. On the Charter talk page, this template appears:

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

Note the line 'leave comments'. I personally do *lots* of actual editing, but all the things I 'commented' on in this page are things I don't have experience with. Also, when the goal is to get an article to FA status, new people jumping in and changing things isn't necessarily what's needed. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel defensive because it seems like you're criticising people who've left comments here, when we may have done so because the template on the talk page asked us to. If the current main editors for this article (and/or the person who requested it be evaluated for FA status) feel new blood is needed, a request should be put in for that. Trying to get people who may only feel comfortable commenting to make changes to the article isn't necessarily the best idea IMO.--Anchoress 22:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria." IMHO, this article doesn't. That's just my opinion. The topic is a deserving one for being featured, hence my interest in helping out (especially when invited to do so on my talk page, just as I see others have been invited to do so on their talk pages), but the entry isn't up to par. Again, that's opinion. I'd just like to help, and was happy to pitch in when invited. Fluit 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you're not providing any objective evidence of how the text is inadequate or I'm too close to it. Numerous people have edited it. I have let them. Numerous people have given suggestions. I've taken them up on it. I'm concerned about Wikipedia's quality and you specifically aren't helping Wikipedia's quality. You have taken out definitions of uniquely Canadian terms, added unrelated information, introduced grammatical errors (a majority of what?) and blatant inaccuracies (the Victoria Charter did include a bill of rights, for God's sake! Don't edit what you know nothing about!) Don't make unfounded comments about my editing to cover up your own massive failures as an editor. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, taking out the work of others (not just mine) just to substitute them with your own does not automatically make it clean up. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're resorting to name calling and put-downs, you're too close to the text. If it's your way or the highway, you're too close to the text. When you write things like "Numerous people have edited it. I have let them.", you're way too close to the text - this isn't your private domain.

I have stated earlier on that everyone's work, including my own, benefits from good editing. Yes, you are correct, the Victoria Charter did include a bill of rights, I admit that I wasn't careful in editing that line. I stand by my opinion that this excellent topic deserves more work. Writing wise, are too many run-on sentences and too much verbage. Having read it numerous times (while acknowledging that the Charter was very much Trudeau's "baby"), it reads to me as too much as being written from a Trudeau point of view It also strays a bit off-topic. Finally, I'm not going to get into some sort of petty revert-war, but I find it odd to have have a discussion of the history of the Charter without even a mention of the role of Cretien, Romanow and McMurtry, the Supreme Court of Canada reference, or the role of the British parliament.

Ultimately, you asked for my opinion, I provided it. It's not my fault you don't like what you heard. Fluit 00:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can fix some of the things you brought up now, but I haven't resorted to name-calling and put-downs, I've honestly described how you are seriously hurting this article- damn near vandalizing it. I didn't mean to say "I have let them" to mean it's my domain. It's not. I watched them edit, even things I didn't agree with, knowing that the article does not belong to me. I recognize fully that Wikipedia articles belong to all. I can name a few editors who have had tremendous impact on the way this article has gone. But it's not just written from a Trudeau POV (Morton and Knopff would like to dispute that). Second, please be aware Patriation has its own article. Why should I plunge into a deep discussion of the SCC and British Parliament? Encyclopedia articles summarize, we're not writing a book. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: the heated discussion is a result of a serious misunderstanding that has been addressed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Have fun, good luck, I hope the article lives up to FA status. Fluit 03:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support I really think that this is a featured article even if it has a few problems. --Tarret 01:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Has someone copy-edited this properly yet? I thought I'd take a quick, random look at it, and low and behold, every sentence had little problems. Here's what my eyes landed on:
  • "Under the Charter, Canadian citizens (and in some cases, permanent residents and other people in Canada, sometimes including corporations"—"sometimes", being a temporal term, is inappropriate here.
  • "is binding on the federal government (and the territories under its authority) and on the provincial governments." This three-item list is a little clumsy: remove the first "and" , remove the second "on", and just use commas, not parentheses.
  • "Rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter include,"—Insert "The" at the start, and use a colon, not a comma.

Tony 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I've fixed those, but do you honestly believe "every sentence" has problems? And yes, a few people have looked at it. Even if you believe it's not a featured article, please be a little more respectful toward their efforts. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

I nominated this article because solar eclipses have been getting a great deal of Wikipedia attention since last month's eclipse. If there should be an eclipse-related featured article, it should of course be this one. And I do believe that solar eclipses deserve one, because as the article itself says A total solar eclipse is considered by many to be the most spectacular natural phenomenon that one can observe. I'm committed to resolve objections brought forward, so please be bold. Nick Mks 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• From taking a brief glance, I notice you'll need to expand the introduction to ~2-5 paragraphs, and you'll need to cite sources. You appear to recognise that the article is not currently FA quality but are willing to bring it to that quality. We have a page specifically for that: Wikipedia:Peer review. Joe D (t) 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and regarding the sentence you quote: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. Joe D (t) 19:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object: This seems informative, but it has no specific reference section, which should at least be linked to some inline cites for the most pertinent facts. There are also too many short sections. The lead needs to be longer and more explanatory of the page as a whole. Regarding sections: "Eye damage mechanism" and "Viewing totality during total eclipses" I don't know enough to doubt the truth of the statements in those paragraphs, but I would like to see some proof in the form of a specific references - until then my advice is - "don't try this at home kids" Giano | talk 19:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Problems have been addressed. Giano | talk 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article needs a lot more sources. joturner 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Status update: I have expanded the introduction, added references and merged or expanded short paragraphs as asked. I have also added some content and a few relevant pictures. Nick Mks 19:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- The series of images under Observing a Solar Eclipse are spaced strangely. Maybe you can fix it for a better effect? --Osbus 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I tried, but that's a result of the picture size. I'm not a specialist on that. Nick Mks 07:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed it, it looks better now. --Osbus 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Seems as though problems have been taken care of. Good job! Chuck 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, no problems with this article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support, if the article does not cause a total eclipse of the heart when viewed. Otherwise nice article. I am satisfied with the changes that have been made. --Shawn 17:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: The recent changes have improved it considerably. --Portnadler 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• SupportMinor object. Following points should be addressed: 1) at least one photo has no caption 2) too much bolding in the article, where MoS recommends that ilinks or italic should be used 3) see also is long, consider incorporating those links into main article 4) while the article has an ok number of references (24 footnotes), some sections are very lightly (or not at all) referenced, for example 'Viewing totality during total eclipses', 'Path of an eclipse', 'Final totality', 'Solar eclipse before sunrise or after sunset' and 'Simultaneous occurrence of eclipses and transits' have no inline citations at all and for all we know can be completly fictional.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input. Your first three comments have been taken care of, more references will be added soon. Nick Mks 09:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Nick Mks 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Good job. I support now, but you may want to add a few more inline cits to the light-cit sections such as 'Types of solar eclipses' and 'Geometry of an eclipse', which are quite long but have only one ref - can we assume that the entire section is based on those single refs?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually you can, as those parts contain quite basic stuff that all sources mention and agree upon. But I'll add some more. Nick Mks 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Voila. Nick Mks 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Office (US TV series)

Self-nomination I have to admit that I was inspired to up the quality of this article based on the recent FAs The West Wing (TV series) and Arrested Development. I think you'll find the article adequately lengthy, VERY researched, and hopefully well-written. ;) Comments? Williamnilly 01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• you need fair use rationale for the pictures (i learned that the hard way, see below). Vulcanstar6 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info! Done! Williamnilly 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Williamnilly, you are obsessed. I think I had at least 5 edit conflicts with you in a row. Mrtea (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you're probably right, sorry. :) I'm reminded of Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein: "Why don't you get out of there and give someone else a chance?" But seriously, I think I'm starting to see words on magazine pages with little brackets around them that aren't really there. ;) Williamnilly 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the section Critical reviews, which currently simply qoutes three reviews, should either be moved to Wikiquote or rewritten. Also, several sections seem very short (Online and DVD releases and its two subsections) and many of the tables are unnecessary (the Characters table, the DVD table, etc. See When tables are inappropriate). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We'll figure out an alternative to the (simple) tables. FA Arrested Development has five critical reviews, so would you figure that's just enough? Williamnilly 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer a paragraph summarizing how the series was generally reviewed over simply quoting some reviews. For quotes, there's Wikiquote. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Operation Table Replacement and Critical Review Restructure done! Williamnilly 18:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I like this article, but there are a few things I would comment on. (1) I'm not a big fan of trivia sections, usefull information should be elsewhere in the article, trivial information should be omitted. Also there are a few redundant references which would be combined into one using the <ref name> tage. --Fallout boy 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a lot of the original trivia (it was a big list) was actually moved into the article before the nom (as I know there are people like yourself who aren't big trivia section fans). The only pieces left are random bits that would really be difficult to "blend" into the article (but I would argue are still interesting). Also, I will point to the FA Arrested Development page, which includes trivia, just to be a brat. :) Williamnilly 18:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should mention that much of the trivia has been discussed and removed since Fallout boy's note. Mrtea (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I give my full support then.--Fallout boy
• Comment:

"Rainn Wilson blogs on NBC.com every so often, but he does it in character as Dwight Schrute." Is the Schrute blog actually written by Rainn Wilson?

• I remember having a problem with that wording when it was first in the External links section. I've fixed up the current revision as we don't know who actually writes the blog. Mrtea (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, USA Today reported in a recent article that he does, in fact, update the blog himself. AND, after doing some more research, he did state it when he was on The Tonight Show on March 14: "But I use the time on the set. We actually have working Internet and I use a lot of the time to blog as my character of Dwight Schrute for NBC.com." So, I'll just reinstate the line and cite the more reliable source. :) Williamnilly 21:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, sorry :) Thanks for the update. Mrtea (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the opening scene, Jim is highlighting a California Municipal code form of Sec 12.22.C which pertains to the height of fences in front yards.[citation needed]" Yes, Citation Needed. Also, does "opening scene" refer to the opening sequence or the first scene of the first episode? Andrew Levine 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I removed that piece of trivia. Even if we were to verify it... it's not that interesting. Mrtea (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The series was originally unsuccessful in Australia (it was cancelled after only one week), it returned to a late night timeslot in early 2006. -- That would be a big understatement and quite pov, if I recall, the show was hugely advertised and then pulled after one episode, saying it was originally unsuccessful is implying that it became successful...Cvene64 09:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I reworded it and just stated the facts. Williamnilly 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Good stuff Cvene64 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I'm especially impressed by the number of quotes from people involved with production and how well they're integrated with the prose. Andrew Levine 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Although there's no FA rule against it, isn't it much too early to promote a series which has only been on two years to FA status, considering that it's still a "current event" (i.e., still on the air). I made a similar comment during the recent Lost FAC nomination -- it's simply too soon and the article could thereotically change week after week after week. This isn't a comment one way or another on the article's writing, just a comment in that I think it is premature to consider. --Ataricodfish 04:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, the article rocks, period. Great screenshots and pages from all the episodes with a great flow to it. A great article for a funny show. Weatherman90 15:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support - I don't much care for the short sections near the end or the trivia section, but otherwise looks like a solid article that merits FA status. --mav 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comment: The Office is an US TV series? What is an US? Do you mean to say a U.S. TV series? If this is the case, the title needs to be wikified. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems to be fairly common on Wikipedia... [4] 64.229.74.41 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• The title is wikified... See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). :) Mrtea (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As one of the more active contributors to this article, I didn't want to put forth my vote until I was sure this definitely hit FA criteria. I'm confident it does, and all concerns above have been responded to. Mrtea (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Great read, nice flow, interesting information. What else do you need? HeyNow10029 22:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo

We did necessary changes from last time. Really good article. Luka Jačov 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose. It has not improved since the previous nominations (still no inline citations and the lead is still short) and no rationale for the nomination was given. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 01:15 (UTC)
  • Just a note, the nominator, Luka Jačov, incorrectly added this FAC without archiving the old one, which I moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lastovo/archive2. That is why there is no rationale (and hence my comment above). AndyZ _t 14:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, it has now improved. I'm still hesitant about the Trivia section, but I can give it a weak support. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 15:48 (UTC)
• Comment Please use the no-break space between numbers and their units of measures: &nbsp; (for example: 5 km instead of 5km), as per WP:MOSNUM. In addition, please provide the converted values of the numbers. AndyZ _t 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• ObjectComment I'd axe the trivia section, there's a random 46 fact, speculation, rumors, and a random quote. Also, you've got multiple references to footnotes, but the references are not repeating numbers as they should. I'd recommend switching to the <ref> system to fix that. What are those references, by the way? Books? If so, they need publisher info and page numbers. Image:Fumari small.jpg needs the licensing problem below cleared up. That silly sentence about "46" still needs to be removed. Pagrashtak 15:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per nomination Luka Jačov 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - article seems to fulfil all the criteria. --estavisti 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 19:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very beautiful article. --GTubio 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Image:Lastovokarta.jpg looks like a scan from a commercial atlas to me, which seems to imply that the {{Template:GFDL-self}} tag is incorrectly applied. How about a proper, user created, ideally SVG, map? Also, references are somewhat lacking. What's the source for the various statistics in the article, like population ethnicity and sun-hours-per-year? They obviosuly come from somewhere, it's not the kind of thing a contributor can measure for themselves. --zippedmartin 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• See Image:Lastovo.svg, I started working on this last FAC. Still needs some work but I think can be made into a nice map. --Duk 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  Ah yes, that's the right kind of thing... but why has Uvouvo uploaded a jpeg of all things as a map... maybe you can kick him into being sensible. --zippedmartin 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Hehe, i know. I dont know how to edit SVG, but wanted to quickly replace the map. In time though i may create an SVG format Uvouvo 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Your map looks good. For editing SVGs I use Inkscape or Sodipodi, both are open source and easy to use. --Duk 01:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- I may be inhaling hallucinogens, but no one's noticed the numerous usage errors.

1. There is an amazing number of churches. Doesn't sound too encyclopedic.
2. Lastovo, like the rest of Roman Dalmatia was settled by Illyrians. Extra comma needed?
3. In the 13th Century Lastovo joined the Dubrovnik Republic Comma, again.
4. The island of Lastovo belongs to the central Dalmatian archipelago lying 13 km south of Korčula making the island one of the most remotely inhabited islands in the Adriatic. Run-on, add a few commas or split it up
5. and a Group of islands Group is lowercase.
6. Another small island Prežba is actually Prežba should maybe be an appositive?
7. Lastovo has a very dynamic . Avoiding the verys is a good idea
8. Lastovo along with Mljet are among the Adriatic islands richest in forests with a high percentage of coverage, mostly pine and Mediterranean underbrush. Commas btwn Lastovo and Mljet.
9. There are five caves on the island, the largest being Rača, Puzavica, Pozalica, Grapčeva and Medvidina. If there are only five caves on the Island, the five you listed can't all be the largest.

and there are more grammar errors, but since I don't know anything abot Lastovo, I may be wrong...Also, shouldn't history come first? Get rid of Trivia, or rename it. -Osbus 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the comments. I majorly re-wrote this article. I'm glad for the support votes, however more glad for the guys that left suggestions and highlighted problems. Thanks for the suggestions I will work to have them all addressed in the next few days. I'm new to wiki myself which is why I wasnt sure about a lot of things you guys would find obvious. I agree with the map, it is a ripoff, and i pointed that out to the uploader a while back. I'll fix up the SVG one Duk posted. I will also fix up the grammar and remove words such as "Amazing" and try make the general tone more encyclopedic. I will try to figure out and include numbered references as close as possible to data. However, I was worried about putting a reference near every stat because the article would then be full of them. Please, more suggestions are welcome! Cheers Uvouvo 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the Trivia section -- I won't support any article with such a thing.
  • "Famous Lastovci" looks awfully short; it ought to be expanded and moved to its own page.
  • "The main settlement of the island is unusually different to the settlement of other islands in that it faces away from the sea" -- awful construction
  • "It is believed that the reason" -- weasel word
  • Geography is almost entirely uncited
• Other than that, it really does look good. Tuf-Kat 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm stuck on what to do with Trivia. Maybe remove superflous entries and merge it with People into a seperate section with a different name, such as 'People and Facts' for lack of a better title - Any suggestions? I have sorted out the map, and need to add numbered references closer to the appropriate text as well as a grammatical check again. Maybe tomorrow night. Uvouvo 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think all but the first and the last can and should be merged elsewhere. The first is a coincidence of no encyclopedic relevance unless someone somewhere has made a big deal out of it; the last is just an out-of-context quote by someone who has no particular authority on the topic in question, AFAIK. The chimney and the lighthouse could both go in any of the topics, but I think culture is the best fit (could be part of a paragraph on tourism?). The statues thing is kind of confusing -- how did this shipwreck turn into buried statues? It sounds like a notable local legend that should be a paragraph under Culture. The vampire thing could go in culture or history, probably better in History unless Lastovo is significantly known for vampirism outside of this incident. Tuf-Kat 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, good idea. I have axed the Trivia section, and merged the two architecture facts into culture. I removed the statues for the time being but might re-include later? Leaves only a grammar check / fix, and accurate and numbered referencing throughout. Once completed, the article should be ready. Give me a day or two. :) Uvouvo 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The redlinks should be removed or stub articles created. - FrancisTyers 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sigh... Wikipedia benefits from articles linking relevant topics that need writing, especially in articles that might get more attention. Relevant redlinks should *never* be 'removed', nor are substubs any better. --zippedmartin 07:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, copyright needs to be cleared up for Image:Fumari small.jpg and Image:LastovoTown.jpg(see note below), which seem to have been previously published on [5]. --Duk 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, LastovoTown was taken off my digital camera in 2004, its from a common look-out point of the road which is why it looks so similar - I have it in 5MP res as well. User Luka Jacov uploaded fumar which looks like a ripoff though, maybe he can clear that up. He reverted the changes I made above though Uvouvo 10:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry about that, I should have looked closer at your picture, it's clearly not from the site I noted above. --Duk 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Ok i have undone user Luka Jacov's revert, which means i have re-integrated the Trivia section in the rest of the article. It makes more sense this way. I have also redone the referencing, made it closer to the appropriate data, and used the <ref name=XXX> scheme. I have also given it a general re-read and tidied any obvious grammar errors. I think its about ready and most of the objections have been met. I'm not to fussed about it becoming a FAC, and it should only if it is ready / worthy. I didnt even nominate it, and i probably won't vote for it. I'm just interested in improving the article of the place of my ancestry :) Any more suggestions are more than welcome, as i am new to wikipedia! Uvouvo 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

* The only gripes it seems is that 'Fumar' image (i can swap it, but Luka has fixed the licensing apparantly). Grammar largely fixed, and Trivia section is gone, which removes most of the above opposition. The only other issues raised is the 46 reference. I have moved this into the article and dont see a further problem with it. I can overlook the fact that one wikipedian does mind it, but if there are others then let me know and we can remove it. Also the other thing that seems to bother people is the book references. The references are now inline and in the correct format. I dont know how to use the book template so if someone wants to do that then fine. Apart from that the article I think is ready without any more major edits. Uvouvo 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support --dcabrilo 09:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Object --Copyright needs to be cleared up for Image:Fumari small.jpg; we simply can't have FA's that copyvio tags on an image. Fix this and I'll change my vote. Image released to public domain. Rlevse 11:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

&Weak Support. Good way to a fine article. Needs improvments, thout (see to the up). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, swapped user Luka Jacov's image (chimney) with one of a male in national dress. Hopefully user Tuf-kat, Duk, Rlevse and Zippedmartin have no more objections. Maybe some of the users can cross out old objections that have since been fixed, and post new suggestions / objections. Cheers Uvouvo 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

still object What guy in national dress? Image:Fumari small.jpg is still there. Rlevse 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it on a a few hours ago, but user Luka Jacov reverted it (see history). I guess he is sure about the chimney photo's license. Can you check his user page or maybe he can clear it up here once and for all. I dont mind the image as long as its ok to use. Uvouvo 15:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 April 11 --Duk 18:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

IF his view is correct, then only the tag needs changed. Rlevse 12:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Incomprehensive: nothing about economy, administration and other things one would expect from a town article. If it was an uninhabited island, I'd say the coverage is good, but as it is it needs at least one major section the town, and preferably the article should be split between Lastovo (island) and Lastovo (town).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Rlevse 12:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a fair point. However, the population is so insignificant though, that a seperation of the town and the islands dont really make sense. There is no real local government (apart from a council), as it falls under the wider area. I guess that information could be included as a section or a significant paragraph, but it is not as major as you might expect. The town is the island, so to speak. Uvouvo 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article's constantly improving after two other nominations and a peer review and seems quite thorough and comprehensive by now. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• request Topics with unfamiliar names in the English speaking world should have audio pronunciations. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

A little something I've been working on that I'm proud of. Depicts the famous WWII era photograph, as well as the controveries surrounding it (there's actually a fair bit) and the legacy. Raul654 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the pictures do not have fair-use rationale for this article. Vulcanstar6 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Raul654 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You didnt add rationale to the pic with the sculpture. you need to make a new section on the pics page called "fair use", then state reasons why the pic is being used fairly by your specific article.
      • Picky picky. I've expanded the explinations (there's only 3 fair-use photos) and put them in their own sections. Raul654 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't being picky, you plain didn't do it. anyway, thats fixed, so i will further consider the nomination. Vulcanstar6 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• The background section could be a little longer; there's no need to rework all of Battle of Iwo Jima there, but some more details about the assault on Suribachi would be appropriate, in my opinion. In addition, three of the sections are little more than extensive quotes, which is neither good section structure nor even good prose; and several other sections are quite short. My suggestion would be to combine the background, first raising, and second raising sections, as well as (separately) the publication and staging sections. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten one of the quotes, and combined the publication and staging sections into a single one. Raul654 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Any chance of getting more material? The choppy sections are rather noticeable, since the article is pretty short by current FA standards ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I have an entire book on the subject sitting next to me. What's missing from the article, though? I believe the only semi-relavant thing I omitted was a discussion of how the three marines never really recovered from their experiences (Ira I did touch on a little; Bradley buried the events and refused to talk about them with his family; Gagnon tried the rest of his life to cash in and never suceeded). I figured those things were best left to their individual articles. Raul654 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, there are a few points where more detail might be appropriate:

1. Some more background on the capture of Suribachi.
2. There's an unclear transition between the first and second flag raising sections. Tuttle is sent to the beach to find another flag; how does it get up the mountain? Do the six people bring it up, or were they already at the top? And when and how did Rosenthal and Genaust join them?

Feel free to ignore these if you feel they're outside of the scope of the article, though. Kirill Lokshin 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, this article has come a long way from a year ago! Hopefully these don't sound too picky:

1. "Following publication of the photograph" - this paragraph seems to attribute that fairly large quotation to the encyclopedia... is this correct usage?
2. "The 7th War Bond Drive and the Sixth Man controversy" - a couple ultra-short paragraphs

Also, "Background" reads awkward to me... perhaps consider a small reorganization...

Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Replies to Kirill and RN: I've expanded the background section, merged the short paragraphs and merged the paragraphs in teh background/staging section. Also, Kirill, your question is answered later in teh article - "Ira remembered what Rene Gagnon and John Bradley could not have remembered, because they did not join the little cluster until the last moment: that it was Harlon [Block], Mike [Strank], Franlkin [Sousley] and himself [Hayes] who had ascended Suribachi midmorning to lay telephone wire; it was Rene [Gagnon] who had come along with the replacement flag. Hasnon had not been part of this action" Raul654 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow!! It is looking a lot better! Don't be afraid to be agressive with wording and avoid using the subject to start every sentence, for example - instead of

"The island is dominated by Mount Suribachi,"

Try

"Dominated by Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima"

etc. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 04:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've combined the flag raising sections and added more detail as to how the flag got from the beach to the top of the mountain. Raul654 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work on the expansion; support from me now. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic work. Take care of the short paragraph in the middle of "The 7th War Bond Drive and the Sixth Man controversy" and the one-sentence paragraph at the start of "Legacy" and you'll have my support. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed one of them. The other, I believe, is necessary for story-telling purposes. Raul654 16:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Support - good luck on the rest of the FAC as well - it can be brutal! Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - interesting, well written and referenced, sufficient detail without delving into trivia. All good, and I think it's nearly there. I have a problem regarding the display of the images - and this could just be my PC - but each image starting from the colourised shot overlaps into the next section, and particularly in the last grouping of images, looks very cluttered. I think the colourised shot, and the Ira Hayes shot should each be moved up to the beginning of their respective sections. Then each of the three images in "Legacy" could also be moved up. I like some images to be left aligned - that's just my personal preference and I'm not asking you to do that, but it may also alleviate the crowding of the images. Support - I'm satisfied that my objections have been actioned, and where not completely actioned, have at least been replied to and I'm generally happy with the replies. I still disagree about the images, but I accept that it's a question of preference. Very good article, well written and referenced containing a selection of appropriate illustrations. The edits of the last day or two have been outstanding. Rossrs 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Other things:
  • lead paragraph twice uses the word "famous". I wonder if "iconic" might be a reasonable substitute for the first instance of it. Famous is only so to people who have heard of it. "Iconic" (which it certainly is) is more specific.
    • Good suggestion - I have made it so. Raul654 13:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "left the Americans with more-than-expected down time" is a little awkward and non-encyclopedic - not sure how to reword.
    • Fixed. Raul654 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • use of the term "pillbox" implies the reader knows what it is. it's not linked in the article but pillbox links to bunker. would be clearer if just one or the other was used rather than both, if they have essentially the same definition.
    • A pillbox is not the same thing as a bunker. A bunker is (by definition) underground, several to many feet underground. A pillbox, on the other hand, is a concrete reinforced outcropping, from which one shoots. The Japanese on Iwo Jima used both - bunkers for communications, barracks, mess, 'etc, and pillboxes for actually shooting. Raul654 13:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • ok, fair enough. My mistake, but wikilinking it has helped. Also the sentence about spotting the artillery, reads awkwardly with the inclusion of "down". I understand "spot" is correct, but "down" is superfluous because we already know that the spotter is above them. Is there anywhere you could link "spot" to? I think with a word like that, having a specific usage and meaning beyond common usage, in this case military jargon, it would be useful if it was linked to somewhere that explains it. The closest thing I can find is spotter (sniping) but it's not correct. The way it's written assumes that the reader has some familiarity with military jargon, but if they don't, where do they go? Rossrs 14:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • artillery spotting would be an appropriate link (but don't expect me to write it - beyond general ideas, I haven't the faintest clue what it involves). Raul654 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • it's minor. I thought if you knew somewhere it could be linked to, it would be good. It's referred to in field artillery and I understand it's related in a general way to reconnaissance. That's the extent of my knowledge. Doesn't matter. Rossrs 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • several uses of the word "picture" and several of "photo" or "photograph" to describe the same thing - being a noun, and the subject of the article it would be better to stick ot one word to use for it throughout. "it" would also be ok in some places. example "Upon seeing the photo, Franklin D. Roosvelt realized the picture would..." could be "Upon seeing the photo, Franklin D. Roosvelt realized it would..."
  • most of the minor things I noticed I simply changed, but hopefully nothing that you would disapprove of.

Rossrs 12:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • With regards to "it was later disclosed"... the reason I used that wording was because the information was sourced to a book published in 2000, so it is true to say it was later disclosed. Once again, it's no big deal, but I was mainly trying to cut down on the number of things contained in brackets throughout the article. Very few of the brackets are necessary. Rossrs 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Question - "The photo became instantly famous, and one of the most recognizable photographs in history, becoming the only photograph to win a Pulitzer Prize in the same year as its publication". The sequence is wrong. 1. it became famous, 2. it won the Pulitzer and 3 it became historic. Should the sentence be reworded to reflect this? eg "The photograph attained immediate notability, becoming the only photograph to win a Pulitzer Prize in the same year as its publication, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images in history". I think it's also probably good to distinguish between the photograph and the historic value of the image. Rossrs 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I have tweak the introduction accordingly Raul654 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That's much better. It works better with the two sentences as you've structured it. Rossrs 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Pretty good article overall. Some objections: the images could be rearranged so that they don't bunch up in that one section. Also, article contains several quotes that aren't integrated very well into the text and aren't formatted properly---quotes should almost never be italicized, but this seems to be an increasing trend on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy 23:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I checked the manual of style about quotes, and you're right, so I've removed the italics. About the pictures - I moved the Gagnon sculture pic up a bit, so the pictures do not bunch up even at the high resolution I am using. They are placed next to the text in the paragraph they belong with, so I don't want to shift them around too much for that reason. Raul654 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But they still look cluttered. The colourised image could be moved up a bit and still be in the correct place beside discussion of it. The image of Ira Hayes could be made smaller and that way it would not need to be moved. 150px would do it, and the image caption could be made less wordy, which would also help. Maybe "Ira Hayes was identified as the "Sixth Man"". It could also be put at the top of the section or left where it is at the bottom because Hayes is discussed in both paragraphs, however putting it at the top and left aligning it would reduce the bunching effect further down. The three final images would still be bunched. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial suggests left/right aligning images to avoid images "stacking" in an "unattractive way". I think it would be worthwhile to at least try this as an option to see if it helps. At the moment, the images are stacking in an unattractive way, however this can be fixed without compromising your wish to keep the images in their rightful places, which is a completely valid argument. Rossrs 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The image tutorial does no such thing (I should know considering I wrote it). English is a left-to-right reading system, so left-aligned images are A Very Bad Thing. But your other suggestions are good. Raul654 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I would not quote from a tutorial without reading it first. Perhaps you should read it too. It may have changed since you wrote it. In fact, a quick look at the edit history will show how many other fingers have been in this particular pie. It says this: "Alternating left and right floats. Perhaps the easiest way is to make floating images alternate left then right; this way they don't come into contact with one another, and so can't stack up in an unattractive way." I'm aware that English is read left-to-right. Left aligned images are used in encyclopedias, reference books, webpages, and numerous Wikipedia articles. If your opinion and preference is that images should always be right aligned, I respect your viewpoint, however the tone of your reply implies that this is a standard that I should be well aware of. This is not the case. Rossrs 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Also (and this is not covered in the tutoral because it's a relatively new feature) you should try to avoid specifying a picture size and simply use thumbnail. This way, the user's can set the default thumbnail size in his preferences. I've tweaked the article to do this for most pics, and stacking shouldn't be a problem. Raul654 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware of this. OK, that's good. Rossrs 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now; a few things should be addressed. First, {{cite web}} should be used for online references. Second, are there any references for the first section? Other than that, looks pretty good to me, though some of those images look a little small (though I understand the thumbnail size issue). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't use any references to write the background section - there's nothing there that cannot be found in a basic description of the battle. Raul654 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd grab a general reference from Battle of Iwo Jima, but it doesn't cite any sources, so would it be possible to name a book with such a description for this article? Extra WP:V and WP:CITE never hurt anyone =). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, I grabbed my handy copy of Weinberg's A World At Arms (which is better swatting insects and small mammals than reading; it's GIGANTIC). It also makes a good general-purpose WWII reference. Raul654 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nicely balanced between before, during and after. I have added some further details of the first flag raising (the one that is not depicted in the image) and copyedited a little. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent article, well referenced, comprehensive, with outstanding images (well it should have, shouldn't it...). Well done to all the editors. Batmanand | Talk 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support much better than when submitted. Fixed one grammar error and one fact (there were two marine survivors, not three). Rlevse
  • OMG - who created {{SS}}? Ugh. WP:TFD here we come. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No need. It's a recreation of the already-once-deleted support template, making template:SS a speedy deletion candidate. Raul654 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know all that, I thought they were still in use.Rlevse 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Support. This is a great article - I love the colour coded photograph identifying the six men. That's brilliant. My one gripe is that the after a great read, the article ends badly with two pieces of rather incongrous trivial information which I feel are jarring enough detract from the tone of the piece:"From 1994 until 2004, the NetBSD operating system used a cartoon inspired by from this photograph. NetBSD's more abstract current logo retains the flag symbolism. The format of the iconic photo has been replicated since, for example, in the cover artwork for Terry Pratchett's novel Monstrous Regiment." Can these items be moved to a separate Trivia or Popular Culture section or maybe removed entirely? Or perhaps it could be rewritten/moved to tone down the way the NetBSD and Terry Pratchett novel stand out so much. Its just an odd way to end a great article like that. Bwithh 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to make it less jarring. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool, now supporting article. (I rewrote the sentence slightly to get rid of a slight repetition Bwithh 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well referenced, well written, I like it. --Easter Monkey 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree that the color coded photo is great, very simple way of getting the goal across. Great article, and it's very strange to see Raul going through the FAC. Heh. Staxringold 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I really enjoyed reading this article. It's cited good and has a nice flow to it. American Patriot 1776 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Further Request This sort of a further condition, I guess. Again congrats on a terrific article which I think will be a great FA. I'd really like to see the photo or photos of the first flag-raising in the actual article (its quite a good photo though obviously not iconic). The photo of the first flag being lowered and the second being raised could also go in (I know the linked image is part of a book cover, but you could just crop it down). Both are in footnote links at the moment and that seems a bit of shame. There's also other photos of the first flag raising which I just found - see here and here. These photos seem to come from the same original source as the first flagraising photo already footnoted in the article - there is a slightly better resolution/colouring (I think, anyway)) version of that photo on the same site as those other photos here. The source is USMC Radioman Raymond Jacobs whose story is told on this webpage: http://carol_fus.tripod.com/marines_hero_ray_jacobs.html, and who has been featured in newspaper articles about his efforts to be recognized in the iwo jima flag events e.g. Chicago Sun-Times article from Feb 2005. I think Jacobs should be mentioned as well.
  • Also, I found another controversy discussed in this Dec 2005 Army Times article] - about where the flag came from. well, inter-service rivalry than anything major (the US Coast Guard helped take Iwo Jima?). Bwithh 02:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Object I read this article with interest particularly because it was submitted by the FAC Director, and therefore should give some insight into how the Director interprets the FA criteria first-hand. The article covers the "main points" of the photo and its general context, however, the authors have taken a somewhat shallow and one-dimensional view of the subject. Emphasis is placed on the battle itself, and the "legacy" of the photo largely in terms of its human subjects. It fails to examine other basic aspects:

• Most critically absent from coverage is the use of the photo in possibly the first large-scale, media-based political public relations campaign Especially given 60 years hindsight, the way in which the photo and its subjects were used to rally war support amongst and to raise money from the American public merits a distinct section, and not simply almost passing reference. As it stands, these central issue is covered in all of three sentences — "Upon seeing the photo, President Franklin D. Roosevelt realized the picture would make an excellent symbol for the upcoming 7th war bond drive, and ordered the soldiers identified and brought home." and "The three survivors went on a whirlwind bond tour. The tour was a smashing success, raising $23.3 billion, twice the tour's goal" — while paragraphs are devoted to the lives of various flag-raisers. This is a stark POV imbalance. As one of the stars of tne new Flags of Our Fathers film states noted, besides the heroism it is also about the act of propaganda: "It's a film about selling war to the public," he told 'Premiere' magazine, "and I feel we're in a similar situation right now."
• The summary of the battle does not fully portray the situation, particular the immediate circumstances leading up to the flag-raising. There are important omissions particularly when considered in light of the previous point, the subsequent PR use of the photo. On one hand, the military action is not fully described: the planned 10-day, reduced to three-day shelling and bombing of Suribachi prior to landing that was expected to have pulverized the enemy; the ascent of Company E without an enemy shot fired; and the shortcomings of US intelligence in assessing Iwo Jima's defences, with the subsequent bloody 30 odd days of fighting. Raising the Flag... was used in part to counteract these subsequent events of the battle as well. At the time, it was perhaps thought that the battle had been just about won, when in fact it was hardly begun. This should be noted, especially when the "Background" section summarizes the battle and notes "Strategically, the top of Suribachi is one of the most important locations on the island" and "the battle continued to rage for many days" which, although dates are given, editorially diminishes the four days prior and 31 days of subsequent pitched battle, while emphasizing the importance of Suribachi, which was critical to landing, but only one step in taking the island.
  • I did alter some of the phrasing to emphasize the lengths, per your last remarks, and I added a note about them not being fired out (sourced from John Bradley's UNHC interview). However, most of your ohter observations are too detailed for this article, and would be more appropriae in the Battle of Iwo Jima article. Raul654 04:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The political climate in the US toward the war is not explained Again particularly in relation to the public relations aspect, the state of the public that embraced the photo and its subjects is an important aspect of the overall impact. What was US public sentiment towards the war at the time?
  • As with above, I am not sure of the appropriateness of this to this article; further, there's not really a whole lot to say -- support among Americans for staying in world war II was constantly high for the full duration of the war (I don't believe it ever dipped below 80%). I could talk about the economics aspects of the war bond drive (which is to say, the goal of $14 billion 1945 dollars was, for the time, unbelievably high, reflecting the costs of the war) Raul654 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• How the photo itself was taken Much readily available detail is omitted, such as the camera and settings, and the immediate events leading up to the photo, how Rosenthal ascended Suribachi, set up and took his shot. Much detail is included on other detials — for example, at least four paragraphs, including and entire paragraph of quotation — are given to the "sixth man", but how the actual photo came about is not directly covered (i.e. how Rosenthal on the way up met Lowery, photog of the original flag raising, on the way down, how he almost missed the shot, and so forth).
  • Done Raul654 06:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The "controversies" surrounding the photo are not fully represented: the "staged shot" is emphasized, while the "second raising" angle is not directly addressed In fact, it would seem that there has been ongoing debate and controversy over the fact that the "raising" is not the original one, but that it was used because there was a "better photo". One vet who helped with the first flag raising, and won a Silver Star and a Purple Heart at Iwo Jima, was quoted as recently as 2005: "I mean, everyone says, Iwo Jima flag raising, they look at the other one, that's not right. It wasn't. That's what I say. But ain't good enough, I guess -- maybe that's what they think. Kinda hurts you. But I've talked a lot about this, I've argued a lot about it. I can always prove it, that's the thing." He has apparently been promoting this message for since the war. It is also elsewhere noted that the Navy and government did not clarify the origin of the photo at the time. Basically, this wasn't the victorious flag raising that the soldiers on the beach cheered, but a second flag raising that put up a better flag, and there has been ongoing controversy about this. This side of the issue should be addressed in a encyclopedia history article of this specific focus.
  • done (first mentioned in the controversies section in regards to Rosenthal, but the new paragraph is in the legacy section) Raul654 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The reason for the second flag raising is presented in an unclear, non-summary and possibly misrepresentative manner An IMO unnecessary two paragraph book excerpt in the "Raising the Flag" section leads to the conclusion that the second flag was raised partly because it was "too small to be seen" and largely (based on the excerpt) to keep the flag from the souvenir-hunting efforts of the Secretary of the Navy. This is not a summary I found elsewhere, and even in James Bradley's own interview on the raising, notes: "The first flag was a smaller flag ... He put up that flag about one half hour before this larger one was put up. It was so small that it couldn't be seen from down below so our Battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chandler W. Johnson [USMC] sent a four-man patrol up with this larger flag which is the flag you see on the poster for the 7th war Loan Drive." The reason for including the excerpt is not clear, as it goes into far more relative detail than the rest of the article, and serves only to add some sort of urgency to the need for a second flag.
  • The article discusses both the size and souvenir issues. Insofar as the quote is concerned, not only does it properly address what was going on in the higher echelons at the time (and the sources of all the orders), but the quote explicitely says that Chandler Johnson thought the size issue was "an afterthought". Raul654 06:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The effect of the photo on is creator, Joe Rosenthal, is hardly covered, when in fact it apparently defined and remained the central focus his entire life since Only a sentence, somewhat misleadingly says As a result of this report, Rosenthal has occasionally been accused of having staged the picture. An account from a 1995 AP wire article (which is cited in the references) notes: He has been called a genius, a fraud, a hero, a phony. He has been labeled and relabeled, adored and abused, forced to live and relive, explain and defend that day atop Mount Suribachi on each and every day that has followed, more than 18,000 and counting. "I don't think it is in me to do much more of this sort of thing" The effect on Rosenthal surely deserves as much of a summary as the chronicling of the misadventures of Ira Hayes...
  • Done Raul654 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• The "seventh element" of the photo, the flag itself, is not adequately discussed, when it too has a history as a "flag of unknown origin" In keeping with the level of detail elsewhere in the ariticle (noting, for example, "the logo of the NetBSD operating system from 1994 to 2004." it would seem an omission not to note something about the flag itself. Readily available: During the ship’s stay in Hawaii, [Alan] Wood and several signalmen visited a Navy salvage depot. Wood, who was responsible for LST-779’s flags, recalled: “I was just rummaging around looking for anything that might be of use when I found this apparently brand-new flag in a duffel bag with some old signal flags. It was a large flag, and I was glad to find it because we were out of large flags. Little did I know how famous it would one day become.” Wood figured that the flag was probably from some decommissioned vessel, although he did not know where it actually came from and has since wondered about its origins. “We carried the flag on our long trek to Iwo,” he remembered, “and it flew several times from our gaff on Sundays—it being the one large flag we had.”
  • Done (although it's probably a bit different than what you were expecting) Raul654 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Other uses of the image not detailed: A couple of (somewhat out-of-place) bits of "trivia" like the NetBSD OS logo and cover artwork for Monstrous Regiment are included, but more basic information like "3.5 million posters [for the bond drive] ... used on a postage stamp and on the cover of countless magazines and newspapers" are omitted, as I would imagine are other more "mainstream" uses. Also, a paragraph at least should be devoted to the book Flags of Our Fathers (full-length and adapted "youth" edition) and 2006 Spielberg/Eastwood/Haggis feature film.
  • I've expanded the section describing John Bradley's post post-war life (he was notoriously tight-lipped; when he died, son James new virtually nothing about his father's war experience beyond the mere fact that he was there). Writing the book was a catharsis for James.
  • I've also added descriptions of the posters and stamps to the legacy section [6] Raul654 05:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Use of Flags of our Fathers as the central reference is questionable I haven't read the book, but by the reviews and excerpts (and perhaps the fact that there is now a Clint Eastwood/Paul Haggis move made from it) I imagine it is a worthy and gripping bit of "popular history". However, it specifically focusses on the lives of the human subjects of the photo, and it is a recreation of the battle and other events, written by the son of one of the second flag raisers. Support from a couple of other sources would seem desirable. For example: For a detailed description of the struggle for Suribachi see: Garand, George W. and Truman R. Strobridge. Western Pacific Operations. vol.4 of History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II. Washington DC: Historical Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1971. and For the official US Navy history of the battle, including a description of the flag raising, see: Morison, Samuel Eliot. Victory in the Pacific, 1945. Vol.14 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1961. as well as a non-government historical reference work.
  • I flatly reject this criticism. In addition to Bradley's book (which is, for the record, almost the last word on the flag raising - 400+ pages about a photograph means you can cover pretty much everything) I count 13 alternate sources and 4 first-hand photographic references. Raul654 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I'm disappointed at the lack of critical reviewing of this piece, with "strong supports" and the like. Paricularly with a big budget movie coming out, one would hope that a basic piece of history, with so many available sources, would be given better treatment by both authors, and then, FAC reviewers. (Apologies if this is written a little choppily, my time is limited, so I typed this quickly. If necessary, I will clean up and fill in by review with links...just ask.) --Tsavage 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Tsavage--you are never happy with a FAC, you always object. We could put a work by Shakepeare up for a FAC, totally unmodified, and I have no doubt you'd object to it. As always, some of your points are good, but some are totally out of the ballpark. Rlevse 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

His comments have been extremely valuable in improving articles and raising the FA standard. Criticizing him for having higher standards than you do I think is inappropriate. We need more editors who are willing to thoroughly analyze an article and bring to light the faults that others miss. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse - You express the most dangerous, though quite "normal", attitude towards critics. This is how corruption and process death spreads through all manner of social groups: companies, civil services, entire governments, WP,... Faced with criticism you "don't like", you turn on the critic, ignoring the criticism itself. The thing is, in these situations, the critiic is usually incidental in the bigger picture, and the object of criticism doesn't go away with the person. You are equating editorial criticism with disruption in an editorial review process, and that is flatly absurd. You try to suppress an "overly harsh critic", and a couple will more pop up, and then you become focussed on killing off "harsh critics" rather than building an encyclopedia. If you feel good about promoting mediocre articles, self-verifying, self-congratulating, you're apparently in the right place. FAC Director nominates FAC, answers detailed criticism to his own satisfaction, then fast-tracks promotion of his own nomination (in 6 days, compared to 1-2 months for some FACs) without giving a chance for response. There's a healthy process. --Tsavage 12:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with what Rlverse said about you; I don't think FAC comments should be personal. By the same token, however, this is the second time in this nomination you've taken a pot-shot at me, so I'm going to respond. There were a number of objections made to this article, and with exactly one exception (your first criticism, which I did not agree with but was unable to formulate a proper reply to, as I strongly disagree with the facts it takes for granted - perhaps mu would have been a better response?) I have fixed every single issue raised (or, for two cases, actively declined to fix and provided a rational), in the course of 112 edits I made to the article while it was nominated. This nomination remained on the page for 6 days, which I know you are perfectly aware is average. (How many articles have remained on the page for the 1-2 months you cite? Maybe a half-dozen very contentious nominations) Anyone looking at the rest of this page will also tell pretty quickly that I have done a fairly good job of responding to feedback and being fairly polite about it. While I applaud the work you do, providing detailed feedback with specific problems to be addressed, to be frank, I'm started to get tired of your baseless attacks against me. Raul654 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, you will see that Raul654 has quite a few FAC nominations under his belt (although not many that recently, that is true). But I am truly impressed with your obviously knowledgeable comments - you clearly have lots of relevant information at your fingertips, so please contribute some of it to the article to improve it. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: I've really been swayed by Tsavage's explanation of omissions that the article currently makes. Apart from content, I have a smaller issue: redlinks. They should be given stubs or, failing that, quietly unlinked. Right? Melchoir 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article rises or falls on its own merits; being a featured article doesn't mean it should contain only blue links. As for unliking the terms - certainly *not*. That's how we indicate articles that need to be written. We might not be proud of red links, but thye are essential for the proper writing and interlinking of the project. Raul654 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, ordinarily I'm the one advocating the utility of redlinks, but I still don't want to see so many in a FA. Either they're encyclopedic topics, is which case a stub shouldn't be too hard, or they aren't, in which case they should be dropped. Melchoir 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What is "radiophotoed"? I take it this involved sending a photo by radio waves. How did they do this with the technology at the time? Andrew Levine 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, radiophotography is the transmission of a picture by radio. It was invented by Arthur Korn in 1922. Beyond that, I know nothing about it. I've linked the relavant term in the article if someone is feeling ambitious enough to write an article on it. Raul654 06:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup

This is the second nomination of this article. The first nomination may be found here.

FIFA World Cup has been worked on by the following (not an exhaustive list):

• Peer Review
• Football Article Improvement Drive -- 17 votes favored this article to be the focus of said organization.
• Editors dedicated to making the article a featured article (or "as good as the one on Olympic Games eventually," as Chanheigeorge put it). It has been under improvement for the past four months (since December 2005).

Praise for the article:

• When a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team came around to ask for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, FIFA World Cup was mentioned. FIFA World Cup "look[ed] A-Class to" Walkerma (as shown here).

Improvements made since last FA nomination:

• Copyediting (Oldelpaso)
• Historical research to improve depth of article.
• Various other improvements during the previous FA nomination, as outlined on its respective page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

---

• CommentSupport It is a LOT better then it was, but it still has a little ways to go IMHO. For starters I think there's a bit too much trivia in here, including tables lists and so forth. Also, there are many short paragraphs, plus for some reason the category name is still called "Football world cup" (for the record, I was the admin who made the move to FIFA as part of WP:RM). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of changing Category:Football World Cup to Category:FIFA World Cup. I am currently unable to finish at the moment, but this will be done tonight. As for short paragraphs and tables/lists ("trivia"), this should be cleaned up within the next few days. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would expand the history section; it does rather seem to gloss over fairly large portions (I assume this is because the article is getting near the 32k limit?). There is A LOT more could go in. Prose could be touched up in places, particularly the opening paras; some statements need to be cited, especially direct quotes (I've tagged my suggestions in the article, with some comments); 'Growth' para seems to jump around in time from WWII to WWI which is a bit jarring (or is it just me?); 'Trophy' section inexplicably omits to mention football's greatest hero, Pickles the dog. I think the tables are fine, but the presence of so many does rather disrupt the flow of the article, and make it less pleasant to read. However, it is not designed to be an elegant piece of prose; the tables should stay IMHO (for the most part). Only a few minor bits jump out, many of these may be because of space limitations, apart from that a great article and an obvious (= essential) choice for the main page on the opening day. Badgerpatrol 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a description of Pickles' feat in Football World Cup Trophy. Do you mean that it must be mentioned in the main article? Conscious 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That was slightly tongue-in-cheek, to be fair... Much of what might go into the 'History' section is already mirrored in the individual WC articles, but it somehow reads as a bit choppy; paras are too short, I think (possibly because content has been reomved to go into the other articles?). Badgerpatrol 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All citations have been found. Conscious 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Opening paras are still not perfect. This is easily fixed however. Badgerpatrol 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Near support. Well done, well organized, easy to understand. For the sake of readers on the left side of the planet, I'd say "international football (soccer) on first reference and also explain that a "knockout stage" means single elimination. I would also put group stage and knockout stage in italics or bold, since they're "vocabulary words" to be defined later in the paragraph. Finally, the following sentence is confusing to me: "The only previous winner to have lost on home ground is Brazil, who lost the deciding match (known as Maracanazo) when they hosted the 1950 tournament." Does that mean that all hosts to date have either lost before the final game or gone undefeated? -- Mwalcoff 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, fixed, and fixed. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 06:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Support. -- Mwalcoff 23:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. While, as my comments during the first nom reflect, I still think a longer history section or daughter article could be written, it's fine for what we've got now. I would only ask that, in the "Successful national teams" section, the "See also link not be duplicated in the first sentence. Daniel Case 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created a daughter article History of the FIFA World Cup, which I intend to expand significantly. Oldelpaso 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It is an excellent article. Carioca 21:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I'm not sure how much information is available but the "Selection of Hosts" section has only one sentence for every WC between 1930 and 1998, and then almost a paragraph each for 2002, 2006 and 2010-2018. I'd like to see more info on how the host is actually selected (submission process, shortlisting, voting, ???) and then maybe also a subsection on controversies, of which I'm sure there have been more than just the hoax bribe for 2006. I'm willing to help out with this, just didn't think it should be featured until there is a bit more info in this section. Thanks AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I've tried an expansion of this, though little information appears available about the actual decision process of earlier world cups, which appear to have been taken at a closed meeting. Robdurbar 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Nice one. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • A daughter article has been created, FIFA World Cup hosts. There is still work that needs to be done, but this is a good springboard. Is this what you were looking for? Leave comments, — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great soccer article. And can be an Main Page FA near June. igordebraga ≠ 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - very good article, and important since the World Cup is coming up soon. Ronline ✉ 11:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. CTOAGN (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Dark

Comprehensive, I believe. Factually accurate; I even had these guys check it out here; neutral, to the best of my ability; extensively cited, as you will see; and now, stable. I'm hesitant to call this a self-nom because the article has been around for over three years and many people have made very valuable contributions, but of late I have been working on this extensively so I should declare my vested interest. Nevertheless I believe this is now a very strong article, although equally I'm happy to hear any further suggestions. What do you think? Soo 15:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest you elaborate on the storyline as its hard for someone who isn't familiar with the series to fully comprehend it. For example, when the article discusses that "Perfect Dark is set in the year 2023 against the backdrop of an interstellar war between two races: the Maians, who resemble the stereotypical "greys" of alien abduction folklore, and the Skedar, reptile-like extraterrestrials who can disguise themselves as humans", could you extend on why the two are fighting?--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can remember, that particular point is never really explained. Nevertheless the actual story is extremely intricate and labyrinthine; I compressed it to its current state (it was previously enormous; see here) as a result of the Peer Review suggestions. However if you think I compressed it a little too much than it could certainly be expanded again. Soo 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object.
  • Images need fairuse rationales
    • Done. Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ok so next issues re images: are they really fair use? e.g. the maian sos pic seems to be used to decorate the article instead of being related to the text adjacent to it. i dont see anything about "maians" there? also the multiplayer section really needs to show the splitscreen view it talks about, as does the customised ingame appearance part (unless that maian thing is supposed to represent that).
    • You're right. I've trimmed it right back to just one screenshot. I'm working on getting another shot to illustrate multiplayer mode, but this doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm pretty sure the box art and title screen are indeed covered by fair use, so I've left those. Soo 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • auto-aiming redlink: unwiki it and explain what it is in this article
    • I hope this is explained sufficiently now. Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ok but the writing quality is poor: "With increases in difficulty, more objectives are added, less ammunition can be collected from weapons, enemies become more accurate and inflict more damage, and the optional "auto-aiming", in which the game corrects slightly aiming errors automatically, becomes less effective" is just one example of weak writing, best to get a through copyedit of the whole article.
    • That's not a great sentence, I've replaced it. However I disagree that the writing is weak in general; can you give more specific examples? Soo 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • e.g. "in which the game corrects slightly aiming errors automatically" - slightly or slight?, "an additional Perfect Dark difficulty becomes available" - you mean difficulty level? there is more that other readers will spot.
  • explain the multiplyer and co-op modes better: is it splitscreen? how does it compare with goldeneye's?
    • Hopefully expanded now. Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • still needs more. splitscreen horizontally or vertically? what if 3 people play? 4? is there any slowdown in multiplayer? any technical differences from singleplayer?
    • I really don't think the exact way that the screen is split is all that important, and I already explained that the screen can be split horizontally or vertically. As far as I know, it uses the same splitscreen method for 3/4 play as almost every other game. There is slowdown in multiplayer but again it's not really that interesting or surprising. I'm not sure what you mean by technical differences; the player controls are identical though, and the weapons etc. work the same. Soo 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • isnt the multiplayer what makes this and goldeneye unique? so it needs to explain better precisely how 4-player splitscreen works. and if i dont know "every other game" or know anything about how such a 4-player mode works, neither will most readers. slowdown is the type of technical "behind-the-scenes" issue that should be addressed in order to make the article as non-fancrufty as possible.
    • I really don't agree. The way the screen is split is obvious to anyone who has played the game and unimportant if you don't play the game. It's the sort of implementation detail that I don't think an encyclopaedia article benefits from including. It sets a precident for the inclusion of masses of trivial detail; are we also to explain how the menu system works between levels, for example? It just doesn't matter that much. On the other hand I think you are right about the slowdown. I think I will discuss that in the more technical "Engine" section, where it feels most appropriate. Soo 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added considerably more material on the famous frame rate issue. Soo 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • sentence about influences on joanna dark needs to be clearer, e.g. what is "dishonored"? a film? what is "the x-files"? make it simple for non-gamers
    • Should be esier now. Soo 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • dishonored is still not explained, is snowball a game? how does a fps take inspiration from a text adventure anyway?
    • Dishonored is now explained, and there's always an IMDB reference if the reader really wants to know more. I assume Martin Hollis meant that Joanna Dark's persona was influenced by the character in the text adventure, but it's not for me to say. Soo 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • what did "red and black" mean?
    • I'm not sure it meant anything directly (more just the general connotations of those colours), but I've added IGN's thoughts to the article, since their interpretation is presumably as good as anyone's. Soo 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • expand on the torch. did it make it into the game or was it dropped?
    • Fixed. Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 1.3 millions sales, is that good or bad? i believe it underperformed, right? in which case what reasons were given? why did it not sell as many as goldeneye?
    • I've explained now that the N64 was already in its twilight years, which explains its considerably lower sales compared to its predecessor. I'm not sure whether it underperformed in terms of sales; Nintendo never stated how many they expected to sell, and sales figures in general are hard to obtain. It risks introducing a POV element if I comment on whether its sales were "good or bad". Soo 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • you shouldnt comment but you should find a quote from somewhere commenting about its sales.
    • I can't find any such quote. You're assuming from the Rare article that the game underperformed, but there's no real evidence to support that. Soo 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • the link on the talk page does have some discussion about poor sales, i believe it could be worked into the article.
    • I've added some information about total global sales, which was previously a glaring omission. Soo 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • please pick some choice quotations from the reviews, both negative and positive, to illustrate the overall response.
    • Done. Soo 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • did any spokesmen/women comment about the sales?
    • Not that I can find, and I had to search really hard for sales information. Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • the "rare software" wikipedia article mentions its sales were disappointing so there must be sources.
    • More likely that the Rare article includes unsourced remarks; that's not really the fault of the Perfect Dark article. Soo 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually all the Rare article says is that it did not sell as well as its predecessor, because the N64 was coming to the end of its shelf life anyway. This is reflected in the current version of the article. Soo 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • more must be said about the impact of this game on n64 sales and n64 success, as you claim it was a "launch title" if i read it right? was the underperformance of this game a reason the n64 failed? any industry honchos talked about it?
    • I think this misunderstanding stemmed from the poor lead, which I think I've now fixed (see below). Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • there needs to be a section on "legacy": here you should discuss the influence of the game: what other games were inspired by it; was the engine re-used elsewhere; did joanna dark become a lara-croft type pop-culture figure?; it had a sequel, discuss it (in summary syle); any other appearances of perfect dark stuff in other games; what did rare do next?; what was the long-lasting impact of the game, looking back now from 2006, on the games industry?
    • Good idea. What do you think of the new Legacy section? Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • i like the timesplitters stuff but the section still needs fleshing out. e.g. unwikilink the novel and describe it (in summary-style) here. its plot, does it feature joanna, does it feature any locations from the game etc? any words from greg rucka? perfect dark zero has its own article but still should be more detailed here. how is it different/simiar to its predecessor? "timesplitters bears many gameplay similarities" like what?
    • I've expanded on this now. I don't want to expand too much because the various other products are only broadly related to the topic of the article. This is especially true of PDZ whose article is likely to grow considerably in the coming months. Soo 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • its necessary to take a 360-degree approach to the article, this means including its influence in full. PD is more than just a single n64 game, it launched a franchise, so the "legacy" section should discuss it, including the novel and a (brief) summary of the sequel as above. the article needs to read as an encycloarticle, not as a "game guide" which can be be found anywhere, so the sections Development, Release and Legacy are the most important ones and therefore be given the biggest weight.
    • There is a brief summary, and I want it to remain brief. Soo 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • lead doesnt summarize the article well. it even talks about things like gameboy color that are never mentioned in the rest of the article.
    • Improved now, I hope. Thanks to User:Lewiscrouch for helping with this. Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • what happened to the gameboy color info? its now disappeared completely, meaning the article is now non-comprehensive.
    • Sorry about this, I've been working on an improved section on the GBC version, since it seems unlikely that it will get a full article to itself any time soon. I've now added this back into the article. Soo 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Zzzzz 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've turned your comment into a list to make it easier to address the points, I hope you don't mind. Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• article is much improved, unfortunately i still have to object based on the following:
  • multiplayer is still not clear to me: how does the screen look when 3 people play and when 4 people play? i assume the screen is divided into four conrerns when 4 people play but this is never mentioned in the article. is there a black box in one corner if 3 people play?
  • "the same splitscreen method for 3/4 play as almost every other game" - how many other games have 3/4 play on one screen? list some of them, is it common/uncommon?
    • I still think details like this are unimportant but I'll add this in, since you feel so strongly about it. Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • i would expect more games other than timeplsitters to have been influenced by, or at least reference, perfect dark in some way. at the moment it reads like the game was very insignificant in gaming history, i think its significance needs to be expanded on in the "legacy" section.
    • To be honest, your inference is correct. PD was nowhere near as innovative as GE; most of its innovations were technical and had been accomplished before on other platforms (eg the PC). Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • did it innovate anything, do anything unique or new, that was later adopted in other games?
    • See above :) Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • i would like to see a quote from rucka about writing the book. surely he must have said something about how he set about writing a book based on PD?
    • Done :) Soo 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • dont external link to "an extract" from the book, put it in External Links
    • Done. Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • lead should be MAX 3 pgraphs, no more.
    • Four paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (~40000 chars); see WP:LEAD. However I preferred it as three too, so I'm merged two of them again. Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "firing range" doesnt need to be wikilinked (or link to "shooting range" instead).
    • Not everyone will know what a firing range is (especially outside North America). I've bypassed the redirect though, as you suggest. Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • engine section should be more technical in order to distinguish it from "gameplsy" section and justify its place inside the "development" section.
    • As discussed elsewhere on this page, the line between Engine and Gameplay is naturally pretty narrow. This is especially the case here since clearly we can't really know many of the technical details of how the renderer works, etc. Some things, such as Dolby Surround, clearly influence the gameplay but are probably separate from it. Some things have ended up in the Engine section because they flow more naturally there, even though they are probably more gameplay points, e.g. "Like GoldenEye, Perfect Dark uses location-based damage; for example, a shot to the torso causes more damage than a shot to the limb. However, unlike GoldenEye, a headshot on a guard is instantly fatal on any difficulty level." The first sentence is clearly technical, the second sentence is clearly gameplay, but it would seem quite unnatural to split them up. Really I wouldn't worry about this too much. Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • still some problems with the overall flow of the sentences, eg this sentence comes out of nowhere in the "legacy" section: "More recent reviews of the game have not been so positive. For example, Revolution Europe described it as having a "lack of imagination and chronic design flaws". previous sentences are not even talking about reviews. wouldnt this bit be better in the reviews section anyway?
    • The point is that, while the game was well received at the time perhaps due to the enormous amount of hype, modern critics don't consider it all that great. That quote is taken from an article about Rare, not a review of PD, so to me that's more relevant to legacy. I've rephrased the sentence to make that clearer. Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • steven poole's trigger happy comments would be a *very* reliable source for comments about the game, and would really serve to bring this article out of gamecruft-realms and into FA-territory, i would like to wait for Nick_R's additions as mentioned on the talk page before promoting to FA. Zzzzz 12:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object EVERY image has a copyright violation.. not exactly FA standard. This also just failed GA nominations, so it's not likely to pass, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I'm still objecting this because if you actually had worked on this article you would have seen this. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think I've fixed the issues with images. Soo 01:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  To quote this, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." The fact that you didn't like some earlier version of the article is not something that can be addressed. Therefore your objection will be ignored, so it's not a problem. I find your insinuation that I didn't work on the article rather comical, especially since you admit you didn't read it. Soo 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, the objection will be ignored. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Support now - Fair use has not been taken care of. All the images are marked that they need to be replaced by a smaller version, and not one of them has a listed fair use rational. Fieari 07:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've now replaced them with even smaller versions and listed fair use rationale. Soo 11:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's now taken care of. I've now looked further at the article, and have two issues: #1) The lead section should be three paragraphs, not merely two, as according to WP:LEAD. #2) I'm concerned that the article has too few inline citations, particularly early on. I understand that the reference in these cases is probably the game itself, but that should still be stated. I would prefer at least one inline citation per section, and in fact, preferably at least one per paragraph. I'd be happier though, if at least a "general reference" was listed to include the game and its manual. Fieari 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The lead was indeed too short. I've expanded it to three paragraphs now. However I think you are being a little too perscriptive regarding citations. The article has 43 citations and anything remotely disputable is referenced. Looking at the only two other featured articles on video games that actually have a Story section (this and this), they don't make the source explicit, because it's not necessary. Saying "one citation per paragraph" is restrictive. If you really want me to source the Gameplay to the manual then I don't mind doing it but to me it seems pointless. Soo 18:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Seems consensus emerged against me, so I've added references to the manual. Soo 10:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Looking good. Sorry it took me a while to get back to this review, I overlooked it somehow in my list of "wiki-chores". Fieari 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Abstain. Neutral + comment: I'd like to support, because the article is thorough, but I'm having a few issues with some aspects: there is no section that documents the "critical response" or "reviews" the game received. Did it fare well with critics or was it panned for various reasons that we aren't aware of? What about comments on its graphical style or texture technique? For examples, please see two CVG featured articles: The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. In addition, the storyline portion of the article should be expanded, and an {{endspoilers}} tag should be present where the in-depth look at the plot has subsided. The images all have appropriate fair use rationale, so I congratulate you on that. Also, the writing is not "brilliant" as listed in the criteria. Please correct and/or include some of my suggestions and I will comment again. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just now located the reviews mixed in with the sales performance of the game. Please separate these sections and provide a reviews table such as the ones present in the two articles listed above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You have to understand that finding reviews for a game that is no longer available is considerably harder. I could easily pad out the reviews section with reviews from more obscure sources but it doesn't seem useful. Nevertheless I have added the EGM review and if you can recommend any other decent review sources then I'll happily add them. I really wish there were clearer guidelines for the plot summary; the old version was undoubtedly too long, and the new version seems to be considered too short. I'm really not sure what level of detail to aim at. When I read an article, I want the briefest possible plot summary that will allow me to understand the rest of the article, and I think the current summary serves that purpose. However I can expand it if feeling is really strong that it's too short. The writing is to the best of my ability so if it's not brilliant then I might as well give up now. Soo 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I do understand that finding reviews for a vido game no longer available is difficult, because it is the same way with albums, songs and films. I would recommend including the review from Japanese magazine Famitsu and one from either GameSpot or GamePro. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I also suggest the review from "Edge" magazine, possibly the most widely respected games publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
          • I've extended this section significantly now. I've included the score from Edge, since this is available online, but I doubt I'll be able to get a copy of the magazine. Same applies to Famitsu. Soo 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
            • It's better now, however, I'm afraid that I can't change my vote to support until the writing is improved upon. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I've given the article a thorough copyedit now, and hopefully fixed most of the problems. A lot of the difficulties in writing stem from trying to cram in as much information as possible. Hopefully now I've struck a better balance. A fresh set of eyes to look over the article would nevertheless be useful. Soo 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm still a bit distant with the writing. All of my other concerns have been addressed, and I feel as though a level of respect and process was registered here, so therefore I believe it is time for me to follow-through. See my original vote. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks :) If someone better qualified than me can go over the writing then that'd be good. Soo 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - The "Engine" section is supported by a single significant citation (and two very minor ones) -- an entire paragraph goes by without any support from sources. Additionally, the "Gameplay" section appears to be dominated by original research, and is in any case also virtually unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think consensus has emerged that I'm wrong about the usefulness of citing the game's own manual explicitly. So I've added significant citations to the Engine section, and am now working on the same for Gameplay. Soo 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Finished now. I've found external referencs for anything I couldn't find explicitly explained in the manual. Soo 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the points made in the "Gameplay" and "Engine" section are pretty obvious to anyone that plays the game. I would have thought that this means that they don't need to be cited, but User:Agentsoo has now added references to the game's instruction manual, which hopefully should be adequate. Remarking on changes from GoldenEye to Perfect Dark is a little more awkward - again, the differences are evident to just about everyone who's played both games, but would that really fall under original research unless we cite an external review which compares the two? Finally, some of the content from the "Engine" section merely describes standard features of the gameplay; those points which don't relate to technical aspects of the game or changes since GoldenEye might need to be moved to the main "Gameplay" section. (Incidentally, that reminds me: we ought to mention the fact that PD features lifts, but I can't really think of a good place to put it.) --Nick R^Talk 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. If you mention the lifts in PD, also mention the old beta footage of GoldenEye that shows the player riding a lift. It was shown in a video released before the release of the system (I think) that starred Ken Lobb. Hopefully there is an online source for the video.--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This? --Nick R^Talk 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's the one.--Drat (Talk) 02:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The line between Engine and Gameplay is pretty fine. For example, "Like GoldenEye, Perfect Dark uses location-based damage; for example, a shot to the torso causes more damage than a shot to the limb. However, unlike GoldenEye, a headshot on a guard is instantly fatal on any difficulty level." - the first sentence is very much an engine thing, and the second sentence is really a gameplay thing. However it doesn't seem useful to split the two sentences up, because they're so intimately related, so I think we can afford to be a little flexible in terms of what goes where. Soo 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I believe this article now fulfills all the requirements for becoming a FA. It is certainly comprehensive and is well written. Referencing seems sufficient to me, and images are used appropriately. It's quite impressive to see many/all of the objections here taken care of in the time this has been nominated. -- Lewis 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I must admit I have now lost track of which objections have been resolved and which haven't - it's difficult when relying on other people to retract their objections when they've been handled, but I don't want to edit others' comments. Soo 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you there, and in addition, some objections can be addressed no further. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It's good. It's referenced (boy is it ever). I'm not sure what else to say. Nifboy 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Full support - referenced and interesting. The condition is that you merge the one-paragraph section "training" with some other section or expand it. One-paragraph sections are ugly. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. I've merged it into the Solo player section, where it is more at home anyway. Soo 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good article. Is not as refined as Super Mario 64 or Majora's Mask, but is great, very detailed, and uses references well (58!). igordebraga ≠ 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport. Seems pretty good to me. Thunderbrand 20:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Demand Note

self-nomination
Demand Notes were the second type of paper money issued by the U.S. from 1861-1862 during the American Civil War. They were, however, the first widespread issue of U.S. paper money and a precursor to modern U.S. paper money. This article has the most information in one place that I currently know of (in my 8 years as a currency collector). --Kurt 05:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Red links...are not good for FA's. Osbus 01:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Only two red links is okay, in my opinion. Red links are generally only frowned upon when there are too many of them. AndyZ _t 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The red links are the result of Wikipedia convention more than an explanation that needs to accompany the article. Anyways, I will be creating these articles with a decent yet minimal amount of information sometime this weekend. --Kurt 12:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - A well-written article, but for the table at the end, which sticks out like a sore thumb as unencyclopaedic. I know that "Common" is a relative term, but it doesn't tell me that much. How common is common? Do most currency collectors have one? Unless there are hard and fast numbers, I don't think a table is really merited. I have a few other quibbles with informal language. Lastly, when did these notes fade out of usage? The history section ends with them having a fair bit of purchasing power; what happened next? The Disco King 04:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can see what you meant by the table being a bit confusing. I have found a new source of information pertaining to the number of remaining notes and have also made the table hopefully less confusing. Are there any certain parts of the article that you think I should reword? And lastly, I added what happend to Demand Notes in the end. Through many drafts of the article, some how I forgot to include this information. --Kurt 12:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Change to Support - Yeah, after those changes, this is looking pretty good. Nice job. The Disco King 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you. --Kurt 07:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Questionable Image Useage. Image:Demand Notes.jpg looks to me more like some promotional image for a dealer in banknotes rather than a legitimate, plus it doesn't accurately source where in American banknote literature it's used in, or whether it was distributed in a form like a Souviner card. Not exactly an image I would consider for the top of the article.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: <sarcasm>I'm a dealer trying to sneak in a promotion. Right?????</sarcasm> <---- I don't know where that presumption came from. Anyways, the image was created by me (hence the creative commons attribution license) for aesthetic reasons; there was an imbalance of pictures at the bottom of the page prior to its creation. The image personifies the struggle of the time (Civil War) and the values and themes of the time that were present on Demand Notes. --Kurt 12:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, please try to find a better image to accurately portray Demand Notes, and I will give my Support to it. To me, when I first look at that page, I expect to see in that first image (an) image(s) of Demand Notes, not some collage of images from Demand Notes. It kinda defeats the purpose of writing an article about Demand Notes, yet have an image that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have pictures of all 3 Demand Notes in the article. What else do you want? --Kurt 05:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i'll help you out. I pulled up three US Currency articles for you: this article on the United States Note, Federal Reserve Note, and the Silver Certificate. Notice the first image of these articles are an example of the note, OR an image of several examples of said notes, which helps illustrate the article introduction. Now, take your image on Demand Note. It looks out of place. If I was a newbie, and I clicked on that link for the first time, I could either get the wrong impression (Demand Notes looked like that?); find myself clicking back, thinking I typed in something wrong; or something else. You need to replace that image with either a great photo of one of the demand notes, or a retrospective of the notes, one for each denomination for example.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to make things simple, how about this image? If this still doesn't suffice for you then read below....

Well, first of all the Demand Note article IS NOT the same as these articles. Yes, they are all about U.S. currency, but there are some key differences. Based on major design changes throughout denominations (and this is excluding minor design changes), there are a total of 43 possible images for United States Notes, 39 possible images for Silver Certificates, 32 possible images for Federal Reserve Notes, and only 3 possible images for Demand Notes. There are a myriad of images for these other articles but not Demand Notes. The Demand Notes article discusses each denomination design in depth and thus needs the images of each denomination next to the description to make any sense. Further, I am rewriting the Federal Reserve Note article and am planning on making a montage of the 5 major design milestones as the image in the lead section; that makes 27 images that I can choose from to put into the body of the article. I don't seem to have this connivance with the Demand Notes article.

As for the image itself, I have updated the caption below it for clarification to "Montage of allegorical figures and portraits used on $5, $10, and $20 Demand Notes; the background is of an 1861-1863 34 star U.S. Flag". And if you think about it, lead sections summarize the article and should be able to stand by themselves. And what does the image do - summarize the portraits and allegories used on Demand Notes and gives the time period in which they were used and by whom (The North) they were used. --Kurt 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll address this point that I didn't notice earlier:

Based on major design changes throughout denominations (and this is excluding minor design changes), there are a total of 43 possible images for United States Notes, 39 possible images for Silver Certificates, 32 possible images for Federal Reserve Notes, and only 3 possible images for Demand Notes.

It should be generally assumed that not all Wikipedia users have a grasp of most of the articles in Wikipedia for various reasons. Ergo, using an image that helps them understand what the article is about helps to get them to get "aquanted" with the subject. You propose changing the Federal Reserve Note image to something else. The image right now actually is a good representation that "normal" people are familar with. Notes that they have used countless times in the past and today. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I know that your a newer member to Wikipedia and might not be familiar with all of the policies here, but you need to stop with the personal attacks! --Kurt 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is about DEMAND NOTES. What is the first image that anyone that clicks onto that article sees? A collage of images compiled from the demand notes, not (an) example(s) of a demand note. See the problem here? I don't know what else to tell you, short of completely insulting you, but that image right now looks out of place and it needs to go and be replaced by something that sticks to the topic at hand.

The image as-is (or the compromise image) does not completely fit in with explaining what a demand note is in that introduction section, and rather seems as an out-of-place image that has no place belonging in there. It needs to be replaced with something else that can illustrate what a demand note is within that first part of the article.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, things worked out after all ;) --Kurt 08:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Still looks out of place. I would rather see an image of a Demand Note in the lead image than what is in it's place right now. Still looks like a collage rather than a helpful image to introduce the article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is purely your opinion now and I won't say anything else about it. --Kurt 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment a picture of a demand note should be on the lead section, as the article is about them and should help describe the subject at a glance. The collage should be farther down the page, IMO. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My only concern that I brought up previously is the repetitive nature this would create. Since each of the 3 denominations is described in depth, an image is needed next to each description. If a picture of a Demand Note were to be placed at the top of the article, then an image would be used twice in the article. --Kurt 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support and Comment First off, I support this article as is, very nice kurt. I personnally like the collage thing, and think it could do a world of good as a unique identifier for wikipedia. But, yes, it could be alittle confusing and misleading. How about another stab at a collage, say with just the notes themselves, no cut-out inserts(is that an oxymoron?). Maybe stacked offset ontop each other, or look like a mismatched sheet of notes? Anyways, just tryin to find common ground. Joe I 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alright, I've updated the image in the article once again with this Demand Note$.jpg. Here is my justification of this image finally working:

1. The image shows the front and back of the $10 Demand Note, clearing up any confusion (discussed above) of exactly what a Demand Note is
2. The portrait of Hamilton, "Statue of Freedom", and allegorical representation of Liberty are located directly below their corresponding denominations thus making them relevant for the image; further, their presence is explained in the image caption
3. Showing the front and back of every (a.k.a. all 3) Demand Note in the image in the lead section would be too repetitive since there are image of all 3 later on in the article with a description next to each image
4. This image is in lieu of not having any image in the lead section

--Kurt 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh

This is about Bangladesh, a south Asian country. This article has improved a lot in a recent month or two. There are lot's of references, the language in NPOV, and the article now has sufficient pictures. Thanks,--ppm 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to make the boxes at the bottom be larger so they can be readable? Homestarmy 15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(done--ppm 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

• Strong Support: Of course, I've been working on improving the article, and after handling all the issues raised in the peer review, I feel this article has become worthy of being a featured article. Thanks. --Ragib 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Very well-written and well-sourced. I have followed it through the peer review and major issues have been addressed. One of the best country articles. This one is definitely worthy of becoming an FA. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. All the issues raised have been adequately addressed. Here are a few more suggestions for improvements, that are entirely optional per my views. In the second paragraph of "Geography and climate", there's an external link within text. See if it can be chaged to inline ref and moved at the bottom. Also, the colour of "medium" in "HDI" is difficult to read. If its not a part of standard template (prescribed), change it to something easier to read. Also, in 1024x768 resolution, there's very high image density in "Subdivisions", "Geography and climate" and "Economy". What I have seen in many FAs is that they goagainst the MOS norm of right-aligned image and make the images alternate between left-aligned and right aligned so that the article looks beautiful. Rest looks great enough to have my support vote.Oppose as of now. I am able to find a few glaring mistakes even without going in detail. The name of the country in Bangla is written as "বাংলাদশ" while it should be "বাংলাদেশ". The size of Bangla fonts is so small throughout that its very difficult to read. See Rabindranath Tagore for the size I would request. There is no mention whatsoever that the article uses Indic scripts. Another example of improper spelling can be found in "Subdivisions" section. The administrative division "Sylhet" is written as "সিেলট" while it should be "সিলেট". Make these corrections and I will revisit it in detail. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  I changed HDI/medium to ordinary black, FA's India and Pakistan do the same. The geography issue has been handled.--ppm 07:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have fixed both of the spelling issues. I added the {{IndicText}} template as suggested. I also increased the font size of Bangla text (though it seems to be a client side issue, rendered fine in IE before) to make the font as big as in Rabindranath Tagore. Please check it now. Thanks a lot for pointing these out. --Ragib 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More observations: The article has absolutely nil wikilinking of dates. The only date wikilink I could find (outside of infobox) was of the day when Operation Searchlight started. There has to be a lot of them for the users. The date of Bangladesh getting independence is also stated only in the infobox, and should also be stated in relevant places elsewhere like either the lead or in History. There is incinsistancy in English and Bangla. In English its written "Gôno Projatontri" while in Bangla its "গনপ্রজাতন্ত্রী". Decide if its single word or different and stick to it throughout. The wikilink to MP in second paragraph in "Government and politics" goes to a disambiguation page; fix it. Similarly Bihari in "Demographics" and few other places. Check for others too. I was able to find a couple in a random check, not extensive. The religion break-up claims source as CIA, I think it should be clearly specified as "CIA World Factbook", which I believe is the source. In "Subdivisions", it says "Each police station, except for those in metropolitan areas, is divided into several unions". I think its the region of jurisdiction that is divided (its common for us in Indian Subcontinent to use it but we shouldn't assume others will also understand what it means). Fix these and I will have a look again. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dates are linked correctly as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). It's pointless to link lone years. Dates like April 12, 2006 are worth linking and this article does that. Sheehan (Talk) 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Though its not always useful to wikilink lone years, I prefer doing them in years of related activity. For example, if someone sees an year of starting of a rebellion, he might be interested having a look at the related events that happened around or before it. Initially even I found it pointless to wikilink years. Even for complete dates, I never found any urge to click and explore. But over past few days I have realized that it might be useful for people too much interested in history. But still as the rule says, do it with the idea in mind whether it would help the reader. Obviously it was a bit too much to say "there has to be lot more...", but this article completely lacks them. I myself don't object to the article for this only. But there are other things that I want to be fixed before I give my support vote. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The year 1971 is already linked. I'm not sure if the other years need to be wikilinked. Thanks for pointing out the other issues, which I belive have been fixed by now. Let us know what other corrections you want to see. Thanks. --Ragib 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this article was de-datewikilinkified (awful terminology, I admit) to a great extent after a previous peer review.--ppm 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More observations: Here are a few more things to consider. That Bangladesh is "under-developed and overpopulated" are both measurable and hence neutral, however I find writing it "ill-governed" a hint of POV. A bit more addition to the wikilinking dates debate, I would like to see in particular wikifying of "1947" in the lead as its both the independence year for India and Pakistan and hence highly relevant. Adding wikilink to "Bollywood" when discussed in "Culture" should also help. Another minor issue is that "Culture" section refers to Kabadi as national game, while infobox in "Government and Politics" refers to as sport. Rest looks fine and if these issues are addressed (which shouldn't be a problem), I would gladly give my support for this article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed ill-governed (the governance issue gets mention later -- thanks), changed game -> sport, wikilinked the first appearance of 1947--ppm 19:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Dates: Ambuj, please don't encourage contributors to make trivial chronological links. This issue has been firing away on the appropriate talk pages; please have a look. Tony 04:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already accepted my mistake, Tony. So please don't pursue the matter further. The only suggestion I made after that was to wikilink 1947, which I believe is an important year. Anyway, it wasn't something for which I held back my support vote. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Other issue raised have been handled. Thanks,--ppm 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Wonderful article and a model of proper date wikification - overwikification of dates is one of the great plagues of wikipedia.... Bwithh 21:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: This article has gone through some major revisions in the past two months and most of the edits were done cleanly - resulting in a good and stable version. A good point worth noting would be the fact that all(as far as I'm concerned) of the issues raised in the peer review were acknowledged and corrected quickly. As for style, the article uses MediaWiki footnotes combined with havard refs which works well for citing references. External links also follow general Wikipedia style guidelines like including the access date. The Bangla displays fine on IE and Firefox once East Asian language support is enabled in XP. Sheehan (Talk) 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Congratulations to Ragib on the excellent work. Rama's Arrow 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- What's up with the question marks? --Osbus 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  There are no question marks. In case you see some, that means you are missing the fonts, which is a client side issue. {{IndicText}} was added to indicate that you might need to have the rendering support. Thanks.

--Ragib 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, sounds good. --Osbus 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks spiffy to me, good enough for an FA if all that stuff about the language spellings is correct of course. Homestarmy 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Support This is the model of what an article should be, especially with the references. It looks much better than any article I've read about Bangladesh in a print encyclopedia. In fact, Image:Dhaka-panorama.jpg looks good enough to be a featured picture itself (even though it contrasts with the big and crowded Dhaka I know). ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looking at the edit history, I think ppm has done quite a bit of work on this as well. One of the authors may wish to post a message at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics or contact Nichalp and others to get further critique. Saravask 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. There has been a consensus around removing the countries navigational templates like {{Southern Asia}} and {{Asia}} and using instead "International ties" templates (like {{Pakistan ties}} and {{India ties}}). Could someone create {{Bangladesh ties}}? CG 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I created it. Please feel free to improve it. I have not added it yet though, will wait for some other comments on the topic.--ppm 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I completed the change proposed.--ppm 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - although I feel it should benefit with a light copyedit by a professional. I have one issue: êktara, đhol, Môemonshingha gitika, and Ţhakurmar Jhuli are witten with non-English text, which would be hard for a normal user to guess what the character is. Please convert it the normal English alphabet. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

conversion done--ppm 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. (Although it is a long time since I did any Latin): in regards to country articles, si erat sic omnium. Batmanand | Talk 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support: I hope the team that worked on this article will bring more BD articles to FA standard. --Blacksun 21:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent work. --Terence Ong 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Robust Support as per all the above. --Shawn 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why does this article have something on the order of three times as many sources as the average geography article? Has there been any attempt to achieve economy in references? For example, to verify if several facts can be found in the same source rather than using two (or more). / Peter ^Isotalo 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, there are some references that cover more than one citations. But most of the facts couldn't be found in the same source, to the best of my knowledge (which may be wrong of course). Anyway, the cite.php tool came out from January this year, and this made references easier. The older geography related articles haven't converted to this reference format, and hence may have signifantly less references. I think it is always better to have detailed citations for each fact (WP:V). Anyway, for a comparison with other articles, check Pakistan, which got FA status last week or so, and has 39 references. So, I think the number of references here in Bangladesh are fine, and comparable to other similar articles. Thanks. --Ragib 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm referring to sources, not footnotes. Pakistan has 14 separate references. And I'd say it's absolutely ludicrous to have one footnote per fact, since that means at least one footnote per sentence. You've obviously managed to avoid that. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason for many references in this. 1) Not too many books are devoted to Bangladesh, specially not recent ones. So its hard to get hold of one book that will conver lot of facts. 2) Some facts are quite recent, many (scholarly) papers are from 2000's, for example. I belive this is a strength of the article, rather than using a single older reference (even if available). There is one point of possible economy, though. We refer to banglapedia multiple times, and each article is listed as a seperate source. Merging this will lower the ref count. I will wait for input. --ppm 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's a certain point when the amount of sources used for a single article will simply overwhelm the reader and actually make the article less verifiable. More of everything isn't always a good thing.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, with that and other changes, I brough down the source count by 13 5, without reducing referencing. I'll keep looking for optimizations.Suggestions are welcome--ppm 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good work. Support. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great job, guys! The article is asthetically pleasing and thorough to boot. --Ttownfeen 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—It's good, but needs a copy-edit before promotion. Tony 05:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support I believe that this article is very good compared to other articles that have been featured. If those have been featured then why can't this article? Astuto 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'm giving my support, although it looks like the article has more than enough. Sean WI 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Need more subdivisions. EKN 04:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• Would you be a bit more specific please? Do you mean you want to see more info on subdivisions? The country is not so big (144,000 sq km), and *all* the subdivision information is presented currently. The subdivisions section is supposed to be a summary, and more detailed information is linked to in the section. Other featured articles, such as India, Pakistan also have similar summarized subdivisions sections. Thanks. --Ragib 04:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support as per Ambuj Saxena. 72.137.62.171 04:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanssouci

Article on the World Heritage Site palace and grounds in Potsdam, Germany. This is an interesting, comprehensive and well-referenced article with a good number of excellent pictures. Already a featured article at deWiki. The article is complemented by the separate articles on the numerous architectural features around the palace grounds (see the "Other buildings in Sanssouci Park" section) which are also richly detailed.

This is a partial self-nom - while I had nothing to do with the original article or its translation, I did help in translating the supporting articles, overhauling the references and a few other wording changes. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. The prose is far from brilliant, but then it usually is in Featured Articles. (I can't remember the last time I read a Featured Article that was actually well written.) I'll see if I have time to clean it up some, or if someone else does; then I'd be willing to support. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)My new comments are below. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch! - Try John Vanbrugh or Jonathan Wild or S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I just read the opening paragraph of all three: the first two look okay, but the third has a red link right there in the lead, and uses the pretentious word "perish" where simple "die" would do. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's because it was perishing at the North Pole (geddit?) Giano | talk 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Opinions on the the brilliantness of prose are like all opinions...every's got one and they rarely agree.Rlevse 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object: I hope to support this, but it needs a lot of work. The UNESCO quote does not need to be in the lead. The lead itself need to be much longer giving a brief history of the palace, it importance and some architectural details etc....All the facts and information are there which is a good start. Quite a lot of the text reads like a literal translation for example "Sanssouci is not, as is usual in princely gardens, the centrepoint of the vineyard complex of which it is a part, but rather its crowning conclusion", one paragraph begins "The cheerfully playful picture on the garden side stands in " and many others in similar ilk. There is also much verbosity and unnecessary information, a room by room description of what was once there is unnecessary, as are such sentences as "Five guest rooms adjoined the marble hall to the west. It is not exactly known who over the decades enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to live in Sanssouci". If it's not known don't bother to say it, this is an encyclopedia article not a book. The map needs to be made more of - perhaps with the various buildings being keyed into it (see: Windsor Castle). Are the pictures of the slippers really necessary?...There are many important names and subjects not linked. "Princely" seems to be an overused adjective. There are a few one line, one sentence paragraphs which must go. In short a large copyedit is needed. The architecture section needs to come earlier. Often many words are used to describe a single architectural feature which just need to be given its name. What exactly is a "flat gabled roof" a roof is either flat or gabled it cannot be both. Having said all that the page could become a FA but needs hours/days of work. Giano | talk 15:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is a promising article. Does the nominator or authors plan to make any changes to help it through the FA process? Giano | talk 11:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I was going to try overhauling it in line with the suggestions here at some point, but probably not in time for this FAC to succeed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do what I can before I have to go on break for about 2 weeks for a move cross country (after 4/6). After that I'll be able to help again and will gladly do so. --Mmounties (Talk) 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have been too involved in the recent edits to this page to be able to honourably vote support, but I can withdraw my oppose now. I feel it is an excellent article, which meets all criteria. I can see no reason why this should not be become an FA now.Giano | talk 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Awesome job. Thanks so much. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• This article is now undergoing a major overhaul and edit. Can this FAC be postponed and the article re-submitted in a few weeks - is that allowed? Giano | talk 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) This page has now been heavily altered since its nomination. Giano | talk 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  I see no reason why it shouldn't be. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - after a significant amount of work from Giano and colleagues, this has matured nicely. (I have copyedited.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: they may be public domain, but aren't there a few too many images in the article? —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Giano is truly impressive, taking a good article to a new level. Good job to all. --Easter Monkey 06:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks EM that's kind, but I can't claim the credit for this one. trebor27 did the long and laborious translation with help and advice from Mmounties and Sam Blanning, and other editors too. This was very much a community project before I arrived very late on the scene. Giano | talk 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Understood, but I'll stick to my guns. Late to the scene, perhaps, but just in the nick of time. As a translator myself, I can tell you that it is indeed laborious at times, but the article has changed almost magically under your care. From an obviously German article in tone and grammar, to a very worthy English one. Don't be so modest. --Easter Monkey 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• At this point, still neutral, tending to oppose, I'm afraid. The prose is much, much better, but the organization is still confusing. If the entire article is about the palace (as opposed to the park, which now has its own article at Sanssouci Park), why is there a section called Sanssouci Palace? Why does the history start with Since the First World War? Since Sanssouci at the time of Frederick William IV is a separate article, why isn't it summarized in a brief paragraph headed with {{main}}? And the See also section is way too long; anything already mentioned in the article should be removed, and a lot of things not already mentioned in the article probably could be instead. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I think I see what you mean - the title Sanssouci Palace section was, I agree, a misnomer, I have renamed it "Ethos of Sanssouci" (I hope somebody can think of a better title) the intention of that section is to give an overview of the palace's architectural ethos, and the way in which that reflected its utilisation by its successive owners. The section titled "Since the First World War" was not intended to be a history, but an account of what has happened since the fall of the monarchy. I've renamed it "Sanssouci in modern times" which is a little clumsy perhaps "Sanssouci today" would be better or even "After the Hohenzollerns"?. The page Sanssouci at the time of Frederick William IV was removed from the original Sanssouci page. It does not need to be summarised as the relevant and important facts were extracted and incorporated in various other sections of the page as it exists now. This is the case also with many of the other sections which have disappeared. This was done to improve the flow, continuity and clarity of the existing paragraphs, so that the evolution of the palace could be in one section rather than scattered confusingly around the article. Regarding the "see also" section - following what I think is your sugestion, the list of pages pertaining more to Sanssouci Park has been moved there. I have tried to order the page in such a way that people can easily pick out just the parts that interest them, while still keeping a fairly long page interesting to the end. Giano | talk 11:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. You can see the amount of work the editors put into this article. Angr's concerns are valid, but the page is still much, much better than most FA stuff I've seen recently. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore

Peer review I | Peer review II

Self-nomination. This is about a Bengali poet. Please feel free to be incisive in your constructive objections and criticisms. It is a large article (~ 70 kb), but is much smaller if one ignores/deletes all the referencing. Saravask 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For quotations we do have some templates that you can use in place of the tables if you'd like - see Category:Quotation_templates. They look decent enough as is though. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Here are my observations.

• The size of bangla font is too small. Can it be increased?
• I am yet to see the gray-box usage of quotations in Featured Articles. Confirm it from WP:MOS and make changes, if necessary.

Saffron and History of saffron are both featured and use them. Saravask 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• A link to Charles Hardinge can be added in the Photograph summary in the lead paragraph.

Rest looks fine. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

About the font: You would need to get another Bangla font and set your browser to recognise the font as the default for Bangla. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't knew that the problem was with my browser. I saw similar problem with the {{user bn-1}} template that appears on my userpage and edited in order to make it look big enough. If its Ok with normal browser, I have no objections. Good cleanup since I last viewed it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: fairuse images need fair use rationale (eg dancing girl). poetry section layout is ugly: too many images and boxes stacked on top of, and next to, each other. can it be tidied? maybe those grey quote boxes should just be replaced by normal indented text to help address this issue?
• and 2 new issues in Politics section: there is a HUGE blank space before the pgraph starting "Tagore also lashed out against the orthodox ...", and there is a couple of stacked images there, please spread them out. Zzzzz 12:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Layout has been fixed. ([7]) Saravask 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

All those non-PD images already had fair use rationale. Take another look at the image pages. Saravask 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- 1. The article could be summarised further. I've ignored the referencing, but there's too much detail here which can easily be moved to daughter articles. 2. Avoid so many quotations. 3) " Dancing Girl" and "The Hero" images overlap with the following section heading. Please left-align. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What sections need shortening? I'll be shortening the "Santiniketan", "Short stories", and "Politics" sections. Let me know if others need to be condensed. Saravask 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait till you finish the summary. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Grey boxes, most quotations deleted. All images right-aligned. ([8]) Saravask 22:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Once summarising is done, please let me know on my talk. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Two sections under "Works" need to be gutted-out and re-written before they can be summarized; I'm in the middle of doing this, so it will take another day or two before the summarization is done. Saravask 22:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support -- much neater now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support Conditional Support : Really good article. However, you have my support only if you can address these issues:

1. Shantiniketan section is really confusing. It seems like you have so much information in there that has nothing to do with "Shantiniketan" or his life there. For example, what is the utility of how much money he was making in this section? Then you go on to talk about his travels to USA in this section. It seems like a lot of information in this section can either be thrown out or merged with some other section. I recommend creating a section called "International travels" and merging all his travels in that.
2. Your lead in for the last years section is weak. The entire first paragraph about his views on differences amongst humans has nothing to do with his last years the way it is worded. Maybe you are trying to say that "in the last years of his life he viewed human differences as shallow"? No idea. The second paragraph has a lead that should be for the first paragraph of that section
3. Is their a reason why their is a section "England and Selidah". I could not really see any connection between the two things and am wondering why do you have a section named that.

--Blacksun 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All the online citations/refs check out. A random fact-check revealed no errors. This is an example of an article going above and beyond what the feature article criteria demands. --maclean25 06:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work.--Dwaipayanc 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article looks great after the extensive copyediting by Saravask over the last few months. --Ragib 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support my heartiest congratulations to Saravask and others for their great work. Rama's Arrow 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Most of the issues detailed by me previously have been addressed. The article is now overall good but with some issues, though not critical. I would be happy to see them addressed. First, the "Early Life" section shows his signature, but does not tell in what year it was taken. People's signature change quite susbtantially throughout their life, hence it is important to tell the period it corresponds to. Of course its under "Early Life", but still a bit more detail would help. Another minor thing is that the name of the image concerned is just "Signature.gif", which could have been more informative and less general (no need to act on this). Also, the second paragraph of same section has too many mdashs which seem to break the flow quite frequently. At some places I believe, a comma would be more suitable. The "Shantiniketan" section mentions "Institute for Rural Reconstruction" and says that it was renamed "Shantiniketan". It looks like there won't be more to it than the Shantiniketan article itself. Either create a redirect, or remove the link. Also, I believe the article no longer includes Chinese Text. It used to be in the caption of "Tagore-THU.jpg" the last I remember, but it looks fixed now and there aren't any more mentions of it. So the Chinese Text Rendering Support template can be done with. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my sluggish response. I don't know when the sig was written; I've requested Dwaipayanc (the uploader) to clarify this. Also, the "Institute for Rural Reconstruction" was renamed "Shriniketan" ("Abode of Plenty"), not "Santiniketan" ("Abode of Peace"). Saravask 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well-written, comprehensive and informative article with good use of references and images. Green Giant 02:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a good article on the single most important personality in the whole of Bengali culture, though I find this is not emphasised in the article. Loom91 13:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Specially because this is a very hard topic to grapple. I agree with the point made by Loom91, but it's a minor issue.--ppm 23:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

please give details about his death also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.240.119 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ina Garten

Self-nom. Ina Garten is a famous chef, cookbook author, and television star, much in the vein of Martha Stewart. I'm going into month three of working on this article, and I think it's ready for the FA process. It's been through peer review and is listed as a good article. I appreciate any feedback and comments I get here and hope to get this to FA status. Let's dissect it. :) Air.dance 16:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, comprehensive and well-written.--Fallout boy 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this, it's much appreciated! Air.dance 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support I have a few problems though, which won't affect my vote but which I'd still like you to address. This sentence in the lead is a run-on: "Garten had little to no formal culinary training, and instead taught herself classic French and New England techniques with the aid of canonical cookbooks and relied on intuition and feedback from customers and friends to refine recipes." And this, "Again, however, it must be noted that Garten has made no explicit statement regarding gay rights or the gay community in general" probably needs to be cited. Outside of that, this was generally a very good article.UberCryxic 00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed the run-on.
• How would I cite the line you quoted? If she hasn't made a statement, I don't think there would be a cite. Know what I mean? If you could clarify why you think it needs a cite, I'd love that and will fix it if possible. Thank you so much for the help! Air.dance 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Quite well written, but needs a close eye throughout to bring it up to FA standards. For example:

"Garten had little to no formal culinary training"—which is it: little or no? If it's in between, isn't it still little?

javascript:insertTags('\n== ',' ==\n','Headline text'); Level 2 headline

"She was mentored chiefly by Zabar, of Eli's Manhattan and Eli's Breads fame; and domestic maven Stewart." Misused semicolon.

The one-sentence para in the lead could be merged with the previous para. We're told that "The couple relocated to D.C" immediately after "she and her husband again moved, this time to Washington, D.C." (no matter a new section—it's repetitive).

Metric equivalents, please. Tony 00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Changed "little to no" to "no".
• Fixed semicolon.
• Merged one-sentence para in lead with second para.
• Removed repeated mention of D.C.
• Metric equivalents of...? Fixed metric equivs.

Thank you for your help! Fixed up everything you mentioned except for the metric request, which I'm unclear on. Anything else holding back your support? If so, let me know and I'll fix it PDQ. :) Air.dance 01:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but you've attended only to the examples I gave. I don't have time to edit the whole article; please go through all of it, or better, find someone else to do that. Tony 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I have been over and over it with a fine-toothed comb (almost too much to be honest), had two other non-Wiki people proofread it, and I've sent it through peer review and now FA review. There are a couple of little things -- a one-sentence para and a two-sentence para, namely -- that aren't absolutely strictly regulation, but I believe they stand in the context they're used. Anyway, I'm not sure how much more I can do, but I'll give it another going over anyway. Thanks for your help! Air.dance 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Okies, yes. I went through it again slowly and found a crapload of bad conjunctions and run-on sentences. Fixed those. I also repeated her last name waaaay too much, and I replaced a lot of those instances with pronouns. Clarified a couple of things about her next book, and took out some weasly adverbs. Thanks for getting me to take a second two-thousandth look! ;) Air.dance 06:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Noticed some things.

1. She showed a particularly strong aptitude for science Better off "she showed an aptitude"
2. In 1968, after obtaining a portion of her college education and then marrying, Garten left New York and relocated with her husband to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where she dabbled in cooking and small-scale entertaining in an effort to occupy her time while her husband served his four-year military tour during the Vietnam War. Pretty long sentence. Probably should split that up.
3. Despite being allotted only four dollars a day for food during this trip Being is extraneous and take out only
4. when she and her husband again moved, this time to Washington, D.C. Just say "again moved to Washington D.C."
5. Originally employed on the lower rung as a government aide Change to Originally employed as a low-ranked gov. aid"
6. her idea of an "elegant but earthy" lifestyle. Why is elegant but earthy in quotation marks?
7. very good Get rid of the very's here and throughout the artilce
8. respectively, in the Entertaining & Special Occasion Cookbooks category. Respectively comes after, as the last word
9. Filled with lush photography Don't need lush
10. ; and, in turn semicolons don't have conjuctions after them.
11. She also serves as the entertaining, cooking, and party planning consultant for O. House Beautiful, a popular women's magazine that focuses on decorating and the domestic arts, also features a monthly column entitled "Ask the Barefoot Contessa", in which Garten doles out cooking, entertaining, and lifestyle tips. Again long sentence, made no sense to me.
12. 3 red links. Though acceptable, might be a good idea to fix one or two.

Sorry if this list seems tedious, but I like this article and would like to see it be FA. Oh yeah, too many also's. -Osbus 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed aptitude.
• Split up run-on.
• Took out "only." Can you explain how "being" is extraneous? Wouldn't the sentence then read "Despite allotted four dollars a day..."? I'm not sure if that's correct.
• Fixed D.C. reference.
• Changed to low-level gov. aide.
• "Elegant but earthy" is one of her taglines/ideas about entertaining, so I thought quotes were appropriate.
• Got rid of several instances of "very."
• Got rid of "respectively."
• Got rid of "lush."
• Fixed conjunction.
• Fixed run-on sentence referring to House Beautiful.
• Removed red links. Removed two redlinks and made stubs for Patricia Wells and Anna Pump.
• Got rid of many instances of "also."

Your list was not tedious at all! Quite the contrary, you've been immensely helpful and I appreciate it. Anything else holding back your support? Let me know and I'll get right on it. Thanks! Air.dance 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment- As the person who actually recommended putting in the redlinks, my real problem with simply removing them is that the way the individuals concerned are talked about makes them sound like the authorities in the area (people whose opinions I should respect) and, possiby, people I really should have heard of (more so than Ina Garten herself). It helps to get your grounding on an unfamiliar subject terrain if such "authorities" have articles about themselves (so you can see how successful they have been and what they have done); failing that, a red link is usually a clue that although they may be "authoritative" they aren't massively famous, and I shouldn't feel like a wally for not having a clue who they are! Besides, filling in a red link is why a lot of our articles get created (if this spent any time on the front page, I'd bet that most got filled in - remember that FAs don't need to be 100% red link free). When you delink somebody completely, I now have no idea how famous or authoritative they are, except for a suspicion these people are not notable enough for WP article (which clashes with the way they are referred to). In my opinion, the way to "fix" a red link is to write an article (at least a stub!) not pull out the red link. If e.g. Patricia Wells isn't notable enough for an article then "she has been championed by the likes of ... Patricia Wells as a top authority on cooking and home entertaining" would be an unusual sentence, especially for a lead! TheGrappler 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Wells and Anna Pump have stubs now and I'm considering the others for stub-dom. Thanks! :) Air.dance 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying to remove the red links, I am trying to say make them blue. Three red links at most, in my opinion.My vote is support. -Osbus 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, and all fixed now. Thanks! Air.dance 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object; sorry.
  • Citation of sources is lacking in the first half of the article. I hate to be a footnote tyrant, but as it stands, there's no way of telling which source any of the early biographical material came from. Struck 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The structure is a little strange, starting with the early bio, then going through, in chronological order, all her enterprises named "Barefoot Contessa", then Jumping back in time to explore her Martha Stewart relationship and once again cover her Food Network show. It seems a little disjoint; why not tell her story straight through, beginning to present-day? OK, after a re-read, I guess I'm comfortable with this part. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Still some sketchy language. "Again, however, it must be noted that Garten has made no explicit statement regarding gay rights or the gay community in general" jumps out at me -- the sentence spends seven words just clearing its throat. See below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, I'm here for input and critique. :)

• I'll take care of that as best I can -- I don't think every little thing in an article needs citation, but I see where you're coming from. All of that info comes from the sources I already have listed, so it won't be hard for me to go through my sources and pick out some cites for the most important facts. Done.
• I've looked over the layout quite a bit, and I know it is different than the usual chronological ordering, but several other FA's (such as Julia Stiles and Katie Holmes) don't use chrono ordering either, and that's not one of the criteria from what I can tell. I think it makes the article a better read the way I have it now. I once had it in a timeline and I thought it made the article much less compelling to read and slower moving. The first few sections are chrono, as you stated, and though it may seem to be disjointed, they actually weren't designed to be chrono but to be appropriate for the headings. Know what I'm saying? For example, all of the subsecs under Barefoot Contessa are in timeline order, but that was secondary to addressing each point as it relates to the other, i.e. the show would not exist without the books, the books would not exist without the store, etc. I've put it through peer review and GA review and now this review, and no one seemed to mind, so I think it stands. I appreciate you bringing it up, though.
• I see what you mean about that sentence being a little wordy, but I think that stands, as well. If I didn't word it as such, I think it would seem choppy and blunt and repetitive. If there are other things that you've found, I'd love for you to point them out and I'll see what I can do to fix them up.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it a lot. Let me know your thoughts on the counterpoints I've offered. Air.dance 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This chefography source, is that a television program? Doesn't that present a problem vis a vis verifiability? It could be difficult for an American to catch the program to verify that the information is correct, and impossible for someone from another country. (And I'll think about the structure more when I'm more awake, and I suppose I will get in there and copyedit what I don't like rather than let objection three stand, so I'll strike that one now.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is a television program, and ugh god, good point. What if I upload it and link it? ;) Joking. Let me go through my sources again and I should be able to find some better things by tomorrow -- her interviews/articles are all repetitious as hell, anyway, guarantee it's all been said a thousand times elsewhere. Okies, done, changed all the inline cites to print refs. I did, however, keep the Chefography credit in the non-inline refs section since I wanted to make sure it got credited -- it is a television show and probably not the easiest to find, agreed, but it'll be out on DVD soon enough and then will be readily accessible, I'd think. Thanks again, and I look forward to more of your thoughts and/or edits. Air.dance 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've struck my reasons for objecting above (and done a little copyediting). While going through it, I hit a few sentences that I think could bear improvement, but for one reason or another were a little difficult to fix up myself:

• "Garten had no formal culinary training, and instead taught herself classic French and New England techniques with the aid of canonical cookbooks." This sentence in the lead is awkward. First, is there such a thing as "classic" New England techniques, or does "classic" only modify "French" here? Second, would it be possible to find more suitable word than "canonical"? Calling any given cookbook for a subject "canonical" seems like a POV judgement to me.
• "Despite being allotted four dollars a day for food during this trip, it was there that she experienced open-air markets, produce stands, and fresh cooking ingredients for the first time." The logic of "despite" doesn't quite make sense for me, and the word "allotted" makes it sounds like someone else was paying for this trip?
• "The shop was also namechecked consistently in the press by celebrity clientele such as Steven Spielberg and Lauren Bacall." What does "namecheck" mean? And can you back up the assertion that it was done "consistently"?
• "Filled with the elegant yet accessible recipes that made her store successful, the book..." That's just POV. According to whom are the recipes elegant yet accessible?
• "The program focuses on hearty, guest-oriented food, and Food Network found a popular hostess in the Rubenesque, sultry-voiced Garten." Rubenesque and sultry-voiced are a little POV; is this a quote from a source?

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed.
• Fixed. I took out the reference to the four bucks, since I mainly wanted to reference her first experience with open-air markets and such.
• Changed "namechecked" to "praised", took out "consistently."
• Took out elegant/accessible.
• Hehe, yes, I can see how that sounds POV.. I was trying to reference her appearance and voice since that's how most of the articles about her describe her, but they usually use terms like "glowing" or "curvy and maternal" and describe her voice as "sexy", and I thought those were way over-the-top POV. Do you think I should take out that bit completely?

Thank you for your help! You've made some great edits and suggestions and the article is better for them. Air.dance 01:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. For the last one ("Rubenesque, sultry-voiced"), personally I'd put "curvy and maternal" and "sexy voice" in quotes and cite the sources that said it: direct quotes are a great way to add flavor to an article while remaining NPOV. In any case, objection withdrawn. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Air.dance 04:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I've looked it over and there's no reason not to. Wikipikarefulgenschu 05:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this! :) Air.dance 05:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article seems really one-sided to me, ESPECIALLY the intro. Also - "She is also considered somewhat of a gay icon by many fans, as her Food Network show frequently features appearances by those in her social set, which is populated by many openly gay men." - I don't really like things like this as it seems to be a kind of psuedo-research. I'm being picky, however. Many parts of the article are very well written. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how it's one-sided? I've offered criticism where it could be found on her books, show, etc. Air.dance 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support I love the article and (humour) think we should add a category for American Fag hags , which is clearly a term of affection not pejorative. --DCX (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will add Ina Garten to the Fag Hag article, unless you would want to, Air.dance?--DCX (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Music of the United States

I've written and rewritten this article at least a half dozen times, and I think it's finally ready for FA. There's 90 cites and 20-some references, mostly to scholarly print sources. The Chase, Crawford and Malone books are probably the most respected sources in their topics. There's a lot of pics and sound samples, everything properly tagged (or they were, a couple months ago... I'll go doublecheck now). It's a grand total of 68 kb, and I think about 50 kb without the links and refs and stuff. Thanks Tuf-Kat 01:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And actually, I removed three pics for inadequate freeness or tagging. Tuf-Kat 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Further reading needs some expanding. Some info on chart system? Brand 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do on both. Anything specific you'd like to see in the further reading? Tuf-Kat 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing special. I've expanded the section a bit. Brand 15:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I've removed the Chase book from further reading, since it's already a reference. Tuf-Kat 16:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • And I've put a bit in about music charts in the industry section. Tuf-Kat 19:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I'm quite impressed by the thorough and well-distributed coverage of this very broad topic. I particularly enjoyed the audio files, but I would like to see the licensing tags updated to accurately explain the licensing of the files (a number of them are tagged with the obsolete {{pd}} tag). If that gets fixed, you have my full and enthusiastic support. Robth^Talk 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've fixed most of the tags. Can't seem to find the copyright info for the Gordon Collection, if anybody wants to help. I've left a note on User talk:Tim Starling about his Image:Maple leaf rag.ogg. I think that's all of them that need better tagging. Tuf-Kat 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like you've got it pretty well covered--I couldnt find anything about the Gordon collection either, but I doubt that collection will be an issue. Robth^Talk 18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Bravo! Andrew Levine 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Support now - There are two issues I'm concerned about. The first is merely a style thing... when images are available, there should be an image in the lead section, esspecially for a Featured Article, and esspecially if the subject is, well, subject to being put on the main page (which this one would be). It's nice to have an image up there. In fact, in the very first section of the article itself, there's a very nice labeled map of the united states that I think would do well in the lead. I tried moving it there myself, but there were issues with it aligning properly with the info box, and I don't know how to go about fixing those issues. So I'd ask if anyone can figure out how to get the image at the top of the page, pushing the infobox DOWN instead of the the LEFT (squashing the main text), that'd be greatly appreciated. The second issue is the length of the article. I understand that the scope of the article is GINORMOUS, but 68k is pushing it a little in my estimation. I'm highly impressed with how much you were able to follow summary style already, with all the branch articles and summaries, but it may be possible to squeeze things down even more. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this point, but anywhere you can trim would be useful. The daughter articles can provide more detailed information (they already do). Fieari 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I had originally made that music map specifically for that purpose, then moved it down because I thought the words were too small to read unless one clicked on the link, which didn't seem ideal for the lead pic. (The map didn't turn out as pretty as I had hoped either, but I'm a novice at image manipulation) I have a small monitor, though, I've made the switch and made the map as big as I could without squeezing the lead too much. I still can't read the words (I can make some of them out, but then, I know what they say). Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I agree that a lead pic is very nice, but only something generic like the map could be used without exerting a very strong POV.
  • On the size, AndyZ has just made some very good edits, removing a goodly number of words but not resulting in a decreased kb count. I'll try to give it another trim tomorrow, but I'd be surprised if that even gets it down to 67k. Tuf-Kat 06:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is a near-masterpiece of tight summarization. There's almost nothing in the present article that I would want stripped out just for the sake of shaving off one or one-and-a-half kilobytes. I should also point out that AIDS, which is a whopping 88 kb in size, just attained featured status today. Andrew Levine 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I now support. I like what I see. Fieari 03:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support the article length isn't that big of an issue for such a large topic and its already heavily summerized. There are various other FAs this size on similarly-lengthed topics. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-

1. some form of American popular music is listened to almost everywhere. Some forms makes more sense.
2. Elements of African, European and indigenous music mixed in varying amounts to form a wide array of diverse styles. Fragment...put in are btwn elements and of
3. Make John Warthen Struble a link.
4. "[These early amateur bands] combined the depth and drama of the classics with undemanding technique, eschewing complexity in favor of direct expression. If it was vocal music, the words would be in English, despite the snobs who declared English an unsingable language. In a way, it was part of the entire awakening of America that happened after the Civil War, a time in which American painters, writers and 'serious' composers addressed specifically American themes." Even though it is cited, you should still probably indicate in the article it was from Rolling Stone
5. gospel quartets, jackleg, singing preachers. Why are these in italics? The same goes for the numerous other italicized words in the article.
6. Armenian music in California, Italian and Ukrainian music in New York City. I think there should be an and bwtn California and Italian
7. Of these composers, Billings is by far the most well-remembered Maybe cut out the by far...the word most speaks for itself
8. These composers' style was untouched by "the influence of their sophisticated European contemporaries" It would be better if style was plural.
9. "known for bringing indigenous, or folk, themes and rhythms into music for the concert hall". Who said this?
10. others, however, used tunes from Ireland, Scotland or elsewhere, or did not utilize a familiar melody Should the last or be changed to and?
11. discrete Discreet? Or it just might be my American-ness getting in the way again...
12. Replace some like's with such as: it reads and sounds nicer
13. Maybe make a mention of reggaeton under Latin music, that's pretty influential

Aside from these minor points, this is a good article. --Osbus 21:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments

1. Fixed
2. Didn't understand, but agreed that that was a poor sentence. I reworded.
3. Done
4. done
5. Fixed
6. Fixed
7. Done
8. Done
9. No, I don't think so. Some did one but not the other, I believe.
10. I don't think it's a US/UK thing discrete is a distinct category, which is what is meant there, discreet is secretive or unobtrusive
11. I'll see what I can do on that.
12. Well, it's important, but not primarily in the mainland US -- it's a major part of Puerto Rican music, but starting to cover Puerto Rico would require a major expansion of the article. We can't just begin covering Puerto Rico in the 90s without historical context, so I don't think reggaeton. However, I notice the beginning of the Latin pop section was lacking, so I reworded it such that there is a mention of reggaeton. Tuf-Kat 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, *Support --Osbus

• Support; I agree that it is ready. Jkelly 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- Let me say first that this is very good work, and a credit to Wikipedia. I disagree that its length is problematic (given the scope of material). Its use of the summary form is exemplary, and from a non-specialist's view it appears comprehensive in its coverage of style. However, I think that it is, in effect, a list, with some explanatory text. To be a brilliant article on the topic, it needs to cover social context in much more detail. The article says nothing, for example, about music as a mechanism for propaganda in WW I and II, and very little (a single sentence) about music in the Vietnam-era protest movement (rock music against, country music for), or in the civil rights movement. It makes no reference to the business of music or its impact on the economy. I would support this article as a "Featured List", but it is incomplete given its name. -- Gnetwerker 06:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think any detailed coverage of social context belongs in music history of the United States and associated subarticles. It's too detailed for the main article. And there's three paragraphs on the music industry. Tuf-Kat 23:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Without this info, the the article name should be Musical Styles of the United States. And three paras on the nusic business, without any economic impact, is not comprehensive. -- Gnetwerker 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a lot more to this article than a description of musical styles. It covers foreign influences and impact, history, characteristics (of American music in general), the music business, education, national holidays and festivals, and social and historical context -- it covers the social context of many aspects of American music (Revolutionary War, Civil Rights), briefly. This article has to make room for all the other stuff too. Covering the topic the way you describe would make it redundant with the music history article and leave too little room for other topics. Tuf-Kat 01:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Regarding economic impact, can you clarify? Do you mean hard numbers? (i.e. x number of dollars spent on live music vs recorded, number of professional/amateur musicians) Tuf-Kat
        • Yes, absolute revenues for recorded, live, etc, also trends over time and comparison to foreign. Who is making the most money? What do artists make? What % of the entertainment dollar goes to live music? To recorded? That kind of thing. -- Gnetwerker 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I found some good basic stuff, was going to look for more but what I've done so far alone was 2kb worth. Comments? Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object; this looks good, but a few things should be addressed. Online references should use {{cite web}}. The "Holidays and festivals" needs a citation or two, and the "Music education" section could use some more as well. I think that the article does a pretty good job of connecting the music with the culture , or at least considering the space available. However, as Gnetwerker noted, a little improvement is possible. Also, Gnetwerker's suggestion of hard numbers is interesting, and should probably be included (but not too much please!). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One more thing; should Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash be mentioned in the prose anywhere? Especially the latter, since there's a sound sample from him. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • And what about composers like Irving Berlin and Henry Mancini? They even have their own postage stamps =). —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, both were there in fairly recent drafts. I'll see about working something in. And I've had the damnedest time finding references for the holidays and education stuff. If anyone has any hints, I'd appreciate it. Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• object 68KB? I think some of this should be in subarticles. 140.32.75.175 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are longer FAs, and there are numerous important topics already not covered. Do you have anything specific you'd like to see removed? Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive: no mention of filk music.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • By that definition, this article could never possibly be comprehensive without becoming incredibly bloated. It can't cover everything, so it only covers the most important bits. Filk music would be woefully out of place. Tuf-Kat 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The 'less important' bits should be mentioned in at least one section. And who decides what is important? At 35k Google hits it is more known then mentioned in the article Cape Verdean music (23k hits), just to name one example.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good length, enough details and I leard lots of stuff reading this. Even looks and reads like an encyclopaedia entry. Lincher 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• It would benefit from the addition of a 'patriotic music' section (for which numerous samples already exist, e.g. The Star-Spangled Banner, Stars and Stripes Forever, Dixie, 'etc). Raul654 06:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nevermind - I did it myself. Support Raul654 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Corinthian War

Self nom. Everyone knows about the Peloponnesian War, but fewer people have heard about its successor, this little excercise in futility, in which ancient Greece spent another 8 years trying to bludgeon itself into a pulp. Draws on all the relevant ancient sources and several good modern commentaries. Robth^Talk 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Looks excellent. The one suggestion I would make would be changing the title of the section "394 BC," as well as generally changing dates from BC to CE. (The title of the section should probably be changed to something other than a year, anyways...) The Disco King 22:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you were to change the initials, wouldn't it be BCE, not CE? Andjam 00:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's BC in all our other ancient history articles; we should probably keep it like this for consistency. Robth^Talk 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Wikipedia community spent a long time bludgeoning itself into a pulp over AD/BC / BCE/CE before reaching the solution that either is acceptable, as with American English and British/International English. See WP:MOSDATE#Eras. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, whether it's BCE or BC, I still don't think "394 BC" is a good title for that section. The Disco King 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Has now been retitled. Robth^Talk 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, everything raised during the peer review has been adressed and this is an otherwise excellent article. I would make the map a little smaller, though; it takes up most of the screen even on 1024x768. Kirill Lokshin 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Shrank the map. Looks better. Robth^Talk 03:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Noticed a few things.

1. The Corinthian War (395 BC-387 BC) was an ancient Greek military conflict between Sparta and four allied states, Thebes, Athens, Corinth, and Argos, initially backed by Persia. What was backed by Persia, Argos or the Corinthian War?

   Rephrased for clarity.

2. The immediate cause of the war was a local conflict in northwestern Greece in which both Thebes and Sparta intervened, but the deeper cause was hostility towards Sparta provoked by that city's unilateral domination of Greek politics in the years following the Peloponnesian War. Quite a long sentence...split this up replacing but with however. Also, a description of the local conflict would be helpful.

   Sentence has been split. Further details are given in the relevant body section of the article.

3. The effects of the war, therefore, were to establish Persia's ability to interfere successfully in Greek politics and to affirm Sparta's hegemonic position in the Greek political system. I don't think this is what you mean and makes almost no sense...I think you mean the effects of war enabled Persia to interfere...(and so on).

   I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but I think it says what I'm trying to say right now, which is that the effects of the war were to make it clear that the Greek political system was a Spartan dominated system in which Persia wielded great influence with its financial clout. This had largely been the case at the start of the war, but was essentially codified by the end.

4. Agesilaus campaigned effectively against the Persians, advancing as far inland as Sardis, in Lydia. Put the comma clause after Lydia for clarity.

   Changed.

5. battle of Haliartus , battle of Nemea, battle of Cnidus, battle of Coronea,battle of Lechaeum. Capitalize Battle

   Done.

6. but then defeating a group of Thebans who pursued too enthusiastically. How did the Theband pursue "too enthusiastically"? meaning is unclear.

   Expanded and clarified.

7. The allies then sent emissaries to a number of smaller states, and received the support of many of them. The comma is not needed.

   Removed.

8. which he placed under the command of his inexperienced brother-in-law Peisander How is Peisander inexperienced? Don't put in those kinds of adjectives unless you explain it.

   Clarified.

9. Thibron was later replaced by Diphridas, who raided more successfully but without achieving any dramatic results. Again, explain what you mean by "more successfully"

   Expanded and clarified

10. No Argive army challenged him, so he plundered the countryside for a time, and then, after receiving several unfavorable omens, returned home. So's aren't a good idea for FA's. Perhaps a better way of phrasing would be Since no Argive army challenged him, she plundered the countryside for a time...etc.

    Changed

11. democrats Capitalization?

    No. These are, as they say "small-d democrats," that is, supporters of democracy as a political system. The capital is generally reserved for the US political party.

12. He, judging that he could accomplish more by campaigning where the Spartan fleet was not than by challenging it directly, sailed to the Hellespont, where he won over several major states to the Athenian side and, at Byzantium, established a system for collecting dues on ships sailing through the Hellespont, as had been done during the later part of the Peloponnesian War. Again, another long, slightly confusing sentence.

    Split and rephrased.

13. had outlived its usefulness For clarity's sake, "was no longer useful" is better phrasing.

    Changed.

14. king Capitialization?

    Changed.

15. treary Treary? Me thinks you mean treaty.

    What do you mean? Of course I meant treary. Ain't you ever heard of a treary? (...Changed.)

16. were utterly abandoned to the Persians. Cut out utterly.

    I rephrased it, but the information needs to stay.

17. Six red links a little much. (I'm not saying to cut them out, I'm suggesting to make them blue).

    I've been working my way through these--there were originally about 12. I should be done by the weekend.

18. No external links

    There really aren't a lot of good internet sources for this kind of topic. I haven't seen anything that really seems worth putting in.

The writing, at times, was confusing, and the way you split up the article is also kind of odd. Sory about the screwed up numbering and hope I helped... -Osbus 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All interspersed comments above are mine. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Thanks for the comments! Robth^Talk 03:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good comments, but neither the presence of redlinks nor the absence of external links is a problem. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

External links can he helpful, and more than three red links, in my opinion, is a little much. But since all of the above has been mostly addressed,

Oh, sure, external links can be helpful, and it is nice to turn red links blue, but what I meant by "not a problem" was "is not relevant in terms of WP:WIAFA". -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -Osbus 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article.UberCryxic 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment one of the quotes is missing an opening " - also there are a few short paragraphs. Other then that it looks good. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone else commented on the short sections earlier; I've merged the two shortest. I can't seem to find this missing quotation mark, though. Robth^Talk 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No external links or see also sections. The section title "Sparta wins on land but loses at sea" doens't sound right. Also, the footnotes should be above the refrences, not below. Tobyk777 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed the heading to "War on land and sea (394 BC)." As far as the others, see also is only necessary if there are relevant links that haven't been included in the article body, and external links only if there are external links that provide added value. In terms of section order at the bottom, I don't know that there's a clear preference; I always put the footnotes last since I figure people will be coming to them by clicking on a note rather than scrolling all the way down to them. Robth^Talk 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I found the unbalanced quotation mark; it was right before footnote 44. In my own (exalted) judgment, "See Also" sections are at best superfluous, so I don't regret the lack of one here. Anville 11:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support (I commented before :)) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 14:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I like history, this is a Historical Article that must be featured. Anonymous anonymous 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, support, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: In light of this post on the mailing list, I've replaced the vase painting at the start of the article with a US government image, just to be on the safe side copyright-wise. Robth^Talk 02:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support, the condition being that the one-paragraph sections get merged into other sections or expanded. One-paragraph sections are very ugly. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  Well, there are only four one-paragraph section, three in the section "War on land and sea (394 BC)", each of which refers to an important battle (Nemea, Cnidus, Coronea), and the introductory paragraph in the section "Later events (393 BC to 388 BC)". I'm sorry, but I think they should stay. I would be tempted to add {{main}}, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  The "later events" one is fine, it's not a section outright. Why don't you merge the three into a three paragraph section (War on land and sea) and add a {{main}} tag to the top, citing all three? --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  That (one large section) was actually the original format; I changed it because it made for a rather longish section. I just went through and added {{main}} to the three battle sections, but I would like to keep them; I think they're rather logical breaking points. Robth^Talk 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, I can live with that, full support, great article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Self-nomination. This article languished until a cleanup operation initiated by user:FuriousFreddy last October, and myself and a few other editors have been working on it ever since. We've tried to incorporate comprehensive (but not excessively detailed) material on the significant aspects of Carey's life and career, and I now believe that it meets the featured article criteria. It has been the subject of two peer reviews, which can be found here and here. Special thanks to user:Rossrs for creating the sound samples. Extraordinary Machine 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, A very well written article. i checked all the pics and sound clips, they all have fair-use, and the sections are well written. Vulcanstar6 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I was wondering when someone was going to nominate it. Very strong and comprehensive article.--Fallout boy 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this is just me being nit-picky, and once my question is answered, I'll more than likely support the nomination. Perhaps one of Carey's remixes that first presented her collaborations with hip hop artists should be included as a sound sample (such as "Fantasy" or "Always Be My Baby")? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to create sound samples, so you might want to ask user:Rossrs about that. Sorry. Extraordinary Machine 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It was only a comment, so don't worry. Therefore, I officially support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The original plan was to include "Fantasy" as the sample, but I don't have a copy of the Morales mix, nor could I obtain one, so I added "My All" as a compromise. "Fantasy" would be a better choice .... maybe one day. Also, thanks Extraordinary Machine for mentioning the samples in your nomination. Very generous of you, and certainly appreciated! Rossrs 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't worry about it, the article is still wonderful. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fuck yeah!!! (pardon my French) I was wondering when you (EM) were gonna nominate this article. It has been through so much, but thanks to EM's persistence, it now meets all the FA criteria (in fact, its even better than most featured articles, I can guarantee that). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia may not be censored, but that doesn't mean we can't be professional. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, just going through one of my rebellious phases. But, still, what's a little spicy language, eh?Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I've looked over this article, and found it written with adequet writting style (IMO), all images have propper fair use rationals or are PD. It is also sufficiently referenced, and covers the topic quite broadly. Featured quality. Fieari 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is truly excellent. High-quality references, top-notch formatting (one of only a few FACs that I don't have to touch!), and comprehensive, discussing her music, her musical career, and her biography. Would-be authors of articles on music icons, take note. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a really wonderful article -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Noticed some stuff...

1. She began singing at around the age of three, performed for the first time in public during elementary school, and was writing her own songs by junior high. Wrong tense of perform (tenses have to be consistent)
2. However, Carey has never done a world tour although there are many who keep reporting that she has. Reports of this are untrue. She has only done two miniature tours; one when she debuted, and the other in the "Charmbracelet" era. Carey's stats and career are often inflated to make her look better when it is unnecessary. Carey would not have done a world tour because she is uncomfortable performing in front of large groups and her popularity is mostly in the U.S. not worldwide. Where does this part come in? There is no transition bwtn this section and the section before it, and seems out of place in tone with the article. The last two sentences esp. seem strange and looks to be vandalism. Also, if you're including it, explain the "Charmbracelet Era", or link it to another article.
3. and CNN derisively referring to her casting as a talentless diva as "letter-perfect". Replace and with with...makes more sense.
4. WiseGirls producer Anthony Esposito cast Carey in The Sweet Science, a film about an unknown female boxer who is recruited by a boxing manager. It never entered production, and WiseGirls went straight to cable in the U.S. This section is a little odd...it transitions to the film Sweet Science, but then there is mention of WisGirls at the end of the sentence. Maybe put the bit about the WiseGirls before the transition.
5. and another featuring rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard which has been credited Who, not which
6. jewellery Jewelry is spelled wrong.
7. later that year it was announced that she had The that btwn announced and she should be cut out.
8. She has also expressed a desire to release a perfume,and later that year it was announced that she had signed a licensing deal with the cosmetics company Elizabeth Arden to release a fragrance in 2007. This sentence doesn't read well and repeats itself.

Aside from these, it's a good article. --Osbus 01:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• • You are dead wrong on counts 1, 5, 6, and 7. Don't know about the rest. Don't have time at the moment. With number 1, all of the tenses are in past. That is all that matters. It's perfectly okay to combin simple past with past continuous. With number 5, the relative clause is referring to the "remix" not the rapper "Dirty ole Bastard". Therefore, "which" is correct and "who" is incorrect. With number 6, "jewellery" is the British spelling variation on the American spelling "Jewelry". Lastly, number 7: The extra "that" is okay. It's the writer's choice. Both with or without "that" is correct. --Jayzel 07:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Since she's American, this article should only use American spellings. (Osbus was incorrect to refer to it as a mispelling, but in this context, it should be switched regardless) I won't comment on the other points. Tuf-Kat 16:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Jayzel is right about point 5: the remix itself was credited with initiating the trend, not just Ol' Dirty Bastard himself. I've tried to remedy the other points - the extract from #2 was unsourced POV which was inserted recently and shouldn't have been there. Extraordinary Machine 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry if I seem "dead wrong" to you, but all the sentences I pointed out aren't necessarily "incorrect", but would sound better if differently written. For example, the sentence with the extra that would sound better without it, b/c there is already another necessary that preceding it. I believe an FA should not only be informative, well-sourced, and all that crap but also well written. --Osbus 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I've edited the sentence regarding the "Fantasy" remixes, I think it is clearer now. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I love finding something to object to in these pop culture articles but this is truly excellent, ESPECIALLY the formatting. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The one comment I might make is that the lead doesn't really make reference to her "return to prominence." Other than that, this article looks fantastic! The Disco King 05:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I'm just stupid, I expected it to be chronological, so when I saw that the last paragraph ended in 2000, I just assumed. But one should never assume. When you assume, you make an ass out of Uma Thurman. Still Support! The Disco King 05:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article looks amazing and is extremely well written. Underneath-it-All 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (why the numbered votes?) The David Morales link could be removed from see also, as it should be linked elsewhere. "Biography and music career" could be just shortened to "Biography", I think. I also don't like having section headings with nothing at all under them; I suggest putting a paragraph or two summary under "Artistry". Tuf-Kat 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Morales "See also" link has been removed, and the section header shortened. I wasn't sure how to summarise the "Artistry" section so I just removed the first section header ("Influence"), which I think looks okay. Extraordinary Machine 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks pretty good then, support Tuf-Kat 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great article. --Terence Ong 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent. --Wilanthule 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Qualified support. Comprehensive and, on the whole, well written. However, quite a few things need fixing. Here are some random examples of little problems I picked up.

"she is the most successful artist of the 1990s"—"was"

"is well-known for her wide vocal range and melismatic singing, despite criticisms of her voice and lyrics."—the first clause refers to specific technical matters, yet the second clause is vague. If her wide vocal range is admired, what exactly has been criticised. This is an important point; readers will want to know.

"and after a period of only minimal success"—it's awkward; what about "and after a disappointing period"

"Her moderate renown"—similar issue to the previous point; the adjective and the noun pull in opposite directions

"Carey co-wrote ... and would continue to co-write"—let's keep it in the indicative mood, rather than mixing it with the conditional ("continued to co-write" is simpler to read, and crisper).

Please find someone who's a little distant from the text to sift through it and weed out problems such as these.

Sources—query in relation to Criterion 2c: I wish that some of it didn't look so obviously like a stitching together of material from the sources. Although there are inline references, there should be quote marks around text that is lifted directly from those sources. Are they largely paraphrased or quoted??? If this is going to be an issue, I'll have to change to object, but I could be wrong here. (BTW, please don't think that other sources don't themselves need editing.)

So much is good about this article; it's worth the effort to fix it. Tony 03:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix all of the grammar problems that you listed. I did ask somebody to give the article a copyedit during the most recent peer review, but it's changed quite a bit since then. In response to your sources query, I'm not sure if you are asking whether or not the sources were copied from, but I made sure to put it into my own words as much as possible to avoid plagiarism, and I also inserted quotation marks around text lifted directly from the sources. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very good, and nothing jumps out at me as problematic. Everyking 10:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support even the fair use images have been cut down as far as I could hope for. Good article. -M^ask 17:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the editors of this article deserve a huge congratulations for the amazing turnaround that has been achieved here. Well written, illustrated, sourced, and superbly structured. Rates highly against all criteria. In line with the excellent advice given by Tony, we should continue to scrutinise the text to iron out the minor glitches that he has detected. As he said, it is well worth the effort to make this quality article even better. Rossrs 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I have to say I very much dislike the expansion of the info box. Also known as "Mimi" is fancrufty, and trivial. I particularly do not like that "related artists" Whitney Houston and Celine Dion are mentioned in the info box. They are mentioned several times in the article, but the info box as a summary assumes a more authoritative note and to put them there it becomes POV. In the article the comparisons are related to specific instances and critical comments and are attributed to outside commentators. As such they are not editorial POV. In the infobox they are taken outside of the context of an external commentator and to me it looks we're saying "Wikipedia has decided that these are related artists, and are the only ones worth mentioning" and it clearly crosses the line into editorial POV. I think it is very wrong and to allow it to remain would be setting a very, very bad and dangerous precedent. It is like the things you see in fan magazines ("if you like this artist, you'll probably also like this one" or "if you bought this CD you really should also buy this one" ). It's an endorsement, and a recommendation. IMDB and particularly Amazon do it (with astonishing inaccuracy, but bless them for trying, they are, after all, selling a product), but we should never do it. Sorry to say, this is sufficient for me to change my vote. I realize this was not added by the nominator or any of the people who have built this article, but please get rid of it. Rossrs 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The template has been removed. It's part of WikiProject Musicians, which appears to be "in development"; regardless, I agree with you wholeheartedly that a field like "Related acts" violates NPOV, and there's a related discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Extraordinary Machine 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Once again I support this excellent article. Rossrs 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Would be great to see some more pics (you can't love Mariah without looking at her...WOW!) but that doesn't take away from the quality of this article. Harro5 10:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Who's the guy shaking Mariah's hand in Image:Mariah Carey in April 1999.jpg? My knowledge of American congressional politics isn't great, but he looks familiar and it should be mentioned in the caption and definitely in the image description. Also, that image doesn't seem to be properly attributed to a photographer. The info says it came from a fan website, but fan websites are notorious for ripping off images so permission from the fansite isn't adequate. --NormanEinstein 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't say with 100% certainty, but it looks a lot like Sen. Trent Lott. -- Daniel,levine 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (actually Andrew Levine)
  • I also have a concern on the copyright of some pics from "mariahdaily.com". I can see Image:Mariah Carey in April 1999.jpg maybe being ok (if it's a PD from a staffer of Lott). But, Image:Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston in March 1999.jpg seems to good to be true, since it's a TV preformance. Now, its possible that somebody from mariahdaily.com snapped the photo, but that seems a little unlikely. Mariahdaily.com invites people to send in photos, and has huge numbers. I can't see all those people giving up copyright to good quality photos. TV producers definately wouldn't give up a photo they owned. I find "Copyright (c) 1999 Mariah Daily." combined with "Photographer: Unknown" to be a little fishy. If you don't know who the photographer is, you probably don't know the copyright holder. --Rob 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've replied below. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose till copyright issue is cleared up for the mariahdaily.com photos. First, you likely can't know the copyright holder if the photographer is unknown. Second, GFDL requires attribution. If the original photographer really did license the image under GFDL, then they must be attributed. Anonymous photographeres and GFDL don't mix. This is my sole objection, as the article looks good. --Rob 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed (from this article as well as others) all of the images that originated from MariahDaily, and I've sent them another email asking if they could clarify the copyright status of them. Extraordinary Machine 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nicely written. --Tone 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice to see such a full-fledged clean-up effort! Staxringold 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article is quite good now. Good writing and references. Image copyright issues are obviously gone. Personally, I would like the cropped version of the lead photo, to cut-out the background, but that's no big deal. --Rob 00:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is overall well-done, and certainly among the best of the pop artist and song pieces that have come through here, some successfully, in recent months. IMO, this is thanks in good part to the informative "Artistry" section, which adds a necessary dimension to the article, focussing on the subject's skills and craft, that is sorely lacking in, for example, recent FA promotion Celine Dion. Overall, the article does summarize rather than drone on with scads of press minutiae, and moves along smoothly. My main area of concern is the liberal use of critics' quotes, which is kept under relative control, yet still adds an undesirable element of the hyperbole common to pop criticism. Quotes like "a purveyor of saccharine bilge like 'Hero', whose message seems wholesome enough: that if you vacate your mind of all intelligent thought, flutter your eyelashes and wish hard, sweet babies and honey will follow" add reading interest and...pep, as they were originally designed to do by their authors, but, appearing too often, they also unduly color the account, and move conclusions from research-based, to the particular words of this or that scribe. Each such quote should have a distinct purpose, and not be used to advance the general narrative from, in this case, album to album. All things considered, however, had I the time to, uh, evaluate more in depth, I probably would not object, just write a longer comment. Putting aside encyclopedic concerns, as an uncritical reader, I was informed and satisfied. If this article could somehow influence the FAC guidelines more directly, that would be a fine thing! --Tsavage 13:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't take this the wrong way, but just a quick question: Have you ever supporrted a FAC? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I don't think comments like this are very productive. Extraordinary Machine 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• To Tsavage: thanks. I think saying "The main criticism of [that album] was [that]" and nothing more doesn't really stand up on its own unless the statement is corroborated by quotes from actual people; I feel that readers are less likely to question the accuracy of these statements if direct quotes (or instances of paraphrasing) are included. I did try to research as much as I could about the general critical appraisals of each of Carey's albums, and then pick a quote or two that best exemplified what most reviews had said. Extraordinary Machine 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's an excess of quotes. Trying to summarize opinions generally is quite risky, and leads to bias or weasel words to avoid bias. I would actually like to see even more quotes. For instance a suggestion she has "prima donna" behaviour and acts as a "diva" was outside quotes, and wasn't attributed to a specific source in the body of the article, and a reader has to go to the footnotes to see where it was written. The casual reader (who doesn't read footnotes at the bottom) doesn't see exactly who said this (or even if that was the term used). It used the classic "alleged" weasel word. Stuff that's pure opinion usually belongs in quotations. --Rob 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rush (band)

After a few months of preparation, including a bunch of work and a peer review, I think it's time to see Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the list of featured articles. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support/co-nom Strong Support I think this article will be 100 percent, once another reference or two is given to balance things out. Even then, that's just a bonus. Deckiller 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment- Could the external links under the references section be cited according to WP:CITE? Perhaps Template:Cite web might be useful here. AndyZ 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support/Self-nomination Strong Support. The article has responded to all of the suggestions contained in this FAC forum. I feel there is little more that needs to be done. Wisdom89 18:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object;this looks pretty good, but the history section is really long—31 kb. Create a subpage History of Rush (band), copy the section there, and then cut half the history out of this article. Move the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thing above the trivia/popular culture, and add some citations there. Incidentally, I'm not sure that the trivia and pop culture stuff is really necessary for this article, and I don't really like it being in a list... maybe a couple paragraphs mentioning the most important things would be in order? Citations are crucial in the reputation and musical style sections (think billboard magazine, rolling stone, arts reviewers in major newspapers, etc.) All complete dates need to be linked (I've done a few). Note that this does not include things like "xyz happened in August 2004" or "xyz happened in 2004", only "xyz happened on August 4, 2004". —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I've created that article (the section still needs summarization) and added three cites to the style section. Still need to work on some more cites, and that pesky trivia section still needs work. The wikilinking of dates is a trivial thing that I'll probably do last if no one beats me to it. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• The History section is much shorter now, and I simply removed the trivia and pop culture sections, which might merit a separate article but aren't really notable enough for the main one. I don't see any dates that need to be linked. The one thing remaining from your checklist seems to be those cites. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I trimmed the history section a bit more. Deckiller 16:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that the Allmusic guide is a particularly good source. I'd prefer to see citations from music magazines and newspapers. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• It meets WP:RS just fine... —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see nothing on WP:RS that gives me reason to think AllMusicGuide is a very reliable source. Andrew Levine 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then what bias or other inaccuracies can you identify that make AMG unreliable? Do you have original evidence, articles written by others claiming AMG is not a reliable source? Can you provide us with these? From what I've seen, AMG is fairly respected in the music field. Moreover, they're only used in a handful of references on the article. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just to throw my two cents in on this one, AMG has some reputable and well-known experts on popular music, such as Stephen Thomas Erlewine and Blue Gene Tyranny, who offer some excellent criticism. I'd definitely consider it to be a reliable source. Alexthe5th 04:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• AMG should stay, in my opinion. — Deckiller 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, huh? I was under the impression that consensus is what determines such issues. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I rephrased my comments, I'm stressed out over vandal catching, so I might be a little snappy. Sorry for being a little punk, it won't happen again. If it does, I block myself for a day. — Deckiller 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Anyway, my childish incident aside, AMG does interest me in the fact that it has professional, well-written reviews, though it is also nice to use another review source just for diversity. In that sense, I recommend not removing AMG sources, but including others to balance them out more. — Deckiller 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reducing to weak object due to the addition of several print sources and overall diversification of the sources. I'll see what I can do about getting newspaper refs later, but for now, the referencing isn't too bad for a popular culture article. Other than that, it looks great. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, the reputation section has a lot of "Rush were criticized for X, they were also praised for X; they were criticized for Y and also praised for Y" without any citation. Find some credible sources for these statements. I will read through the rest of the article later. Andrew Levine 17:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the history section has been curtailed sufficiently for now. I will work on citations for the reputation section abit later, or if someone wants to beat me to the punch that's fine. Those claims should be easily verified as they are quite common. Wisdom89 18:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Citations have been added to the reputation section Wisdom89 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Much of the censure evaporated as time wore on, and as the lyrics became increasingly more introspective, humanitarian, and thoughtful" ...? No citation there. Also, I'm sketchy about the amateur reviews posted on Amazon and AllMusicGuide. What about professional statements from well-known music magazines or record guides? There are no shortage of well-regarded publications related to rock music (or to prog-rock in particular). Andrew Levine 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• When making statements or claims about the general public/fan's reactions to lyrics and the band's heavy usage of synthesizers, I feel that "amateur" critic analyses and reader opinions make complete sense as a reference... However, I agree that the comment you quoted needs a citation. Wisdom89 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe sporadically, but professional reviews are more reliable and authoratative. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• AMG is not amateur... —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• AMG should stay. However, I think we do need to work on some of the claims. — Deckiller 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have confidence in every claim currently in the article. However, more "reputable" sources may need to be sought after in certain cases. Wisdom89 04:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the Rock and Roll hall of fame debate could be merged with the reception/criticism section. Deckiller 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Also, I believe the reputation section needs to be expanded. Wisdom89 03:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Am I the only one who thinks it's very bizarre that there is a separate article for the history of Rush, and yet the info on their history, on Rush's main page, is still extremely long? Support - All my problems with this article have been solved, I'm all for making it Featured. TheImpossibleMan 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• The length of the current history is just fine considering the band's active tenure spans well over 30 years. Just examine any other band/artist featured article and compare. Dream Theater and Iron Maiden for instance. Wisdom89 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• ?!??!?!? This very FAC page suggested that separate article! Egad, I just can't win. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• The satellite article should stay, because MANY FAs have one. — Deckiller 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Summary style. Good articles often have links to more details. The history section is now around 18kb, which is a pretty significant improvement from 31kb, and the article isn't too far over the ~30kb guideline (it's at 41kb at the moment). A little shorter might be nice, but that 41kb also includes citations and a big table and other stuff. So, I'm not inclined to argue over this more. I've struck out the relevant parts of my objection, but I'm still objecting on the basis of the references. I see 6 AMG, 1 Amazon (even worse than AMG in my mind), 1 About.com, some fansites, some reputable websites, and 1 book reference. I'd probably be ok with a few wisely chosen AMG/fansite references, but for a band with 30+ years of performing and lots of fame, there should be plenty of print devoted to them too. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Extensive and sourced article. Gflores ^Talk 20:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support--This is a great article...we need more music-related FAs on Wikipedia. Osbus 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article is very well written, very informative, contains appropriate pictures and captions, and is well referenced. --NEMT 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good article, very informative, well referenced, good layout, relevant pictures and usefull supporting tables --KaptKos 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, good balance in reference material, very informative. A great article! Anger22 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Support. A very well-written and referenced article, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the only audio samples available being from an outside source. Get some fair-use OGG audio samples directly into the Wikipedia and added to the article, preferably integrating them directly into the main text (using the appropriate {{audio}} and {{listen}} or {{multi-listen}} templates) instead of just providing a selection at the end, and you'll have my support. - dharmabum 08:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'll fire up Audacity and get right on that. Probably will have it done sometime tonight. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  It is now done. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not a fan of popular music FAs in general, but Rush has always been extremely influential among young musicians, and the article is goodness. JeffBurdges 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great stuff --PopUpPirate 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object As I already pointed out in the article's peer review, all images lack fair use rationales, and most of them are uploaded too large to qualify as fair use. The audio samples should be better incorporated into the article and the sections Videos and Audio samples at the end should be removed or merged into External links. Also, the labels in the discography table are overlinked and(done) "years in x" links should not be piped. I also think the History section should be the first after the lead. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of these are opinion-based, except for the fair-use issue. — Deckiller 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the reputation section can be moved to follow the history, but band members and music style will remain where they are as they are logically placed Wisdom89 19:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When Raul promotes this article, he'll only look for objections that address points that go against the criteria, not user opinions. The fair use is the only issue remaining from this objection. — Deckiller 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The objections seem to be style-based, but they're not objections that relate specifically to the MoS. Thus, opinion. Hell, I prefer the way the song samples are linked...one song per "era". Fritz, if you want to try your hand at improving what you suggested, go ahead...but I think it looks fine now. As for the fair use images, I asked the dude who owns the copyright to one of those photos to release it to the GFDL, and I'm still awaiting a response. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really mind the order. However, according to the fair use tag for audio clips "The sample is being used for commentary on the music recording in question" which is clearly not the case here (the songs aren't even mentioned in two of the sections). And they all lack fair use rationales. Also, the guide for piped links can be found at WP:PIPE. Plus I don't see any reason to keep the Videos and Audio samples section outside of External links.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The commentary is really that I was trying to provide an example of a song from each "era." Thus, the commentary is the entire section. As for the fair use rationale, it's that I'm using it in an encyclopedia article about the artist, duh. :-P —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there needs to be a detailed fair use rationale on the image discription page, even for audio. (See Fair use rationale) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Have added some minor fair use rational to all images, please add to, but am confused as to what to to bout audio, User talk:Fritz Saalfeld, as you highlight your contrib to New Radicals to FA on your user page, yet audio clips on that page have no fair use rational which you insist for this article. How do we square this circle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaptKos (talk • contribs) .

That's a little off topic here, but thanks for letting me know, I'll fix that. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

National Anthem of Russia

This article is about the Russian hymn that was adopted in 2000 with a fierce debate in the Duma. I tried to capture information about the adoption, and some of the reasons for it. I also tried to include past anthems, but only that was relevant to the article itself. It was moved once by me, but the location of the article is stable (I agree with its' current title) and I just hope I nailed everything that was supposed to be covered. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment it's a small thing, but in my opinion it would be nice if there weren't so much blank space around the image of the sheet music. Perhaps this is because it's labeled as a gallery? Makemi 21:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I took the gallery out and I decided to make it a thumbnail (about 100 pixels). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Very poorly written. Here are two examples at the top.

"The anthem is composed by Alexander Alexandrov and its' lyrics were written by Sergey Mikhalkov. It constitutes a reintroduction of the music of the Soviet anthem but with revised lyrics ..."—"was composed", surely; "it's"; "constitutes" and "reintroduction" are not the right words here.

"there has been concerns raised"—ungrammatical and awkward; how about "concerns have been raised"?

This article needs a thorough copy-edit. Please consider withdrawing it and resubmitting after the English has been corrected throughout. Tony 13:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC) PS Why the pics of the flag and Putin?

Because Putin was the one who orchestrated the change of the anthem and the Russian flag was put there by me for a lead photo. I did the same thing at My Belarusy, since I did not have a "cover sheet" of the sheet music that was under a free license (see Himno Nacional Mexicano for an example of a cover sheet). I'll fix the grammar myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Overall the article is quite good; I fixed up several minor mistakes but the prose flowed well and it is well-written. Good work! Brisvegas 09:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed some more and I added Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit to the article, so it will get some attention pretty soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed some more, but overall, it looks good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, well referenced. L1CENSET0K1LL 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question/comment. It is a bit unclear what are all the differences betweeen this anthem and the Soviet National Anthem. Pehaps a section comparing it side-by-side with the old anthem would help? And also, wouldn't it be better to put the Adoption section at the end, to keep chronological order? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and move the adoption section; as for the comparisons between the Soviet anthem and the Russian anthem, the only thing was a change of lyrics and that's it; music is still the same. I do not want the article to be "lyrics heavy." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But is there a very significant change in the lyrics, or is there just a small variation? Because if it was a complete change, you can just mention it and point to the Soviet Anthem article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Going to do that now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, that is fixed now. Changing to support. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose very strongly. Not even close to comprehensive. This is even worse than the Mexican anthem article. Write at least twice as much before this can even be properly considered. Everyking 11:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, what am I missing? (BTW, the Mexican anthem article passed). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If I knew that I'd add it myself. The point is, the thing is short. Add 3-5 paragraphs to each section and we might be getting somewhere. Everyking 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As with the other article you mentioned, there is only so much you can write about certain subjects, and national anthems are one of them. The regulations section is a paraphrase of the federal law about the anthem, and most of the law is a list of do's and dont's. The historic anthems, which I covered breifly, are covered in the other articles. I tried to include as many recordings I can, but I was told that 4 is quite enough. I wanted to make the article relevant from 2000 forward. I have called in other Russian editors (like I called in Mexican editors to the Mexican anthem) and see if they can tell me if I am missing anything. But, as always, there is only so much that you can write about a national anthem (related to the anthem). Most of our NA related article is a small intro and a listing of lyrics. I know that the MX anthem article is longer than this, no question, but I believe this article is short and as concise as another anthem FA that I wrote, My Belarusy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This one is good. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support; I've made a few more wording changes to attempt to tighten things up. Again, nice work from Zscout. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - can we please remove the reference citation from the lead and shift it into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Since that specific website reference was used already in the body of the article, I just nuked it from the lead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I created a history section at National_Anthem_of_Russia#History_.28until_1944.29, so, in brief, the entire history of the anthemology of Russia is touched upon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Concise and informative. --NormanEinstein 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Mount Rushmore

Peer Review

(self-nomination) Mount Rushmore is one of the US's most famous memorials. I have been working on this article lately during the US collaboration of the week, and following the peer review, feel that it is ready for FACing. Thanks in advance for all comments. AndyZ _t 15:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nominator's comment I will be out until next Thursday, and may not be able to fix new comments/objections immediately. Thanks, AndyZ _t 12:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

---

There's very little about the site as a tourist destination. Surely that merits an entire section of its own? It must contribute significantly to the local economy. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 16:22 (UTC)

• • Good point, considering that the idea of Mount Rushmore was first conceived to attract greater tourism to South Dakota. I'll work on building a Tourism section. AndyZ _t 16:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I created a draft here, how does it look? AndyZ _t 17:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks good. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 18:27 (UTC)

• Comments --

1. 1745 m in altitude? Could this be made clearer? Is the height of the faces 1,700 m or is the location at this elevation?
2. It is managed by the National Park Service. -- Could you expand this sentence to describe what the NPS is about without one needing to click the link?
   • Actually, I suggested the exact opposite during the peer review. The article is about Mount Rushmore, NOT the NPS. Circeus 02:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
     • The current draft is what I was looking for. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. ...the Needles... -- this sentence should be expanded
   • A stub would be a good idea. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Who is Susan B. Anthony? Please add like you've done for Engineer Julian Spotts
5. Originally, it was planned that the sculpture would go from head to waist -- anticlimax.
6. William Andrew Burkett? Please add designation -- Fixed
7. Alfred Kärcher GmbH? Is this the name?
8. 200 degrees Fahrenheit; 18 inches -- metric units needed
9. =Appearances= needs to be prosified.
10. The article needs a light copyedit. Too many abrupt sentences
    • This might be a tad bit difficult for me to do because I wrote it... Could you point out a couple of examples to set me on the right track? Thanks AndyZ _t 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
11. What is meant by memorializes the birth, growth, preservation, and development of the United States of America? Is there also a museum of some sort there?
    • Does the new wording work? Thanks AndyZ _t 20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Changed to height
2. Done.
3. I tried fixing it.
4. Done.
5. Okay, I'll remove it.
6. He was in college at the time, and didn't have a designation.
7. GmbH refers to a non-profit company. I'll remove the Alfred.
8. Will do.
9. Will do.
10. Will do.
11. Will change wording.

AndyZ _t 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes. Support now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support.Comment. This is just a thought -- do you think you should perhaps include more about the actual sculpting process? I know a lot of people (myself included) have the same reaction to Rushmore as we do to the pyramids -- "I wonder how in the crap they did that?" I know it was done with dynamite and such, but maybe you could address how. For example, did they insert a certain amount of dynamite at such-and-such areas and then carve out using certain tools? How was the finely drawn work done around the eyes and hair? Did they have to wear safety harnesses to work? Could they only sculpt in certain light or under certain conditions? Were there any delays or funding shortages? Also, maybe you could address the blueprints or sketches for Rushmore -- was Doane Robinson responsible for those? How many drafts were done before the finalized design was agreed on? It's a great article besides these questions I'm left with, and these are just some ideas that popped into my head. If these questions can't be answered due to simple lack of available info, or if you do manage to get some information put in, I'll change this to a support. Nice work, Andy, and thanks! All fixed and looks great. Air.dance 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• SupportMinor object: fix these and I'll support (great start):
• #*"memorializes the birth, growth, preservation, and development" pls clarify
• #*"Ending in 1998, ten years of redevelopment work culminated with the completion of extensive new visitor facilities and sidewalks" suggest dropping "ending" and putting "in 1998" at the end of the sentence.
• #"Geology dictated Borglum's site selection because of several factors. The rock was composed of smooth, homogeneous, fine-grained granite, which was very resistant, only eroding about 1 inch (2.5 cm) every 10,000 years.[5] With a 5,725 ft (1,745 m) height, Mount Rushmore was the tallest mountain in the surrounding terrain.[2] The mountain has a southeast exposure, so it faced the sun most of the day." sounds choppy, perhaps use a colon and list the factors
• #"Appearances" section title, perhaps something like "Appearances in popular culture"*

Rlevse 16:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Excellent updates, very nice articleRlevse 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I took care of the last issue (and I will prosify the section too later, as per above). I'll fix the other issues. AndyZ _t 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I [well, at least attempted to] fix all of the problems, though my wording for the 1st sentence might be a bit shaky. I also rewrote the geology paragraph. Thanks, AndyZ _t

• Support - Excellent. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent information provided. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice job, Andy. PDXblazers 03:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object until properly copy-edited. In particular, many words need to be weeded out. Here are just a few examples.

"the Needles were too worn out by erosion"

"The actual carving started in 1927" (actual?)

"the sculpture would go from head to waist" ("go" is a little clumsy here)

"the completion of extensive new visitor facilities and sidewalks" (as opposed to the completion of old facilities?)

"The washing took place by using pressurized water that was around 200 degrees Fahrenheit (90 degrees Celsius)." (Which five words to remove?)

It's way overlinked—close repetition of links is irritating. Please remove the subsequent links. Tony 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I did some copyediting, taking care of all of the above errors and correcting other errors. Thanks to Jayzel for helping to remove the repeated links. AndyZ _t 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. I removed all the duplicate Wikilinks for you. You should only link a word or phrase once and at the point it is first mentioned. --Jayzel 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Support Wow - now you see THIS is what I was talking about in peer review. Well done. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and conditional Support...firstly, the statement that the memorial is 5,725 ft high is misleading as this is the height of the mountain above sea level, so that needs to be corrected...add the height of the figures in the lead in as well. I say ditch the coordinates header...this information is already in the infobox template and I think it distratcs from the page. I'm not sure the band link is all that great either...are they that notable? The rest looks decent, I may do some wikilinking yet. Address the areas I mentioned by comment or by fixing in the article and I support.--MONGO 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the 5,725 ft high figure, added the height of the carvings, and removed the coorheader template. I didn't find anything on Wikipedia:Disambiguation that states that only notable items should be included on Top links, so I'm keeping the link to the band for now. AndyZ _t 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks...everything looks fine now...good job.--MONGO 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus

"Nostradamus" is a lively, well written, well-sourced article that captures both the factuarl and "mysterious" nature of Nostradamus and his prophesies. This article is a must read for those wishing to understand Nostradamus beyond the scope of the usual hyperbolic reports of Nostradamus' life and writings. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• Lead needs extension (see WP:LEAD)
• Footnotes and sources needs to be properly combined (see WP:CITE)
• Notes would be clearer if identical sources were combined with name="" (see WP:FOOTNOTE)
• The "see also" section is ideally for articles that were not actually linked in the article.
• Please standardize your footnotes positioning: either before or after the punctuation marks.
• No space before notes, or between them. At worse, make a specific footnotes combining all three sources.
• You do not need to give the full citation in the footnotes for books that you cite in "references"
• "The role of interpretation" section has no citations
• The centered images? Ugly and inappropriate.
  • Please give a rationale of any sort to the image that is dumped at the very end of the article, then, for example. I also see no point in presenting image for text as in the previous case when it could/should be "This last is presumably why he entitled his bookLes Prophécie de M. Michel Nostradamus" with the image on the side.

Comment, quite simply because to the editors it looks better. There is no proscription on the placement of an image in the center, so since no policy appears to be violated, this is really more a matter of aesthetics than of applicability of content.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting comment: the first of them is, in effect, part of the text, and so should not be hived off to one side, let alone repeated to satisfy some fictional usage. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Circeus 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Lead extended

Re footnotes etc: "The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system." However, all footnotes are after punctuation now

I do not believe that is an excuse for not combining footnotes. Needlessly repeating the same footnote over and over is confusing Circeus 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's been resolved &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded rude or anything. As I wrote below, I didn't realize at the time that the article used the template system. Circeus 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

requested cite from User:PL for Role of interpretation. Two should dop nicely.

Supplied. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The centered images are directly from early publications of the Prophesies, and thus are quite appropriate. Centering has a purpose in context of article (additionally, everything being right-justified gets really dull). As for "ugliness", I guess we could berate Nostradamus' publisher.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Links added to "The role of interpretation" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

CommentI believe the only see also linked was "Nostradamus in popular culture"; that had been removed. If there was another, please let me know. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Circeus's minor problems are all I can find wrong with it. The only one that seems serious is the lack of sources in the role of interpretation section.

That is now being dealt with. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with him on the centered image, but that is largely a stylistic issue.

It might be nice if it had one or two more pictures, possibly pictures of open pages of early or original editions of his books. JoshuaZ 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Could be arranged. Any support for this idea? We have rather a lot of pix as it is, and they'd need to be large enough to read (at least half a page)! --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I have a few issues with this article. One is the paragraph that starts with:

Meanwhile, if Nostradamus' many competitors – and he had many – never accused him of copying from it, it was because copying and/or paraphrasing, far from being regarded (as it is today) as mere plagiarism, was regarded at the time as what all good, educated people should do anyway. The whole Renaissance was based on the idea.

I'm not really sury about that statement, or where it's coming from. Second, the section on interpretation is entirely unsourced. Lastly, I can't support this while there's a tag at the top of the notes section which says "footnotes still in progress, and a few mistakes need to be rectified". The Disco King 13:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment See footnote 29, "↑ Compare Rabelais's recommendation of critical, rather than rote learning in Gargantua I.23 (1534) and Pantagruel II.8 (1532), with all its implications for actually digesting, rather than merely regurgitating, what has been learned." -- thus the statement is sourced.

I removed the tag, which was left over from a month ago. Thanks for noticing, as I completely forgot to remove it.

Re the sourcing, as noted above, I requested sourcing from User:PL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;

Comment -- Links added to "The role of interpretation"

Change to Support - Looking good, best of luck! The Disco King 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra issue I had forgotten to list: Lots of external links within article body. Circeus 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- and this is bad, why? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If an external link is a citation, then it should be formatted as such (ideally with {{cite web}}). If it is not a citation, then it ought to be in the external links section

The first external link is to a map of Provence, which would take the whole width of the page to be legible, and thus disrupt the article. One of the others is to prevent two pix coming too close together in the text. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra comment about note combination: I was not aware that the template system had been converted to use arrows instead of carets, which, I admit, makes note combination a nightmare (which is exactly why I love the Cite.php extension). If you want, I can make a conversion to that system myself. Circeus 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The new system is actually kind of ugly, but I did get it converted. There are still 5 external links, but I'm not sure how they'd work out as footnotes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Everything seems to have been adressed. Will probably soo how to best fix the centered image issue myself later. Circeus 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Should you x-out the oppose above? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it's good overall, but with the following comments:
  • Childhood - section seems a little clumsy in terms of wording "claimed birthplace" (surely there's a better way of saying this); the whole section seems like it was translated into English - it feels as if it isn't quite idiomatic English.

Well, 'claimed birthplace' what it is! Nobody can be absolutely sure (any more than they can with Shakespeare)! The claim is a little stronger than 'alleged', but not as strong as 'definite'... --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the whole Marranos section seems seems a bit out of place here - it's too long for something that isn't actually about his childhood.

• • • Fixed &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Marriage_and_healing_work - is there some reason why the second sentance includes the word "but" (married a woman whose name is in dispute...but who bore him two children)?
    • Beats me, it maskes no sdense. It's gone. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The seer - "For technical reasons ... the last fifty-eight quatrains ... have not survived into any extant edition." - I am not entirely certain what the "technical reasons" cited here are.
    • Technical is probably the wrong word. It has to due with pages being lost or misplaced or misnumbered. User:PL will answer this. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Here's the real annswer: Because the prophesies were published by three different publishers in three installments of unequal size, and because the last publisher wished not to start in the middle of a "Century", the last fifty-eight quatrains of the seventh Century have not survived into any extant edition. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Substitute text already in train. Watch this (or rather that) space!--PL

• Support - Guettarda 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question Is there a reason why "them" is italicized in the phrase "expected them to provide..." in the section The seer? JoshuaZ 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer Because he expected his clients to provide the birth charts which was contrary to how things were done. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to make it explicit in the article that that was different from the norm. JoshuaZ 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Done &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I've expanded your wording slightly, let me know what you think. JoshuaZ 21:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that that's necessary. It's a matter of astonishment to most people that an alleged 'astrologer' should actually ask them for their birthchart instead of preparing it himself. --PL 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the external links and centered pics:

• If a link is in "external links" it doesn't need to be in the article's body,these were removed.
• Links to editions were turned into notes or referred to external links
• Removed a research link. I'm sure the user can do an internet search themselves.
• Removed the Savonarola link, not sure what that was intended to do.

Circeus 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Circeus, you have made a complete mess of it!

1.You have managed to delete four of the illustrations entirely, in three cases leaving only blank frames. Please restore them at once (unless, of course, this is merely a Wiki software problem, in which case apologies).

I only moved 2 illustrations. I believe this is because the images simply failed to load. Circeus 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

2.In your efforts to insist on removing centered pix, you have misquoted the title and inserted 'This translate in French' where what is given is in fact the two possible alternative meanings in English. Please do not insert illiteracies.

My bad for the typo in copying the title, but then, you obviously couls have corrected yourself. The "translate in French" bit was maybe not the most appropriate wording, I aknowledge, but the factremains that both meaning are possible both in French and when translating in English.

3.You have removed from the text external links essential to following and/or demonstrating the argument - which may satisfy Wiki-aesthetics, but helps nobody.

I replaced several links to different pages of a site in the "External links" by one to the front page. If these were so essential, they should have been in "references" or in footnotes, not "External links". I also replaced in-text links to fac-similes with appropriate footnotes. Circeus 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

4.You have removed the only Savonarola link demonstrating... the vital Savonarola link!

Sorry I didn't went through the entire page to realize this one link was actually a reference. All refs in an article should be consistent. That is, if you use footnotes as your main reference system, then inline external links should not be references too. Circeus 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be the standard of your interventions, I give up. In your attempt to make the article 'better', you have merely made it worse - much worse. Unless you're prepared at very least to restore the article to its previous state, you'd better take over the whole thing yourself. I, for one, have better things to do than to spend all day correcting your errors. --PL 09:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• CommentsGentlemen, no point in arguing over this. I've reverted the article to where is was when Circeus changed his vote to support. In the meantime, I'll be going over Circeus' edits to see if any might be beneficial (and I think a few might be).
  • In other words, I'll handle this, and if I see any more fighting it'll be time to go out behind the woodshed.  ;)
  • Seriously, massive changes of the type Circeus made, which were definitely made in good faith, are better made by someone familiar with the article. And now that Circeus has demonstrated the tools, I can fix what I feel needs to be fixed myself.
  • NOTE: In going over Featured articles I have noticed that the following all have external links embedded in the article: Medal of Honor (included centered pix), Antarctic krill, Asperger syndrome. Hydrochloric acid (includes centered pix), etc. These took me 5 minutes to locate at random, so it is obvious that external links within an article are not problematic -- the issue is whether they are needed for each specific article to assist the reader. I'll decide on that today. Additionally, I'd appreciate it if other editors refrained from editing until I have completed going through the article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Further Comments' I moved the one pic from the center to the right -- it looks better, but the other I'm leaving at the bottom for aesthetic purposes. I made the "letter 41" and "Savonarola" links into easily reachable footnotes. The other 4 links I felt were to important to move. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The medium is being allowed to obscure the message, apparently for the mere sake of 'winning gongs'. The statement:

'This last is presumably why he entitled his book, Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus, (which, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus", which is precisely what they were; as "The Prophecies of M. Michel Nostradamus", which, except in a few cases, they were not, other than in the manner of their editing, expression and reapplication to the future.)'

simply isn't true: it would take the insertion, and then the re-uninsertion of a nonexistent comma into the title to make it so. The point at issue is not just the words, but their layout and fonts: if they are disregarded, this important argument is rendered null and void. The title-page image therefore needs to appear 'as is' in its proper place in the text.

Circeus's earlier point regarding how the title might be 'translated' is equally invalid. Believe it or not, the French actually manage to understand their language without feeling any need to translate it!!

I therefore propose to revert this para to its previous layout, whilst at the same time reducing the number of superflous 'which's.

If this is unacceptable, and the article has to be continually mauled about to fit supposed 'Wiki conventions' that people simply invent as they go along, then you can count me out. It's pedantry gone mad.

In which case, long live ignorance! --PL 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So fix it! Sheesh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! --PL 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We did *not* add the comma in "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus" (which you left, by the way), and the title DOES mean either one in french too. As a native French speaker, I feel qualified enough to speak on that. Circeus 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It would if there were a comma. But, as you can see from the image, there isn't. That's why it's important to include the image (rather than the run-on, lower-case version of the title) at the proper point in the text – because that, as a result of the way in which it is set out, can mean either (as you say), even without any comma. That is why the text says so. Meanwhile I left the comma in the explanation of what the title could mean... because there needed to be a comma in the explanation of what the title could mean. I don't see the problem. Please read what I wrote above more carefully.

Personally, despite your comment in your edit summary, I prefer Jim's use of the different colour for the text captions, to show that the caption isn't part of the text. That seems to me to be a good deal better reason than 'no reason whatsoever'.

Is that all the proposed alterations now? --PL 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I should say so. BTW, all three of us speak French (although I am no doubt the least accomplished), so I think we all know (and agree) on the double meaning. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, Support – and thank you, Jim, for all your hard work to make this such an excellent article (unusually so, for the topic!). --PL 09:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema

Article is about one notable sub-industry of the hong kong film industry, its history and development. Article is a synthesis of the "big" books on the subject (logan, teo et al) so the assertions and facts are easily verifiable. It is balanced and neutral in tone, and appears to be well-written (i didnt write this article, just made minor tweaks) introducing all topics in summary style with appropriate wikilinks to delve further. Most of this comprehensive article was already there when i stumbled on the page, i just added some pics, some refs, and tweaked the lead to summarize the article. It has passed through Wikipedia:Peer review/Hong Kong action cinema/archive1 and Good Article review successfully, lets see what FAC brings up.

• Support per nom Zzzzz 07:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wisekwai 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Well written, well reference and well picture-stuffed. Totally fab. Support Hong Kong! Deryck C. 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I came across this a couple of weeks ago and was delighted by it - it is extremely well-referenced and well-organized. Great work! The Singing Badger 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A magnificent article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Can you really argue the fair use case on Image:WuxiaQi.jpg when the source is unknown? --zippedmartin 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Informative and well-referenced. Volatile 22:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, strong article. --Fallout boy 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: more images, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Metamagician3000 11:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-organised. If more images, it'd be better. — HenryLi (Talk) 14:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. Hong Kong action movies pretty much owns. - Hahnchen 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support You might want to see WP:FOOTNOTE about combining identical references with name="" Circeus 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Westfall 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great work! :) - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nice work. --Terence Ong 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object due to a few issues that can be ironed out, I think.
  • "The boom was smothered in the 1930s by official opposition" - "the boom was smothered" is a very odd wording, IMO
  • I don't think the screenshot of an unknown movie can be considered legitimate fair use as long as the copyright holder (of the movie) is not identified.
  • I know Bruce Lee's important and all, but that section is unadulterated gushing, which is unencyclopedic no matter who the topic is. I suggest replacing it with something to the effect of "Cinema historian Bey Logan ascribed Lee's success to "his unique physical style, onscreen charisma and instinct for self-promotion" (I know that's not a quote, but find something equivalent that is a quote)
• Tuf-Kat 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

those 3 issues have been addressed now. Zzzzz 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Okay, I support -- good job on the Bruce Lee fix, BTW Tuf-Kat 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catlins

Self-nom. Over the course of the last month, User:Avenue and I have taken this from a tiny stub to its current size, ably assisted by User:AndyZ's help at Wikipedia:Peer review. New Zealand is underrepresented in FA - its geography more so (there have only been two three NZ featured articles, both two biographies and a bird). The Catlins is a fascinating gem of an area that is not widely known outside New Zealand, and I believe that it represents the diversity of New Zealand's history and natural wonders well, as much as I believe that the article represents a fine addition to Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, looks very good and informative. Lots of nice references.--Adam ^(talk) 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful article, very nicely done. My only comment is that there are several one- or two-sentence paragraphs that could perhaps be merged into longer ones. There are a few run-ons you may want to look at, such as "Several small lakes are found in the Catlins, notably scenic Lake Wilkie close to the Tautuku Peninsula. Catlins Lake, near Owaka, is actually the tidal estuary of the Catlins River." A little confusing. Nope, that was my mistake. If you could address the small paragraph issue, I'd change my vote to support. Thanks! And now it's just right. Air.dance 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - hopefully the paragraphs are a bit better now. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well done that man, um, those men, (assuming they're all guys). Moriori 03:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comments 1) Use non-breaking spaces for °C & °F too. 2) Shouldn't it be =Transport=? 3) A single subsection (Climate/Shipwrecks) gives a very lopsided ToC. Either merge with parent or promote the heading level. 4) Could the =Economy= section be expanded. Figures etc. added? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1, 2, and 3 done, though I'm not convinced by the raised header for shipwrecks and it's too large a section to easily merge with the History one. Working on 4. Grutness...wha? 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support -- on completion of 4. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a start on 4 - Avenue added quite a bit more. Hopefully it's up to speed now. Grutness...wha? 13:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Though filling out Economy could only make this better. Staxringold 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice article. Should the references be moved above the external links though? Cvene64 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wondered about that, but thought it made more sense to put them next to the notes, since it's far easier to see the full titles of the books noted. If there are other objections about it then I wouldn't object to swapping the order. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC) skip that - Avenue's already moved them! :) Grutness...wha? 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was NormanEinstein, not me. -- Avenue 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Minor niggle, there were several species of moa, unless you know which species was in the region you should decapitalise the word. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Avenue 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - but would suggest mention of some of the extreme (due to conditions) surfing events which have taken place there - don't know enough about them to add them myself. dramatic 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now described the big-wave scene at the end of the Geography section. I wasn't quite sure where to put it. Hopefully this is okay. -- Avenue 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Nice effort. Papeschr 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support—good one. Tony 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Outstanding work.-gadfium 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, though I do think Shipwreck should be under of some other section, not top level like it is now. -- Zanimum 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done; see under AndyZ's comment below. -- Avenue 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looked through it again and it looks good. I echo Zanimum's suggestion that shipwrecks be merged into some other section (probably history) against the suggestion by Nichalp. Another thing, history stops short at around 1875, did anything notable of importance happen in the area since then? AndyZ _t 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the shipwrecks information into the History section, and the lighthouses into Geography. I've also tried to make the History section end less abruptly by adding a little information from the Economy section, although it would still benefit from adding some more recent events (if we can find any of importance). -- Avenue 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I extended the history section a little into the mid-20th century, but the area was a rural backwater from about the 1920s until the 1990s, so fleshing it out any further may not be easy. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

This is the latest production from Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan. There was a peer review that was just archived. Comments, fixes and questions will be addressed by Project members. Jtmichcock 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice work... meets all my criteria for an FA. Good prose, well-referenced, only found one uncited POV claim (which I removed for now), covers all the bases pretty well with one slight exception (noted below) etc. It still needs some slight work which I'm confident can be done. Concerns I wasn't able to address:

• "Before he could commence a law practice, though, overseas developments caused a change in plans. Like others, Ford responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor and joined the military." Eh prose just feels a bit cliche and hackneyed there... I couldn't figure out how to fix it though.
  • It actually started out slightly more cliched, saying "like others of his generation, Ford responded. . ." I keep looking at the sentence to see if there's a work-around.
• Could use a bit more post-presidential info. Doesn't even say what state he lives in now, for example.

• Rancho Mirage, California. It was in there, but I fixed to make that clearer.

• Mentions the SNL skits, but perhaps a bit more on pop culture role? He was on The Simpsons for example. Might seem trivial but part of the role of the president is as a cultural icon, whether they want it to be or not.

• I have to confess to not watching the Simpsons. Was it actually him or a reference to him? A voice-over would be notable; a mention not so notable since as ex-President, his name comes up a lot in pop culture. The one reference I did focus on it the Chevy Chase episodes since it's Ford's own opinion that it likely changed the presidential race,

• Article is 48k. Could perhaps use a subarticle, or some trimming. This is a common problem with articles on widely-documented historical topics, but I feel like I should mention it. --W.marsh 15:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Duly noted. Although there was one article on the front page that was well over 100 last week. Thanks for reciewing. Jtmichcock 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• I looked at where I might trim and it's difficult to figure out where a subarticle would belong -- although the 76 Presidential race has its own.

• I'll note that I agree with Spangineer below; the prose alone is well under 30 KB, so I don't think that anything needs to be cut just yet. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I'd like to know why all those books are listed under references but are not used in the notes section. If they really are references, I'd expect them to have citations in the article, and if they aren't references, they belong in "Further Reading". Other than that, however, this article covers the basics. I'm not concerned about size; probably this is closer to 35-40kb if only prose is counted. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will change the label on that section. Thanks for reviewing. Jtmichcock 18:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me. RyanGerbil10 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support another well-written and sourced presidential bio. Staxringold 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well-written and lots o' references. --Jayzel 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I only had minor criticisms during the Peer Review, all of which were corrected. I enjoyed the article, and hope more presidential bios pass the FA process. --Ataricodfish 06:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although I'm still not a big fan of the vice presidential seal in the section. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Removed seal and support. Good artilce, nice use of pictures. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well written. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-done. Westfall 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

Self-nomination. Former FAC, and withdrawn FAC (tried submitting while the Olympics were on). Peer reviews 1, 2, 3.

The history of Australia at the Winter Olympics, from a one-man team in 1936 to golden games in 2002 and 2006. The article gives a history of Australia at the Winter Olympics, public support, an overview of Winter sport in Australia, and a tabular summary of how Australia has fared at each Olympics (plus a link to a sub-article on Australia at each Olympics). It also has an overview by sport (useful for those interested in Australia's strengths and weaknesses), and a section on Australia at the Winter Paralympics.

It has been interesting working on this, and hopefully this will inspire articles on how other countries have fared at the Winter Olympics. Andjam 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The space before the refs really ought to be stripped away. You might want to consider splitting the references section between notes and actual refs. Nevermind, did itmyself while I was resizing the notes lol. Circeus 17:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - Seems to cover all the bases. Well-referenced and well-organized, fairly comprehensive. I wouldn't mind seeing some good images of Australians competing at the Winter Olympics, though, although that's not reason enough to sink this nomination. The Disco King 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - Some interesting reading considering Australia isn't that heavily involved in winter sports. Looks like you've covered it in comprehensive detail - nice work!. michael ^talk 04:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the article needs more pictures to illustrate the content. Mikker ^(...) 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• • As far as I know, most relevant images would still be under copyright. This includes photos from the Australian Olympic Committee. Unless there's fair use for images or images that are not copyrighted, I don't know if I can do anything about the relative lack of images. Would images from any of the Winter Olympics Australia has attended (first one 1936, then every one since 1952) passed into the public domain? Andjam 21:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me; I can't think of anything missing. More images would be nice, indeed, but it is not a ground for failing a nomination. Schutz 10:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support An interesting read well pput together with good referrences. Unfortunate lack of images but that shouldn't prevent FA status Gnangarra 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a shame about the lack of images, but still very well done. --darkliight^talk 11:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good article about an interesting topic that has been well written. -- MyNameIsNotBob 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

AIDS

This article has been listed at the Good articles for some time now. It was also a Medicine Collaboration of the Week where it underwent a lot of improvements and it has also been through a Peer review. It is well-referenced, current, comprehensive, and, I will let you tell us if it is well-written. It has remianed stable for a long period of time, except from the obvious vandalism which a page like this does suffer from. This is a semi-self-nomination as I have worked a lot on this, but this should not detract from the nomination. --Bob 22:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE about page size. Since all the references are inline to this article, the page size warning gives a page size that is twice as large as the readable prose of the actual article. Thus, as I write this, the readable prose of this article is just a bit above 40KB ; about right for the topic, IMO. --mav 16:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Object - Everybody should look at the wikitext for this article - what a HUGE mess. It is practically unreadable due to the fact that full reference information is hidden in in it. That is very bad style - the full alphabetically sorted by name reference information should be in a ===Works cited=== subsection under ==References== with <references/> under ===Notes==. The ONLY thing that should be inline is things like <ref>Smith et al, 1995, page 56</ref> or better yet in this case (Smith et al, 1995, page 56). Be brief and to the point so as not to make editing the article more difficult than necessary. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

Most researchers believe that HIV originated in [[sub-Saharan Africa]] <ref name=Gao>{{ cite journal | author=Gao, F., Bailes, E., Robertson, D. L., Chen, Y., Rodenburg, C. M., Michael, S. F., Cummins, L. B., Arthur, L. O., Peeters, M., Shaw, G. M., Sharp, P. M. and Hahn, B. H. | title=Origin of HIV-1 in the Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes | journal=Nature | year=1999 | pages=436-441 | volume=397 | issue=6718 | id={{PMID |9989410}} {{doi|10.1038/17130}} }}</ref> during the twentieth century; it is now a [[pandemic]]. As of January 2006, [[UNAIDS]] and the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on [[December 1]], [[1981]], making it one of the most destructive [[pandemics]] in recorded history. In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed between an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 million, of which more than 570,000 were children <ref name=UNAIDS>{{ cite web | author=[[UNAIDS]] | publisher= | year= 2005 | url=http://www.unaids.org/Epi2005/doc/EPIupdate2005_pdf_en/epi-update2005_en.pdf | title=AIDS epidemic update, 2005 | accessdate=2006-01-17 }}</ref>. In countries where there is access to [[antiretroviral drug|antiretroviral]] treatment, both [[mortality]] and [[morbidity]] of HIV infection have been reduced <ref name=Palella>{{ cite journal | author=Palella, F. J. Jr, Delaney, K. M., Moorman, A. C., Loveless, M. O., Fuhrer, J., Satten, G. A., Aschman and D. J., Holmberg, S. D. | title=Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators | journal=N. Engl. J. Med | year=1998 | pages=853-860 | volume=338 | issue=13 | PMID=9516219}}</ref>.

That is horrid. The whole purpose of wikisyntax is to avoid unreadable source text like that. Featured articles are supposed to serve as examples of best practice - the above is certainly not best practice. --mav 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article uses the templates {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. There are also other FA's with such templates in use, such as Pneumonia. Harvard citations were removed because they made the text unreadable. The wikitext has been formatted in such a way in that it is NOT displayed as portrayed above.--Bob 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above formating is the result of the way the nowiki tag works, but still shows the effect of breaking up sentences. And Pneumonia does not use the CITE templates at all, let alone inline. Sorry, but doing so is ugly and makes the wikitext unreadable. MUCH more consensed use of citing is needed inline with the detail in a ===Works cited=== subsection under ==References==. --mav 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you feel that this is better?: Bacteria were first seen in the airways of individuals who died from pneumonia by [[Edwin Klebs]] in [[1875]].<ref name=klebs>Klebs E. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der pathogenen Schistomyceten. VII Die Monadinen. ''Arch. exptl. Pathol. Parmakol.'' 1875 Dec 10;4(5/6):40-488.</ref> Initial work identifying the two common bacterial causes ''Streptococcus pneumoniae'' and ''Klebsiella pneumoniae'' was performed by [[Carl Friedländer]]<ref name=fried>Friedländer C. Über die Schizomyceten bei der acuten fibrösen Pneumonie.'' Virchow's Arch pathol. Anat. u. Physiol.'' 1882 Feb 4;87(2):319-324.</ref> and [[Albert Fraenkel]]<ref name=fraenkel>Fraenkel A. Über die genuine Pneumonie, Verhandlungen des Congres für innere Medicin. ''Dritter Congress''. 1884 April 21;3:17-31.</ref> in [[1882]] and [[1884]], respectively..

Just because it uses a non-standard template, it is just as difficult to read for the editor, and is not formatted in such a way as to make it easier to read. As stated below and previously, the citation method used in the AIDS article is seen to be best practice at the moment. And the way you would have us reference it would mean two sets of reference tables for the same set of references, either that or Harvard references which makes it hard to read, or incomplete references which cannot be verified. If you read the Talk:AIDS page you would have seen discussion on this point. --Bob 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is best practise at the moment. It's the fault of the >ref< system for needing inline citations. The article uses nicely standardised citation templates and formatting, and uses auto-numbered and linked references to make maintenance that much easier. Your proposed solution would not work properly since you have to have cited the reference once before >ref< will pick it up and display it. (And I don't think an alpahabetically sorted list of citations is amongst the currently used referencing systems anywhere on Wikipedia, but I could be wrong.) -Splash^talk 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What? How is that the fault of the ref system? All one needs is to have the detailed information about each reference in the references section and for the refs to be used to refer to that while using the minimal amount of text '<ref>{Smith et al, 2004, page 56)</ref>' <-- THAT is all you need inline. That is best practice. The detail should NOT be inline. --mav 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But then how would you construct the templated links in such a way that they get autonumbered when you rearrange the text? -Splash^talk 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand mav's suggestion, there would be one section of footnotes, produced by ref tags and autonumbered, but without detailed citations. The detail would go in a separate section which would be arranged alphabetically, not by the order they are referred to in the article (Smith et al would be filed under s, and would tell you where to find Smith's article). Mark^{your words} 17:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion; for the inline citations, put a simple thing within each <ref> tag (see J. R. R. Tolkien#Notes as an example), and move the bulk of the referencing into a separate "References" section. However, despite being actionable, I don't think this goes again any of the WP:WIAFA requirements and don't feel as if it is a valid reason for objection. AndyZ 21:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien article uses the {{cite web}} within the text exactly like the AIDS article does, yet there is no objection to that. Your suggestion would be fine if there was under 10 references, but since there are a lot more, it is not practical to repeat references like that, especially when many references are referred to just once. What the suggestion asks for is a repitition of the reference section, ie, two sections for the same thing. The current method employs a way to automatically numerate the list with backlinks to every citation within the article, making it extremely reader-friendly.--Bob 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tolkien article also has {{cite book}} within the text, and for the journal references, big chunks of hidden data as well with no standard format, which the {{cite journal}} would bring. Really, if both Tolkien and Pneumonia can be FA with hidden inline data to make up the the reference sections, then what is the problem with the AIDS article?--Bob 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support - I've been looking at the AIDS article for quite a while now. I was a heavy contributor last summer, and it was a mess; been checking in on it regularly ever since. Right now, it's lookin' really awesome, well referenced and well written. Great job to all involved, lets make this a featured article! JoeSmack ^Talk 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. This article is excellently written. I went back to read WP:What is a Featured Article?, and found no mention of readability of wikitext as a criterion for featured status. Considering that, I am inclined to say mav's objection is not valid. I think it is simply silly to reject such a complete, well-written article that also happens to be NPOV on what could be a controversial topic, on such grounds. It is akin to judging the quality of a car on whether or not the factory that made it washes their floors every night. RyanGerbil10 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the article is in a huge mess. There are too many subsections and lists giving rise to a bloated ToC. Some sections serve as trivia while others are too short. Make sure you use minimal subsection (if possible avoid them). Secondly, much of the text is heavily US oriented: In the USA, the definition of AIDS is...; The majority of new AIDS cases in the United States; However, these assays are not specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration etc. AIDS is a global phenomena and US specifics should not dominate the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment --Subsections have been removed, ToC has been reduced in size and is not disimilar to other FA's. The text has been modified so it is not heavily US orientated. --Bob 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The ToC is dissimilar to most other FAs I know of. The article also cries out for a summary. 76kb is a very long article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read other FAs on scientific subjects then. Please see DNA_repair, Antarctic krill, Pneumonia and Action potential. All have similar ToCs. Other FAs are longer than this, and remember, about a third of the length is made up of references, external links and interwiki links. --Bob 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have objected to those articles too. I ignore references etc while estimating the page size. Taking 20 kb off would still result in a raw size of about 55kb. Summarise content here, move details to dedicated daughter articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the cite.php also increases page size. If you take out refs and cite.php and external links to other wikipedias, the size of the article is only 39kb, 40kb needs to be taken off to correctly estimate the size of the page... --Bob 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Presentation is one of the key points in a featured article. If it is not neatly presented and needless detail added to the page, it does not deserve the Featured tag. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you oppose to? Please make a point by point list detailing exactly what parts you object to and why. Please include subsections you object to and why, and what you think could be done to improve the article's presentation. Also, I have tried removing the subsections in the symptoms section, and it looked much worse. Without the point by point objection list, I would have to deem your objection unfounded. --Bob 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support.Oppose - not comprehensive: no section on social consequences of AIDS. It should discuss both the micro consequences (ostracism of carriers, etc.) and macro (threat to African economy, etc.).I'd exepct that those matters are important enough to deserve their own subarticle.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done --Bob 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start on the stigma section, although 1) bullet points are not the best style 2) I am sure it can be expanded 3) see also to external links is definetly not recommended. But there is still little on macro-level impact of AIDS - although quite a lot of relevant info is mixed into the 'Epidemiology' section. I think the economic impact of AIDS deserves its own section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

- Will somehow make more... --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job. While I think those sections can be expanded even further, this can be done in their subarticles - they should be comprehensive enough for the current 'overview of AIDS' article. One last thing to be done is to go over those new sections and ilink some important concepts like 'economic growth, 'human capital', 'death rate', 'labor force' and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Minor Oppose - Not for the reasons above, but rather, I'm a stickler for WP:LEAD sections to be of the appropriate size. In this case, it should be three paragraphs. I'd support otherwise. Fieari 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Three paragraphs is what it now is. --Bob 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support now. Fieari 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I write this it's back up to six. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I really am a stickler for this. Removing my support until the lead is properly sized. It's "only" 4, but not only is it 4 paragraphs, those are also dense, long paragraphs. It's too much for a lead. Fieari 05:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been condensed and reduced to three --Bob 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Flip-flop, flip-flop... back to support. Good condensing! Fieari 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Interesting and comprehensive. Brisvegas 10:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Thethinredline 08:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose Abstain A lot of work has gone into this, but I don't feel that it's suitable for FA:
  • Parts of the article read like an instruction manual, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. In particular the areas on the use of condoms, eg "They must be used during all penetrative sexual intercourse ..." and "It is essential to check the expiration date ..."

- rewording --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Weasel words are sometimes used. For example, "Other religious groups have argued that preventing HIV infection is a moral task in itself ..." - which religious groups?

- stated the Episcopalians --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The section about Uganda sounds like an argument in progress.

-The whole situation of the CNN and ABC is an argument in progress. Just listen to politicians and right wing nutbars on this subject --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the wikipedia article text could do with some cleaning up. Anything that uses "It must be noted that" is a red flag to me. Andjam 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted.--Bob 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The table of risk of infection sounds like original research - it gathers the risk on different infection routes from different sources, and comes up with a conclusion as to which routes are most dangerous. If there is a "league table" out there, wikipedia should cite it instead, and if there isn't, is there a good reason for wikipedia to create one? As a side note, in the table, does oral sex refer to sex involving male or female genitalia?

- stated the CDC source --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Maybe fewer research papers should be used, with more secondary sources instead, so that the number of references are reduced. The article ought to read like an encyclopedia article, not like a scientific paper. Also, scientific papers tend to be designed for scientists (and are often unavailable for non-scientists).

- most papers are available to the general public through open access or through their local college library --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The paragraph starting with "The definition of "alternative therapies" in AIDS has changed since that time ..." seems a bit flowery. It also lacks references.

- You want us to use less references, but you request some more here? ;-). I will see what I can dig up, but the whole alternative therapies section is flowery IMHO, and decent reliable references not using commercial sources is difficult at best. However... --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess most sources promoting alternative therapies would be commercial in nature, but what about sources keeping track of them? Wouldn't mainstream health researchers be interested in tracking the use in alternative therapies as they'd view it as a source of concern? Andjam 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I hope I'm not being too harsh. Thanks, Andjam 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive, and as it is a high-importance article, it has to be a bit long. Using too many daughter articles kills the prose, so I wouldn't recommend splitting it any more. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - can we please remove the reference citations from the lead and shift them into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply- the references were added to this section after the statements were frequently removed precisely because they were not backed up with references --Bob 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can still move them into the main body of the text. If people complain, point them to the body. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. There are a few places with unusual writing quality. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object; excessively long lead (6 paragraphs!) and furthermore, "For more details on this topic" stuck in the middle of the lead. Incidentally, what's the difference between "For more details" and "main article"? Why have both? Why put some of them at the beginning of a section and some at the end? Too much bold used throughout article (just the title please), and inconsistent inline citation positioning throughout (citations should follow punctuation with no space in between to prevent line breaking, which is happening here and looks terrible). Also, the punctuation is sometimes used both before the citation and after. And still, too many subsections. Gigantic low resolution screen eating table in the "Transmission" section, with text jammed up against it (do something to add some space there). Numerous very short paragraphs. What's the copyright status of Image:ThreeColoredRolledUpCondoms.jpg? This is a good article, but as Nichalp said, it's a mess. This breaks so many basic formatting rules that it is almost deserving of a cleanup tag. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The Image:ThreeColoredRolledUpCondoms.jpg is Copyrighted Free Use as per the owner of the photograph. The name of the image has been changed to reflect the one that the person taking the photograph uploaded.

The lead was extended to six paragraphs because a section title was deleted. This has been rectified.

Regarding "For more details" and "main article"', main details links to the main article on that subject, further reading is just that, further reading. The formats are standard for every section.

Inline citation is now standardised.

There are now only 11 subsections listed.

Bolding has been reduced throughout.

The table has been reduced in size and formatted so a margin of 15px is found around it.

Are there any other specific points that one would have to address? --Bob 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I've been bold and made it so that there is only one extra link per section, and incorporated the rest into the prose itself. In my experience, that's the more typical formatting. My complaint about subsections wasn't related to the ToC, but to the size of some of them. The ones in the diagnosis section are pretty short, but that's not a big deal. Thanks for taking care of the rest of it. Reading through it, I still feel like the prose can use some improvement (some passive voice and somewhat choppy in places), so I'll go with a weak support. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not well enough written for 2a. Here are some examples.

"It is a late stage of advanced HIV infection which leaves individuals prone to opportunistic infections and tumors." Starting this second sentence at the top with a thematic equative is laboured; there's a particular meaning here that is redundant (the late stage is the only thing that leaves individuals prone ...).

"world-wide"—no hyphen, one word.

"access to health care, age and other coexisting infections"—ambiguous.

"many different definitions"—middle word is redundant.

"peculiarities of the viral strain"—do you mean just "the viral strain"?

progression to death normally occurs within a year"—why not remove the first two words?

India based infections"—clumsy, and hyphen missing in any case.

Most instances of "also" need to be weeded out. A few of the monster sentences need to be chopped up.

A few stray upper-case letters in titles and subtitles.

Please get someone else to go through the text to polish it, and I'll change my object. Tony 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply I had a friend look over it and copyedit it, I applied these copedits today. Your objections noted above have been addressed, though I don't know which monster sentences you were referring to. If there are any specific points that we may have overlooked, please feel free to help out, as help from a pro would be appreciated in getting this article up to FA status. --Bob 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support In light of the prograss that has been made during this FAC. Vulcanstar6 01:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ran (film)

Ran is a film by famed Japanese film director Akira Kurosawa. It follows the fall of an aging warlord who decides to abdicate as ruler in favor of his three sons. His kingdom slowly disintegrates, as each son jockies for power, murdering their rivals and laying waste to the land. The film is one of my favorites and the article has received a major face-lift over the last two months. In addition, it has had a Peer Review and been listed as a Good Article. I hope you will see fit to give this article FA status, and if not please give us some constructive feedback so we can keep improving it.

• Nominate and Support. Palm_Dogg 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've looked over your article, and it is both well written and comprehensive. I'll admit I skipped reading the plot summary, since I still plan on seeing it soon (I'm working my way through Kurasawa's work), but all that I read was written quite well, with "brilliant prose". I checked some of the references, and they fit, and there are plenty of those references. I checked the fair use on the images, and they are all propperly declared and explained. Comprehensivly, it not only discusses the movie, but influences, themes, and other such things... and it's not original research, since this analysis gathers together quotes from the director himself. All in all, a featured quality article. Fieari 20:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very good. Not much more could be asked. RyanGerbil10 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a wonderful article and very comprehensive. I hope to see this on the main page soon. Alexthe5th 14:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Not only is the article very well written and very thorough, it cuts to the story behind the story. Too often artistic directors like Kurosawa never get to achieve financial success and thus end up sitting on an opus. Here, Kurosawa gets what he wants at a time in his life where it was time to put a dramatic punctuation on the rest of his career. This article does justice to what is really the culmination of one of the world's best directors. --BridgeBurner 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very good article, no doubts. --Terence Ong 08:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support for a great and worthy film. I've viewed this page a few times before, and it is very good. We should propose this as the template for all movie articles. My only concern is in the "Background" section. Does there really need to be such lengthy exposition about Kurosawa and his lengthy hisotry? It mentions his suicide attempt, and for the life of me i don't see how that's germane. Perhaps it would be better to remove the exposîtion and reference the reader to the Kurosawa article. Thethinredline 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there does. Ran is Kurosawa's bleakest film and he made it during the lowest point in his life. Because many people (including Kurosawa) have said that Ran is partly autobiographical, I thought it would be useful to include some background on him as well. His failed suicide is incredibly relevant, because Hidetora has a similar incident that is a major plot device. I've tried to rewrite the background section to make that clearer. Hope this helps. Palm_Dogg 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, i tend to disagree. The section contains over 500 words from looking at it, and mentions his getting fired from the set of Tora Tora Tora due to creative differences. That information (perfectly valid, of that I am sure) is not entirely relevant, and although it does give a sense of Kurosawa's state, the section could be easily compressed. However, consider this the advice of one man (and noone else has mentioned it, in fact one person even praised you for it), and noone else has mentioned it. And you can be sure I will not take the section to the abbatoir myself. Don't worry. I have a few labours of love of my own on this site, and i know how it is. But don't worry, my concerns wont prevent me at all from seeing this

Thethinredline 07:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article is a good example of what wikipedia can accomplish as a community. I hope that as a feature article that it may send people who have not previously seen the film out to discover this underappreciated masterpiece. My only proviso is that I would recommend that someone take a look at the cast and character section. It seems slightly clunky. Two of the actors listed as Kurosawa veterans were only in films that came after Ran making them AK rookies, neophytes or freshman. I had a go at it but only seemed to make it worse which is why I didn't save my attempt. I also want to let you know Palm dogg re Thethinredline's concern - Kurosawa's suicide attempt is not even mentioned in his article so I am glad that you have discussed it here.User:MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Great article with detail and insightful analysis, excellent choice of images. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object - good article, very well written, but a couple of big problems.

1. there are too many screenshot images, and I'm not convinced they constitute fair use. Most don't particularly relate to the text and seem to be more for decorative purposes. Glaring example : Image:Warriors Ran.jpg has absolutely nothing to do with "Reception". Some comment needs to be made in the text and also in the image captions that makes it clear that the use of the image is important, rather than incidental, to the discussion. Fair use rationales should be specific to each image and it seems that the rationale has been copied and pasted for each one. The storyboard image rationale contains "Ran has been released for public purposes. Therefore, this screenshot is intended for wide distribution." copy and paste? - rationales need to be thoughtful and well considered. The storyboard image is not from the film and therefore this part of the fair use claim is false. "Courtesy of Palm dogg" is only relevant if Palm dogg owns the copyright. All images should show source and copyright holder. Stating just the source is not good enough, and determining who owns the copyright for the film, and stating it on the image description page, should not be difficult. I also think there are far too many fair use images, and each fair use image weakens the potential fair use case of every other image. Wikipedia's policies state that they should be used sparingly and only where necessary.

(have deleted those aspects of my objection that Palm dogg has addressed) Rossrs 00:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Lead paragraph mentions that an Oscar was won for costume design, and it is also highly regarded for its screenplay, musical score, cinematography etc. These are very important aspects in the overall quality/look/feel etc of the film but are barely (if at all) discussed. For the article to be comprehensive, aspects such as these need to be briefly discussed rather than briefly mentioned. Rossrs 09:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Just to throw in my two cents on this one, I think that the images are vital to conveying the true beauty of this film (and Kurosawa's masterful direction) to the readers of the article. I'd really like to see the first issue resolved in a way that would not involve the removal of the pictures from the article. Alexthe5th 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think the images are vital, but you are correct about the Copyright info. I believe I have added the revelvant copyright info everywhere and have indicated who produced the image and who uploaded it. I have also tried to update the Fair Use tags so that viewers can understand why I put them where I did (although I don't think we're anywhere near finished with this issue). Finally, there are a number of publicity photographs for Ran. Would you still object if we used these instead of stills from the movie? Palm_Dogg 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I think the images are absolutely beautiful and certainly a good selection of images is vital, but as I said, the more images used, the weaker the fair use case is for each one. The work you've done on the tags is in the right direction, though it doesn't solve the problem of the sheer number of images. Replacing them with stills is just subsituting one type of fair use for another. I don't think it would make much difference. Some specific points - Image:Warriors Ran.jpg is a great shot but it does not in any way relate to the "Reception" section and I suspect it's there because it couldn't fit anywhere else, and I see that as more evidence that there are simply too many images. Also the fair use rationales make a statement "Ran has been released for public purposes. Therefore, this screenshot is intended for wide distribution. " - this is not a valid statement. The film is intended for wide distribution, but individual screenshots are not, and DVDs have all sorts of copyright disclaimers on them and in them. It's not suitable as a rationale. Have a look at Sunset Boulevard (film) and specifically the images. I think this film features some of the most beautiful black-and-white cinematography I've ever seen, superb direction, brilliant use of light and shade and camera angles. I would have loved to have used about 50 images, but I used 4. I think my point was made with 4 images, and I think you can make your point with a reduction of images. If you have a look at the fair use rationales I've tried to address why each individual image was required. Perhaps if you frame your rationales similarly and drop the "screenshot is intended for wide distribution" you may have a stronger case. Still too many images, but at least the fair use claim may be a bit stronger. Rossrs 11:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Image:Warriors Ran.jpg and eliminated "film is intended for wide distribution" tags. BTW, FANTASTIC work on Sunset Boulevard (film)! Palm_Dogg 14:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Palm dogg. The image description pages look good now. I think you've fixed them very well. I still have to say I think there are too many images, but I certainly feel that you are acting in the best of good faith. We'll have to disagree on how many is too many, unfortunately. Rossrs 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I am currently beginning a copyedit, but if the intro is any indication there will be a lot of work to do on the prose. We don't want an article to greet people with such classic dangling participles as "Hailed for its powerful images and use of color, costume designer Emi Wada won an Academy Award for Costume Design for his work on Ran." Its? Was Wada the one hailed? It seems like someone inadvertently combined fragments of two other sentences to make that one. Also the language is, so far, a bit too hypey. I'll do what I can but I don't know how much work it would really need.

Oh, another example to avoid: "The story is based on the historical story of ..." Daniel Case 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just got done going through the whole article and making what fixes I could. I am not ready to support it. The prose is still not anywhere near brilliant; I feel the most I could do was make an adequate eighth-grade paper into an adequate ninth-grade one. There is far too much in the way of repeated information (Do we need to tell the story of how Mrs. Kurosawa died during production twice? Once is enough. On the second reference we just need to say "Kurosawa halted production for a day to mourn his wife's death") and overall wordiness. One gets the feeling that different writers worked on different sections and didn't step back to look at the overall picture.

Far too many paragraphs lack organization, seeming as though information was just thrown in haphazardly, like socks in the hamper. They feel like lists. This sometimes results in overkill ... do we need to have every potential King Lear parallel explored in such great detail. It's important to the film (and the "themes" at the end could do with a great deal more of the Lear comparison, since many of the things said there could just as easily be said of the play as well.

Within sentences, there is far too much circumlocution, too much use of indirect language in the hope of sounding scholarly. Nouns are repeated too often where pronouns would do. It almost feels translated from some other language.

Beyond that, some more substantive issues:

• I am a bit troubled by the use of section epigraphs. They don't seem terribly encyclopedic to me and I don't know of any other FA (post-mid 2005, anyway) that uses them.

• There should be just one {{Endspoiler}}. I appreciate the authors' awareness of the reader, but there are more or less spoilers everywhere in the body of the article.

• I see how "the absence of God" is supported by Kurosawa's quote, but it comes not soon enough to shake the confusion caused by saying it and then immediately talking about Buddha.

• Likewise the images are nice, but I agree about the screenshots ... is it necessary to use so many of them? Similar issues were recently raised with Triumph of the Will, after all. Fair use only goes so far. Daniel Case 05:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • First of all, good job on the copyediting. I freely admit it's not my strong point and when you edit an article day after day it just sort of flows together. I removed the {{Endspoiler}}, since the whole article is a series of spoilers. Regarding the epigraphs, I've used them on both Triumph of the Will and Battle of Badr without any complaints. I think they lend credibility to the article, by showing what the director was thinking of. Regarding God/Buddah, I believe they're supposed to be one and the same. I can't think of any clear way to discuss this without going off on a major tangent, so I'm open to suggestions. Regarding "Fair Use", see comments above. Palm_Dogg 07:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points I came across after taking another look at the article:

• You mention costume designer Emi Wada as "he", but she is actually female (she has an article in the Japanese wikipedia here: [9] where she's credited with being the first Japanese woman to win an Academy award).
• The Japanese meaning of the kanji 乱 has multiple meanings, most commonly "riot", "war", "disorder" and "disturbance"; since translations of these kanji are ambiguous at times (especially in titles, where the author is attempting to be intentionally vague, letting the reader decide for themselves which meaning to consider), "chaos" is not unappropriate. However, do you think it might be a good idea to list all the meanings? Alexthe5th 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article is well written and is very informative without suffocating the reader with too much information.

The Fading Light 11:29, 20 March 2006

• Object:

In Ran, the Battle of Hachiman Field is a perfect illustration of this new kind of warfare. Saburo's arquebusers annihilate Jiro's cavalry by engaging them from the woods, where the cavalry are unable to venture. Similarly, Saburo's assassination by a sniper also shows how individual heroes have no place on a modern battlefield. Kurosawa also illustrates this new warfare with his camera. Instead of focusing on the warring armies, he frequently set the focal plain beyond the action, so that in the film they appear as abstract entities.

First, it's plane, not plain. That should be easy enough to fix, but the rest of the article probably could use a check. Second, this analysis is a little too insightful for wikipedia. We're not here to make insights, we're here to cite experts and critics and summarize what others have concluded. This is the kind of analysis that belongs in an essay, not here, where it's considered original research. This article either needs more sources cited or conclusions cut. Night Gyr 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I actually forgot to add a reference for this. I got it off the audio commentary for the Criterion Collection's "Ran" DVD. I have just added a citation and fixed the spelling error. Palm_Dogg 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article is well written and very comprehensive. Great work! — Underneath-it-All 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The styling of Japanese names is a fruit salad, with Sue (no accent), Sué (avec accent Pokémon), Yôko (circumflex), Hidetora Ichimonji (given name first, despite being a character in pre-Meiji Japan), Mori Motonari (surname first, according to the convention for pre-Meiji Japanese people), a red link to Shinnosuke "Peter" Ikehata (it seems prudent to create an article with one of his names or the other, rather than have the nickname in quotes in the article title) etc. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) has suggestions. There are similar inconsistencies in things like "Best Picture" in quotation marks, but other awards in the same paragraph not similarly marked. Additionally, links should be made direct, e.g. Buddhist should link directly to Buddhism. These finishing touches can be the very last things that turn a good article into a featured article. Fg2 02:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too many fair use images. I know why you want to use them, and I sympathize with that, but it doesn't matter. No reasoning can support fair use on that many. No matter how much you want to use them, we have to respect copyright. More than 3 or 4 is really stretching it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have to politely ask if someone has some sort of agenda against this article. It's been up here for two weeks now, despite consistently having at least 3:1 support. If it's regarding the images, just order me to take them down and I'll do it, although I don't think there are too many. If it's about the copyediting, I've done what I can but it's not my strongest point -- I'm a researcher first and foremost. Anyways, I'd hoped to have this article promoted before I shipped out today, but it doesn't look like that will happen. Palm_Dogg 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agenda against the article? Remember - There Is No Cabal. ;) In all seriousness, though, I think this is a great article, and a lot better than many other FA's out there. Hopefully someone with enough knowledge of this film can get the issues ironed out and we'll have it up on the main page. 203.179.21.193 05:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• That's not how it works. FAC isn't a vote it's a consensus that all major objections have been dealt with. It's not a rough consensus like (2/3, 3/4, whatever) like other Wikipedia processes. Even one major objection will keep an article from getting promoted. And I'm not just saying this because I've objected. You can check the talk page archives for backing. And if you disagree with our stance, find some evidence to back your position. I've just been around long enough that I doubt you'll find it. Try asking Carnildo, an editor with a lot of image experience, or get some legal backing for your position. I may be radical with 4, but certainly 11 is unnacceptable. - Taxman ^Talk 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now you tell me! :) OK, I've slashed and burned and cut it down to what I consider a bare bones 5. I'm sure that's still one too many, but I think all these images are necessary. I also have to formally state that I can't work on this article anymore. In two hours I leave for military training and won't be posting again until July. I'd really appreciate it if someone could take over for me and push this baby the last few inches to FA status. Palm_Dogg 00:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry you had to go before it was done. I hope someone can finish it up as it's pretty close, but not there. - Taxman ^Talk 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• CommentKurosawa also illustrates this new warfare with his camera. Instead of focusing on the warring armies, he frequently set the focal plain beyond the action, so that in the film they appear as abstract entities. Different tenses, I corrected it. But I didn't have time to read through the whole article, so there might be other grammatical errors...great articleOsbus 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object its good but missing something: what was its long-term influence? have any directors been directly influenced by ran in the past 20 years? what do directors, producers, actors have to say about ran today? what other films borrow from ran? didnt peter jackson say the two towers battle was inspired by a kurosawa battle - was it from this film? also i dont think encyclopedia articles should have "intro quotes" like at the beginning of the king lear section, they should be incorporated into the body of the text. Zzzzz 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic article, only a few minor corrections left, after several major overhauls, including the one that has taken place on this page. Judgesurreal777 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support for this comprehensive article. Tankred 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia can be proud of this article! Fg2 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've been indecisive on this issue for a couple of weeks, because although this is a fantastic article (and I listed it as Good a while back, and it's improved since then) I can see that it could be refined still further. But I've come to realise that I'm questing for perfection, but perfection is not the standard for FA status. It is a model article in terms of many of the Wikipedia criteria and a fascinating read. I feel that it could still do with more copy-editing but I don't think that holds it back from FA status - no article is perfect, after all, they can all be improved. The abuse of "fair use" on the images was really the last stumbling block for me. It's a great article, I would be proud to see it on the front page or in a printed encyclopedia, let's please feature it. --Estarriol 11:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I dislike the Amerocentrism of the value judgements and critical commentary presented in the article. I appreciate it's harder to work with sources not in English, but it just seems wrong that so much of the article is based on US media, critics and websites. --zippedmartin 23:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Good enough for FA status. Cvene64 06:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well cited, good language, gives good cultural, literary and historical perspective on the role of the great film. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent article. It's been here long enough—let's get it out of here and onto the main page. --DanielNuyu 02:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Geology of the Capitol Reef area

Self-nom. Been a good article for a while and all feedback at its peer review has been addressed. I've been working on this article for a couple years; almost all the text was written by me and many of the photos were taken by me. I've pretty much completely exhausted all the cited references of all their information about the geologic history of this place and there really isn't much at all online about this topic besides what I've written here. Is there anything else that should be done before this can be considered to be one of our best articles? If so, what? --mav 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another great one of course. If there's anything this needs, it's beyond me to know. - Taxman ^Talk 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support: this is great, looking forward to Geology of the Colorado Plateau! -- hike395 05:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) - Geology of the Colorado Plateau will need to wait until after I've written about the geology of a few more parks on the plateau. --mav 13:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I noticed that for some reason, those footnotes listed after number 46 in the article do not go to their reference when you click on them. Number 47-63 all end up half way between reference number 46 and 47. I looked for a glitch, but I am not familiar enough with this reference type to see what the problem is...otherwise, everything else appears to be excellent. I am impressed by your ability to detail so much information without being too wordy.--MONGO 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the compliment :) I try to balance density with readability and *hate* text that goes on and on and does not say much. - As for the cite issue... I couldn't reproduce the error. Might be an issue with your browser and the cite function. --mav 15:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is because you're reaching the end of the article; the browser can't scroll down any further than #46. --BillC 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, my bad...I'm sorry I even mentioned this about not scrolling far enough.--MONGO 12:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Comment Excellent article. I would give some thought to dealing with some of the redlinks, or at least those that tell the reader to "see redlinked article". (Though I note the comments on its peer review). My other thought was that the very first picture, which is the geologic cross-section, might be better as one of the more striking images from elsewhere in the article, and the diagram be moved down. To me, it looks a little intimidatingly dry for a first picture. --BillC 22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the compliment - good comments as well. I went ahead and moved one of my photos of the Reef up and move the strat column down to where it was before - next to the TOC. That way people see a pretty picture in the lead and see a strat column next to the TOC that has the same formation names but in chronological instead of stratigraphic order. Which reminds me that I need to edit the strat column image to include some group names used in the TOC. I also commented out the few cases where I told readers to look at an article that does not exist yet. I do plan to create those articles, but not any time real soon. I'm already creating stubs for each of the formations mentioned in this article and should be done sometime this week. --mav 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • (Vote now added) A couple more comments, which may not be actionable: Some of the imbedded pictures look a little small on my 1152x864 browser. Have a think about making them larger, or at least the first one. This might be something you can't satisfy everyone on, though. The other is, bear in mind that once it goes on the front page, all hell would break loose with editors and vandals going for those redlinks, so you would probably want to have closed off almost all of those by then. BillC 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the support vote. :) As for the image size issue; I’m using the standard thumb size for most images and a width of 300px for the first image. 300px is the max size allowed per MoS for any image with text flowing around it. I run my 20" desktop screens at 1600x1200 and my 15" tablet screen at 1400x1024. The images are kinda small but not too small to me. One thing you can do is reset your pref for thumb size from the default 180px to something larger (the standard default really should be 200px). That will at least take care of the thumb images. Good point about the red links - I will make sure they are all filled with at least stubs by the time this article is put on the Main Page. --mav 13:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Support
  • I'd really like to see identical refs combined. Also, I don't think you need to go into such details as "paragraph x". At worst, just give the quote! Circeus 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Identical refs combined? How does one do that when the same ref is used for multiple sentences that are separated by other sentences? --mav 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are using the <ref> style, you can combine repeated refs by adding a "name" - so the first is <ref name="xxx">Ref to XXX.</ref> and the subsequent ones are <ref name="xxx" />. See, oh, Simon Byrne for an example. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Neat! Done - ref count in ===Notes=== section was cut in half. Thanks for the tip. :) -- mav 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellently written article, extensively referenced, and containing well placed, free pictures. I wouldn't worry too much about the referencess; though it would certainly look a little more compact and organized if you combined them, to my knowledge you wouldn't be able to keep the details about page numbers and paragraphs. When I went through it, I found a broken wikilink (missing a bracket as [[Arches National Park]); though I didn't see anything else, it might be nice if another pair of eyes went over and see if there's something small that all of us have missed so far. No reason to oppose, though! Nice work! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words. :) I went ahead and combined the refs anyway. The heading names in the books I've used as references give all the direction people need to confirm what I've cited - only page numbers are needed in most cases. Stating the section names and paragraphs is a bit of overkill considering that. -- mav 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support; this looks great. And mav, welcome back to FAC! Haven't seen one of your stellar geology articles around here in awhile. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) I've been busy in the non-wikiworld, but next I plan to expand Beryllium to FAC standard. --mav 16:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Diane Keaton

Self nomination. I've been working on this article for the past month, and after a peer review I only received minor suggestions, which I have fixed.--Fallout boy 00:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support/Comment Looks good. My only comment is that there are no red links - red links are a feature not a bug! Are there useful red links being covered up which could be reinstated e.g. some movie titles? Also, some wikilinks need to occur earlier with earlier mentions of their phrases - for instance wikilinks for Reds and Baby Boom appear later than they should at the moment (I would also suggest that for ease of use, all the movie titles in the table be wikilinked regardless of if they have been mentioned in the main text already). Bwithh 09:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks have been added to the filmography.--Fallout boy 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article, comprehensive (as far as I can tell) and very well referenced. Pics are appropriate and properly licensed, and format is good. Kafziel
• Support Excellently written and well sourced (with inline citation) article that covers the entire gambit of her career, rather than just one section. Staxringold 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - per above. -- Gnetwerker 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object filmography is wrong way round, should be earliest at top, latest at bottom. 2000s section is messy, doesnt follow chronological order, and why is production stuff mixed up with acting in family stone, please have that section copyedited. everything appears to be a websource. no books? Zzzzz 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Your objections, in the order received: (1) There is no requirement over which way the filmography goes, and every other recent actor FA has used most recent on top and the earliest on bottom. (2) The 2000s section looks a little messy on closer inspection, which I have reorganized. (3) As for web sources, only eight (excluding Box Office Mojo for BO stats) of the 41 sources I used are actually web sources, everything else is print or an online mirror of a print source.--Fallout boy 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

2000s is cleaner now; but upside-down filmog should be fixed in those other articles also; because some bad previous decisions were made, it does not set a "precedent" for this FAC. objection stands. Zzzzz 08:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Filmography has been reordered.--Fallout boy 07:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

objection striked. Zzzzz 11:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Comprehensive, well-written and well-documented. The Disco King 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very well structured, written and referenced. You've obviously spend a lot of time on this article - well done for that. Schizmatic 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Byrne

Well, the encyclical seems to have been reasonably well received below, so how about this biography, which fills a small but significant corner of the yawning gap in our coverage of early boxing. I have copyedited a little, and the refs are all my fault, but most of the text belongs to a Wikipedian beginning with "G" (although he asked me not to mention his name). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support I really like this article, and it's very well sourced. My only complaint (minor) is that on the monitor I'm currently on (which admittedly has a somewhat low resolution) the images tend to stack up a bit (especially in the "Simon Byrne's trial" section, where the large newspaper image bleeds over, messing up the header and other images). IMO, a little extra white space through some br clears would be a very nice thing. Great article though! Staxringold 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the vote. I don't know how to do what you suggest, perhaps Aloan (someone, anyone?) does?? I quite like the paper cutting because it can be read if clicked on, which (IMO) brings the subject a little closer to life rather than boring old history. Giano | talk 18:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I added it after the newspaper clipping. I agree it's a fantastic image, it's just long enough that it distorts the other section on small resolution monitors. By adding {{clear}} to the end of the section it doesn't let the next section start until images/other content from the code before the br clear is concluded (so some white space, but the image doesn't mess up the image). [[User:Staxringold|Staxringold]] 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC) ::Too late :) It all looks fine to me now (wide, narrow, different skins), but I see a "<br clear=all>" was recently added below the long newspaper scan which has presumably fixed the problem? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC) :::*Exactly. It turns out that that one image was displacing others, which was in turn displacing others that one br clear fixed it all up, so my issues are all fixed! [[User:Staxringold|Staxringold]] 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Weak Support'''. Man, can't you do something about all those redlinks? Even stubs would be a large improvement. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)</s> ::*Thanks for the support. I have filled some of the redlinks. This is one of the problems with attempting to fill a "''yawning gap in our coverage of early boxing''". The few redlinks which remain are for relatively unknown boxers, who were fairly unnotable even when alive. None of them are mentioned in [[Gilbert Odd]]'s (yeah he's blue now too) Encyclopedia of Boxing which suggests there is no great information available, Google too. Perhaps they should not be linked, would they be deleted as non notable? I'm unsure of the policy here. Whatever, there are now 8 redlinks is there a defining number for an FA to succeed? [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 10:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :::*Oh, I probably added the links - you would know better than I if they are ever likely to deserve articles. Delete the linking if you think fit. (So much for not mentioning your name...) -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 11:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC) ::::*I have de-linked the non-notable boxers, who I really believe no one will ever find enough information on to even write a stub. Three red-links remain which I am confident will one day be written. I don't think 3 in an article that long is excessive - (don't worry ALoan any comments on the inline cites are all yours...) [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 11:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support'''. Looks much better. I'll take youse guy's word that the delinked ones were too non-notable to ever get an article. --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support'''. I thoroughly enjoyed the article. I do note, however, that the images cause some crowding. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 06:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC) ::<s>Striking support and '''Object''' -- many of the images need sourcing. Their claim to being in the public domain is based on their age, but we have no information on when their authors died. Will support again once image issues are taken care of. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)</s> ::::*I think all images are now more clearly described for you. Where an artist is anonymous but publishing work in the 1820's I hope you will agree with me that he will have been dead for over 100 years. These images are also uploaded from England where copyright of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts only until 70 years after the death of the author. But that is hypothetical anyway as these artists have all been dead over 100 years. I hope you are now able to resupport. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) *<s>'''Object'''</s> - "Simon Byrne's trial" has over-busy layout. maybe lose one pic? dont like any section heading "Epilogue", doesnt fit in encyclopedia, not useful to reader scanning TOC. [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) **I'm not sure what an "over-busy" layout means - there are four images, two by two, well balanced, on my screen. I have changed the last section title to "After Byrne's death". -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 23:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :::i looked on a different monitor and the layout is even worse! basic problem is too many pictures which are too big: byrne v mckay the long vertical report stretches the whole section leaving a big blank space at the bottom of that section. symon byrner's trial the bottom-left image has suddently shifted right, leaving a blank space where it used to be. there is 2 stacked images of james byrke and bendigo thompson. making the images smaller, and removing the bottom-left image in the symon byrne's trial might resolve the problems. [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 08:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::::OK - I have made the newspaper image smaller - does that solve the problem? Can you post some screenshots, because I really have no idea what is wrong for you - the article works for pretty much all browser window sizes for me. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 09:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :::::still think that section has one pic too many, but otherwise layout is better. [[User:Zzzzz|Zzzzz]] 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''' Meus amo(I like)...I had no idea who the hell Simon Bryne was until I read your article and I came away well informed. Although I do suggest some info on Bryne's early life[[User:Osbus|Osbus]] 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC) ::I have searched and searched for more information, I can't find any more. I suspect records etc. in Ireland at that period where even more haphazzard than in England. Hopefully some day something might turn up, but so far this article seems to be the most detailed assembly of facts about him [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 06:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''': otherwise he'll hit me. Actually, the article is well structured, although I can wish that some of the cinematic metaphors ("epilogue") were cut. Photo clutter is going to be a problem for 640x480 px monitors, while they look fine on my 20" 0.19 mm dotpitch monitor. About the only thing I can think of is to put one's resolution down a notch from the highest and see how it looks. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''', very cool page on an under-covered facet of social history. The 19th-century prints look great, except, uh [dancing nimbly away from Giano, look out, there's a horseshoe in my glove], the Lead image artist who tried to capture the lightning dynamic of the square ring had better hang on to his day job. But that can't be helped, it was no doubt clever to find a pic of Byrne at all. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 12:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC). :*Thank you for the vote. The image to which you refer happens to be a rather fine example of primitive naive folk art - highly valued and much sought after by discerning collectors! [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 12:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::*You say on the image page that the artist has "obviously" been dead for at least 100 years. Yeah, agreed. I think he may actually have been dead when he drew that. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 12:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC). :::*If you have no appreciation or understanding of art, it is not for me to comment further. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 13:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''', boxing today is such a tame affair. Tyson nibbles on his opponent's ear and everyone is so outraged. Byrne killed opponents in the ring, caused riots and went to prison (for reason that did not involve unwelcomed, extracurricular advances). We fancy ourselves more "civilized", but I think we are in fact only softer. This is a remarkable story, very well referenced thanks to the A-man and very well told and illustrated thanks to that G-Guy. A fine effort.--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 05:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''' Beautifully done! Congrats on a marvelous article! Shall we expect [[John L. Sullivan]] and [[James J. Corbett|"Gentleman Jim"]] anytime soon? [[User:Ganymead|''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead]] | [[User talk:Ganymead|Dialogue?]] 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''' very nice, only comment is that <nowiki><ref> breaks everything, including comments (<!--foo!-->), so one of your references looks funky (currently no. 22) Makemi 04:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That's now fixed. ALoan doesn't that need to be in with 21 though? Giano | talk 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School

First Peer Review, First FAC, Second Peer Review

Info sourced from the unpublished manuscript has been removed until a policy change allows its use, and the two remaining contested fair use images have been removed pending free release or a new free version.

This article has undergone some extremely large edits, in large part by me but also with enormous help from WP:Schools members such as Harro5 and Bishonen (who, while not a member, was a key contributor to Wikipedia's only current FA school article, Caulfield Grammar School). The first FAC failed due to my naivete at Wikipedia and I believe all the issues present in the first PR/FAC cycle and the second PR have been addressed. The article is listed as a Good Article, is a showcase article on and features a showcase picture from Portal:Schools, and deserves to be a FA IMHO.

• Nominate and support Staxringold 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. When this article first came up for a FAC vote, I objected because the history section of the "second oldest secondary school in continuous existence in North America" was woefully lacking. Since then, the authors have done a bang-up job in improving the article and researching the fascinating history of this school while also addressing all of concerns other editors had. Excellent work and deserving of Featured Article status.--Alabamaboy 18:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. If I weren't so partisan, I'd say this article trumps Caulfield's. There are no flaws left in this one. Harro5 20:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I would say however, that there could be a slight readjusment of the picutres, you need really to break the article up by having at least one picture on the left hand side, apart from that pretty good. --Wisden17 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great job. jacoplane 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Support: Seven of the sources are from "Unpublished Manscripts by School Archivist Thom Peters, ca 2005". WP:RS requires published sources. (Also per this ArbCom decision) My objection has been remedied. -- Gnetwerker 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply The definition on WP:RS for primary sources directly fits this information, and while it has not been published to the public WP:RS states "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication" and the school's archivist is most definetly credible and reliable IMO. I can remove the information if it's a serious problem, but the original research issue was already pushed through (from both PRs) with no one complaining about the manuscript. As I said, I'd be happy to remove the information if others feel this way, but it seems like WP:RS just wants to make sure people aren't sourcing things with imaginary text, this is coming directly from the archivist and school historian. Staxringold 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I am getting reprimanded by ArbCom for using unpublished archival material from Reed College. It seems like a good page (yours, that is), and I am sorry to spread the pain, but one way or the other we need to be consistent. On the other hand, there is always WP:IAR. -- Gnetwerker 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand, but I don't think archival material should be punished just because it isn't published. In fact, I think the IAR acronym that applies to this situation isn't ignore all rules, but Wikipedia:Interpret all rules. WP:NOR and WP:RS exist to ensure data is verified by credible sources, and there is no one more credible on Hopkins School information than the Hopkins School archivist. Staxringold 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the unpublished references in this case are acceptable. If there is a choice between published and unpublished references, then we should always go with the published ones. But in this case the needed info isn't available in a published format. In addition, Gnetwerker states that he is being reprimanded by ArbCom for unpublished archival material. This is not quite true. According to the Proposed_decision, they have problems with Gnetwerker using original research, namely interviews he did with people and internal documents of the college. These types of unpublished references are different than the ones in this case, which are from an unpublished manuscript and materials in the school's archives. The ArbCom has an issue with references which are only available to one person, not to unpublished references in a publically accessible school archive. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the ArbCom case in question is about references used only in Talk (!) and ones available to college "insiders" (not a single individual), but they declined to address the issue in any depth. There certainly is an argument that this case is different, but insofar as ArbCom has precedent, it is "no unpublished sources". -- Gnetwerker 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Arbcom only has precedent over the actions of individual editors who have been through Arbitration. As they state in their pending ruling, "Gnetwerker is cautioned to avoid using unpublished material as a source." This ruling doesn't apply to other editors. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically my thoughts, Alabamaboy. I have put this issue up for comment to get a more general idea that applies to this situation. Staxringold 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object as before, only more so: The images Image:Hopkins campus map 01.JPG, Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg, and Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif are claimed as "fair use". However, it's quite possble for a Wikipedian to make a free-license replacement, so there's no reason to use non-free images in the article. Image:Hopkins stuco prez.jpg might be a little harder, but it doesn't add much to the article. --Carnildo 04:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Since when are fair use images a reason to object to an FAC? In fact, the only section on images in "What is a featured article" states "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." I believe the images are appropriate (I can remove the STUCO one if you think it's pointless), captions are all succinct as possible (and that wasn't a complaint of yours), and all the images have correct copyright status. Simply having fair use images in an article is not a violation of WP:WIAFA. Nonetheless, I believe I have a self-created image (actually higher-res) of the goat that I'll upload to replace HopkinsMascotGoat1, and the campus map was explicitly stated to be all right to use and clearly given to me to use in the Wikipedia article. Maybe there's a better license than fairuse, but I thought that's what applied. As for HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons, maybe you could create a non-fair use version but I think it's a gorgeous photo, and articles are allowed to use fair use images.. I can remove StucoPrez if you don't think it's useful, but I think it's nice to show the pomp and ceremony involved in student government (and, as you said, it would likely be difficult to get a free versions as only Hopkins staff gets that close to the stage with a camera). Staxringold 11:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are a student at the school, is it possible to get permission to have the images released by the school or whoever took them under the GNU Free Documentation License, per instructions at Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission?--Alabamaboy 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That what I've been working on since I read Carnildo's comments. I have already replaced the goat image with a GFDL version I took, and I've sent an email off to the person I got the campus map from if she will release it under GFDL or Creative Commons (I included Creative Commons since it's at least possible Hopkins doesn't want it to be commercially reused). I'll send out a request to the yearbook editors if they can release the Heath image as well. Staxringold 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Improper fair-use images have been a reason to object since the beginning of time, or at least since the beginning of the formal FAC process. Point 4 of "what is a featured article" specifies "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", and fair-use images are only appropriate when they add significantly to the article and are impossible to replace with free-license images. --Carnildo 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is why I am attempting to get the images released if possible, but theoretically anything could be replaced by a free image. The image of Heath (which may or may not be free-released, I'm trying) is a very high-quality shot that displays a brand-new facility. I would say that adds significantly to the article. Ditto for the campus map (and I've already fixed the goat image). Staxringold 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Some images can't be replaced with free versions, such as the crash of the Hindenburg, or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. However, if it's possible for the image to be replaced, it should be. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and free images should be used even if they're lower-quality than non-free images. --Carnildo 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the only way I could get you to change your vote to get both remaining images either free-released, or remove them from the article? I can maybe understand your opinion that the Heath Commons image doesn't add enough to be a clear fair use, but certainly the campus map adds a great deal. Staxringold 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The campus map is also the easier one to replace. Anyone with a good drafting program and a survey of the campus (or even an orthophoto of the area) could make a replacement. Or someone with tinkering skills, a camera, a kite, and a good deal of luck could replace it with a photograph. --Carnildo 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of standard is that though? WP:WIAFA in no way requires free images if they are physically possible over fair use image, and until I hear back on my request to GFDL/CC-release it the map is as released as possible for a fair use image, given easily for use on Wikipedia. If you can link me to or suggest a good free "drafting program" I'd be happy to throw something together. See the subsection below to try and solve these issues. Staxringold 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Free drafting programs seem to be a bit thin on the ground, but Inkscape is a pretty good vector-art program which could be used to produce a map. --Carnildo 09:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I continue to wait on the two removed images, hopefully I can add them back with a free license. For Raul, whenever he reviews this FAC: I have now twice asked Carnildo what his remaining issue with this article on his talk page. The STUCO President image is irreplaceable until graduation, and even then would be incredibly difficult given how graduation is laid out (also, he did not outright state that image as an issue here). Until I figure out what Carnildo wants, there is nothing further actionable I can do to fix this article for him. Staxringold 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How long is it until graduation? Two months? Three? I think the article can survive without the image until then. --Carnildo 07:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, will you support if the image is removed? I don't think it adds a lot. Harro5 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't support FACs, but I will withdraw my objection. --Carnildo 06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, with the kind words about me in the nominiation this is probably not what is expected, but Oppose, I have to agree with Carnildo. The map of the campus and the yearbook photos may have been okayed for Wikipedia to use, but from the Fair Use rationales provided, they'll make re-use of this article by others difficult. Featured articles are supposed to resolve such problems; it's only if that is impossible, or really, really hard, that such use as this becomes fair. It doesn't to me look to be even a little hard to replace Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg, provided one of you has a camera. The map is very nice, perhaps you can't draw an equally pretty one, but I'm sure you can draw a map. Bishonen talk 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• P. S. Er, and do you realize that the nice sort of touching pic of the dininghall from 1928 appears twice...? Bishonen talk 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• I have retagged the campus map from fair use to {{PermissionAndFairUse}} since it was used with permission for Wikipedia. Staxringold 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to PS That's very odd... Must've gotten left behind when I was rearranging the images. Thanks for pointing it out, I moved the 1911 student body pic under the Modern Day header, and deleted the 1928 dining hall instance from the history section entirely (now only under student priveleges). Staxringold 20:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• PROPOSED SOLUTION TO IMAGE COPYRIGHT ISSUES The two remaining images that are currently at issue are Image:Hopkins campus map 01.JPG and Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons2.jpg. I have a request out for the map to be GFDL/CC released and requests both to GFDL-release the Heath image and/or to replace it with an image created by a freind of mine with a nice camera and photographic sense. Until these are replied to, what would be appropriate solutions? I could create a quick, boxy, birds-eye view of the campus on Photoshop to replace the much better map to keep that section of the article free until I hear back. As for the Heath image, shall I remove it until hearing back from either request? If I undertook these actions, would you two (Carnildo and Bishonen) be willing to support the article, or do you see other issues requiring resolution. Staxringold 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Er, Staxringgold, you're asking the wrong question there: withdrawing objections isn't the same thing as supporting. Yes, I would withdraw my objection if you did that, but I'm not ready to support. I want to congratulate you on the nice historical research, but I think the prose is now a bit too choppy — it doesn't flow. It would be great if you had a shot at fixing it — mainly, by linking some of the short "subject+verb+a few words more" sentences together into more sophisticated units — but if that's a problem, I'll have a go myself tomorrow, see what I can do, and then decide whether I feel I can support. (I'm sorry I didn't look at this earlier, but I've been a bit busy.) Bishonen talk 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• That's why I asked if you had any further issues. I'll take a good look at the history section as well. Staxringold 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I withdraw my objection. Bishonen talk 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose until issue of unpublished sources is resolved. Kaldari 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the unpublished material has been removed, I change my vote to Support. Kaldari 22:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've read more closely (and also copyedited a little), and it's looking good, with good use made of terrific, intrinsically interesting, historical material. I'm ready to support, even though there's IMO too much detail under "facilities", of a kind better suited for attracting parents, or even helping students find their way around, than informing readers of an international encyclopedia—why would such readers care which building the teachers' lounge is in, etc, etc? But I have avoided taking out any information, as I may be in a minority here. Please do think about it, though. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC).
• Support Good article, well cited, and with good information. Also I think it is about time we get some schools for FACs. SorryGuy 06:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Many say "We need more featured article quality school articles on Wikipedia," but almost no one says "I think I'll try doing it myself!" Staxringold (talk · contribs) has taken this and made it into what we see here today. Congratulations on a well-sourced, well-written quality school featured article. May this be start of many more. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Austerlitz

Self-nomination In 1805, the morning of December 2nd was cold, bitter, and uncertain. At the heartland of Europe, two armies arrayed for what was to become a spectacular clash, one that might determine the very longevity of Napoleon's empire. By the end of the day, there could be no doubt. This article was reviewed by the Military History Peer Review and the regular peer review, being received warmly in both places. Thanks in advance for all suggestions.UberCryxic 16:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Bravo, monsieur. But a few gnats - (i) How much was a franc worth? (I don't think franc says clearly enough.) (ii) Why did Sweden join the nascent Third Coalition, and what were the French political mistakes that induced Russia to join? (iii) Citation for "possessing the finest officer class in Europe" and "famed Tirailleurs"? (iv) There is a mixture of curly quotes (‘ ’, “ ”) and straight quotes (" ", ' '). I think the latter is preferred, but there should be consistency whatever. But overall, a tour de force. La Grande Armée will be next, no doubt. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  ALoan, I've reworded the Tirailleurs and the officers comment; the former were famed and the French did have the best officer class in Europe, but specific quotes that say that are escaping me so far. I'm not sure what you mean by the quotes, so I definitely encourage you to go on and make the necessary changes. About the francs....let's see, in 1803 the US bought Louisiana for $15 million, which was 80 million francs. 1805 is not that far off, so a proportion would mean that 40 million francs in 1805 were equivalent to $7.5 million in the same year. However, I don't have a source that gives me the exact number, so I'll withold putting that in unless further reviewers agree with my method here.UberCryxic 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  Ooops forgot; the explanation about Franco-Russian tensions is in the footnote, and I don't really think it's all that necessary to explain why Britain and Sweden entered into a mutual alliance. That's meant as a quick political background behind the conflict.UberCryxic 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  No problem; thanks for responding - as I said, the above were only gnats. (i) Re the value of the franc - my question is really "is that a lot of money or not?" (The comparison with the amount paid for Louisiana is interesting, although I don't have much feel for the value of USD in 1805 versus 2006.) (ii) Thanks for the pointer to the footnote (Russia was annoyed at realignment in Germany, fair enough; but also concerned at French annexations in Italy?!). I'm still not sure what was in it for the Swedish, though, and Third Coalition does not say. (iii) Given the standard set by the rest of the article, I think these ought to be cited if they come back. (Firstly, what does "finest officer class" mean? Best dressed? Most effective? The British Army did pretty well in the Peninsular. And why Europe - are there better officers elsewhere - USA? India? China? Japan?. Secondly, Tirailleur does not mention these Tirailleurs, or even the later ones in the Young Guard, and La Grande Armée is less than flattering, saying that Tiraillerus were "Neither nimble enough nor good enough shots to be Voltigeurs ... They were often used as cannon and musket fodder, given dangerous tasks to spare the less expendable elements.") (iv) Um, there is a mixture of “curly” quotation marks and "straight" quotation marks. But I am still supporting. Well done, all. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. If I'm not mistaken, Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" provides currency comparisons/values for several centuries back. Mikker ^(...) 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sweden was not an important player in the Third Coalition at all, the agreement being mentioned only to let people know when the Third Coalition came into being. It basically came down to Russia and Austria, and the reasons for the two have been given. Now, Russia would be concerned about any territorial arrangements in Europe, whether they happened to be in Northern Italy, Germany, or right in its backyard, the Balkans. The comment about the officers and the Tirailleurs were changed; it now reads "competent" officer class, just to be diplomatic, though those studying the era would easily recognize French officers as the best during this time period, by which I mean they were battle-hardened (the Revolutionary Wars had given them plenty of experience) and innovative, unconstrained by 18th century military dogma that plagued many enemy commanders. The performance of the British army in the Peninsular War was spectacular, but it'd be a stretch to even attempt comparisons between the British staff of that time and the French in 1805 (which is what the article refers to). At least that's what I think. Sooo...yes, in a sense I'm talking about effectiveness. Also, Europe was mentioned because that's where they primarily fought and made a mark. Carried to its logical conclusion, this was one of the greatest armies of all time, and the officers were some of the greatest of all time, so where do you draw the line? The Tirailleurs referred to the Tirailleurs du Po and the Corses, brave Italians that fought like lions throughout Napoleon's campaigns. No one would ever badmouth these particular men.UberCryxic 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All of the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved, and this is now quite the excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support--Worthy of being FAC...although I find stuff about battles boring, this one captured my interest for some time. Osbus 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support for being such a nice, readable, sourced article. Good job! Staxringold 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. Great article, but there are a number of issues. Firstly, there are (fairly minor) NPOV problems. As you know, WP:NPOV requires viewpoints to be "fairly presented, but not asserted". Statements like "Charles was Austria's best field commander", "Napoleon's troops received careful and invaluable training for any possible military operation", "the Allied deployments were mistaken and poorly timed" etc. need to be attributed to someone to avoid violating NPOV. The section "One sharp blow and the war is over" suffers from some serious purple prose, and rewording it would be good. Furthermore, please reword "but certainly not a Carthaginian peace" (the general reader won't understand) and "carnivorous episode" (I have no idea what is meant). Also, please give the metric equivalents for "700-foot Santon hill and the 850-foot..." etc. I've fixed several other tiny (mainly style) problems myself. Mikker ^(...) 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Mikker. I've made the following changes: the comments about Charles and the Allied deployments have been cited, as have some of the more controversial (I'll explain this in a little bit) comments in the sharp blow category, and the carthaginian and carnivorous phrases have been rewritten. On the sentence about Napoleon's troops: it doesn't need a citation at all, as no controversial claim is being made, nor am I saying something that someone could disagree with on a factual basis since the French drilled, trained for amphibious operations, and did probably more than they ever needed to for any conceivable early 19th century maneuver. Ok, now on the purple prose....presumably, you are mostly talking about the 'Sun of Austerlitz' comment and the description thereafter. This is a difficult situation to convey in words. If you were a French soldier going up the hill, it would've been a really spectacular moment, and most historians skip word diplomacy when talking about this part. Likewise, Kutuzov was amazed that suddenly thousands of French troops were suddenly appearing where he least wanted them to appear. After the first French charge was defeated, there really was desparation. St. Hilaire held divisional council to discuss options, and finally they decided on one last bayonet charge, which succeeded. But like I said, some of those comments have now been referenced. Take a look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks again.UberCryxic 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding NPOV here, but as I see it, potentially controversial views need to be cited (i.e. referenced) and attributed ("according to Joe Blogs..."). To make, for example, "Charles was Austria's best field commander" NPOV, you'll not only have to cite it but also say in the text who thinks this. I've re-read "One sharp blow and the war is over" and I see your point - I'd still prefer slightly more relaxed language, but if you think your version is better, I'll accept. Oh, and please do provide metric equivalents for length etc. Some of us have no idea how long a foot is! (See Panama canal for an example of how it's done if you're lost). Good luck... Mikker ^(...) 03:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Boulougne comment is not even potentially controversial; if anyone well-versed in the period wanted to challenge it, I'd be stupified. The footnote of the Charles comment says who the author is, but even this isn't controversial; I know of no one who thinks Charles wasn't the greatest Austrian field commander during the period. I'll see what I can do about the language in that section. The metric conversions have now been given.UberCryxic 04:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, that's ok by me. I'm now supporting. Thanks for addressing my concerns and great job on the article!! Mikker ^(...) 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support A well written article, The piece about Charles as Austria'a best commander is well covered in the article about Charles, which is linked 2-3 lines before hand at the start of the paragraph, maybe another link at this point would help Gnangarra 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - well structured and written. Ronline ✉ 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support, Bien Fait Young Guardsman! This old Grognard salutes your fine effort. One quibble, though, which will in no way effect my vote-"About 15 minutes later, Napoleon ordered the attack, adding, “One sharp blow and the war is over.” He then said "Let it commence with a roar of thunder!" And at this command a withering barrage by the Grande Batterie against the Pratzen Heights began in preparation for the main assault. Perhaps not as notable, the Brillant ‘Sun of Austerlitz’, while it warmed the French's backs, was also in the Coalitions' eyes, further hampering their efforts to orgainze an effective defense. You might want to mention these. But outstanding job irregardless!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support; nice work on this. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

Renominating this article for featured status. The original nomination is located here and we believe the majority of concerns noted have been addressed. This article is a discussion of the worldwide phenomenon of glaciers in retreat, a listing of those glaciers that have been well documented from various sections of the Earth and a discussion of how measurements are obtained and what the long term implications may be. The article is long and has many facts and figures that make it fairly cut and dry, but it is valuable research tool with cited evidence and a diverse listing of readily available references. The major contributors have all agreed that though the facts and figures may seem overly abundant, we are not in favor of reducing them as this would compromise the scientific integrity of the article. If nothing else, we hope to continue to get feedback and welcome all commentary. I also wanted to mention that as an offshoot of this effort, Doug Bell implemented a new cite style that automagically now superscripts the Harvard style referencing.--MONGO 11:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, on one condition. It is an excellent article, thoroughly referenced and comprehensive. I do not personally like Harvard citation style, but I accept that that is just my opinion. But one thing (I have copied this to the article's talk page too): it is not an article about glacial retreat. It is an article about "glacial retreat over the last 150 years". Glacial retreat is different; it is conceptual, and there have been many examples of glacial retreat (and indeed glacial advance) throughout geological time, although obviously the ones in the holocene are the best known. A new article, detailing the mechanisms, processes and some examples of glacial retreat ought to be created at Glacier retreat (or as a redirect to Glacial retreat); this article should be moved to (something like) "Post-Industrial Revolution glacier rereat". What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 12:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) This has now been changed; now full support. Batmanand | Talk 06:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  Appreciate your imput...and I repost this from the article discussion page and hope it fully adresses your concerns. Peltoms is the "resident" glaciologist that worked on this article a lot. He defined "Glacial retreat" as the end of the ice ages...in other words, essentially the period also know as the Holocene glacial retreat. This article discusses Glaciers...as in more isolated smaller masses of glaciers that are not even necessarily remnants of the last ice ages, as many of the glaciers now retreating actually developed during the Little Ice Age. It doesn't actually fit into a Post-Industrial period as that is still ongoing and the industrial age only really just started at about the same time as the end of the little ice age...in other words, (I am not sure on this) there isn't much data to support evidence that the coal burning that became big in the early to mid 18th century actually hastened the retreat of glaciers...Glacier retreat is the term used by glaciologists for the period since 1850, generally. I orginally had the article titled as Glacial recession...but I agreed to change it as the other major contributors correctly commented that this is incorrect since we do not discuss the period that that title would need to incorpoarte in text...the holocene period from 12 thousand until maybe 3 thousand years ago. We did spinoff Glacier mass balance Glacial Lake Outburst Flood and Holocene glacial retreat, all created as byproducts of this effort, with the latter in a rough state but correctly titled to discuss other periods. See also small stub Pinedale glaciation. I appreciate your imput and let me know if I can clarify this any more for you.--MONGO 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That previous thread about the title is here in case you'd like a read of the discussion then.--MONGO 13:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page. Batmanand | Talk 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Bigdaddy1204 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I still think it should be renamed to Glacial retreat. Just because one supposed glaciologist uses this term and edits Wikipedia doesn't mean we should use a grammatically incorrect different name than most scientists. --Rory096 17:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  I appreciate your support of the article, but the glaciologist that is mentioned as having helped on this article is indeed one of the foremost researchers on mass-blances studies and retreat of glaciers in the U.S. His work is widely published and spans a period of study in the North Cascades of over 20 years now. We don't call it Glacial because that word discusses a process...we don't discusse processes here. Glaciers is what we itemize and dicuss. I recognize that the words may seem to connotate differently to most, but again....Glacial is a process and adjective, glaciers is the noun, and we list glaciers that are retreating. You may also want to chime in on the article discussion page as there is an active discussion involving the title there...I appreciate your time and contribution to this effort.--MONGO 21:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Even so, it's grammatically incorrect- and not what most people call it. See Wikipedia:Use common names. (I probably shouldn't be saying anything, considering my FAC below is called "Cannabis," but in this case, even many scientists use this term). Anyway, I'll go complain on the talk page instead. --Rory096 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article! Although it's a little dry, but that's hard to avoid. I changed the wording in a couple places, especially in the captions. I hope I improved it! Glacier retreat is really important, and most people don't know about it. Sarah crane 20:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you...your support is appreciated. I'll take a look at the improvements you made:)--MONGO 21:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support of course (I'm not the nominator, but I'm one of the signficant editors there; though far, far less important than the experts who have contributed). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have moved Glacier retreat to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to maintain the fact that we are talking about Glaciers, not Glacial process, and to honor the need to be time specific in the title. If anyone wants to start an article on Glacial retreat then they will need to discuss the processes and mechanics. This article does not do that, as it is solely a discussion on the recent evidence for those glaciers that are in retreat worldwide, as well as discussion about some of the glaciers that are actually advancing.--MONGO 02:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's even grammatically correct! --Rory096 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Awesome article. deeptrivia (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I did a fact-check of the entire article (yes, even the facts that did not have inline citations directly attached to them) during its first FAC nomination (see article talk page for comments). I am satisfied that everything has been corrected and that additions since then are correct. Btw, the ext.link in "King, et alia" is boken and the first sentence currently does not conform to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#The first sentence. --maclean25 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for all the fact checking you did...only a few items changed and I will make the adjustments you mention now to the article. Appreciate all the time and effort you provided to assist us on this article.--MONGO 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support for a very well written article on what is admittedly a typically dry subject, although an extremely important one. As noted above, I don't particularly favor the Harvard citation style either, but that's largely a matter of preference and will in no way sway my vote of support for this one. I'm amazed at the depth of expertise contributed to this article - out of curiosity, how many of the editors of this article were geophysicists or geologists? Alexthe5th 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Also, just another point I forgot to mention - references to notable works in glacial retreat at the bottom of the page for "additional reading" is a terrific touch. Great work. Alexthe5th 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the considerations. There is one glaciologist that worked on this article. Peltoms helped with another FA that is unrelated to this article for the most part. I think the Harvard style is very different to those not familiar with it, but we ended up moving a lot of the sections around and it really saved some time when it came to not having to reorganize the cited references numericaly over and over....the alphbetical listing proved very helpful for us. The rest of the major contributors to the article include at least one person who is brilliant, but not a glaciologist, another who simply has a knack for detail, another who has been involved in near Earth asteroid detection(!)) and myself, I simply have a minor in geology.--MONGO 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support for a very well written article. Definitely an example of "our best". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  I Appreciate the kind words and I'm glad you enjoyed it.--MONGO 10:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. After giving it my fine-tooth comb review, I found very few issues, all of them minor, compared to the previous FAC. Extremely tight and well written article now. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  It wouldn't have become "tight and well written" had you not aided us so much in cleaning up a lot of different areas. Thanks!--MONGO 10:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A well written and comprehensive article. -- Lewis 09:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you and we appreciate your support:)--MONGO 10:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - good article, however - the photo-diagrams are dire, particularly the one used as the lead image. If the original images are around, I volunteer to try and do something better than the current MS Paint efforts. --zippedmartin 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  The lead image is from a page off a U.S. Government website. Aside from the two images taken in the Cascades, all the images are from public domain sources. I agree that the lead image could be clearer. We appreciate your support for the article.--MONGO 22:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  The lead image is from [10] and was cropped and cleanedup as a quick peek at that webpage will demonstrate. I don't think much more can be done to this one.--MONGO 22:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  Sure, but they must have been employing 12 year olds as graphic artists. Something else as lead would be better. Along with that, Image:Bouldert.jpg, Image:Eastonterm.jpg and Image:Larsen_B_Collapse.jpg could be made to look a fair bit more profesional if the originals are available. Hm... I have no idea how big Rhode Island is... I though that the standard unit of measurement for ice shelves were Waleses. --zippedmartin 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, I have no objection if Zippedmartin or anyone else wants to make more graphically elaborate images that illustrate the same points about glacier boundaries at different dates. But I sort of don't really care how "pretty" the lines are. To me, the concept illustrated is "the glacier came to here on this date, then it came to there on this other date". Crude lines and mediocre fonts make that point perfectly well, and something with more graphic design pizzazz doesn't particularly affect the underlying concept in any direction. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, um...somebody who is really jice has now promoted this article to FA! Thanks...Raul! The area of Rhode Island is 2,706 square kilometers...you could fit that into Wales about 15 times or more...--MONGO 06:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Gloria

Self-nom in behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This article has gone through an assessment by the WikiProject's editors and a peer review afterwards, and we believe it meets all the FA criteria now. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Looks fantastic. Just please put when you last accessed those webpages to use them as references. Something like (viewed 25 March 2006) after the link. --mav 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • All right, I'll fill the accessdate parameter of the citation templates. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article is so good it speaks for itself. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Edit-Conflict Support - I've made an effort to expand the lead to make it more suitable. Otherwise, it looks good. Might want to convert the citations to {{cite web}}, though. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:36 (UTC)
  • It definitely needs to use {{cite web}}. — jdorje (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The picture on the infobox (and as such, the first that people see) is right before the second landfall. At that point Gloria was quite weak (as you can see from the sheer evident in the photo, and the eye losing its definition to the south). The established convention to to use photos that show the storm at peak intensity. I'll gladly change to support once the image at the top of the article is switched -M^ask 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree. The picture is from the storm's most damaging landfall. I don't believe there's any wikiproject policy on using peak-strength photos versus landfall photos; there is a brief discussion here but it's not covered. However, I do think it's a problem that there is no peak-strength visible-light photo anywhere in the article; there is room for another picture in the storm history and this one should be added. — jdorje (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Talk:Tropical Storm Delta (2005) and Talk:Tropical Storm Gamma (2005) both have discussions on them to dump 'dying' pics for ones at peak intensity. Talk:Hurricane_Beta_(2005) has NSLE saying specifically "we should use one at peak intensity, if possible". Plus, it's just confusing for the box to be labeled Category 4 and show something less. -M^ask 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's actually quite a dramatic photo of a mainland US landfall. And, keep in mind, this is 1985. We didn't have all of the sophisticated satellite imaging systems that we have today. The Monthly Weather Review has a picture of it near peak intensity but it's black and white, grainy and a pdf. It also doesn't give a sense of its surroundings, i.e what's in its path. This picture is over all quite impressive. I, for one, sure as hell wouldn't want to be in the way of that thing. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But both of those discussions are comparing two different open-sea photographs, not an open-sea with a landfall photograph. As I said I'm not aware of any precedent for open-sea peak-strength versus landfall photographs. — jdorje (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • 2 out of 3 of those made landfall... check the pages. -M^ask 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • None of those discussions covers this issue. They're only looking for a better at-sea pic. The Beta discussion could have gotten into it, but the Beta pic is from peak strength and just before landfall so the discussion doesn't go anywhere. Looking at articles for recent storms, Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, and Hurricane Emily (strong storms that weakened before landfall) all show peak-strength images. Hurricane Katrina is the only exception; it shows a weakening (still Cat5) storm shortly before landfall. None of these storms has any discussion of the issue, though, so although I'll grant that there is precedent I think we are the first to discuss the choice of at-sea versus landfall images. In general I would prefer landfall images unless they are significantly worse than the at-sea images, but I may be in the minority here. However in the case of Gloria we may not really have the decision to make, since (as discussed at Talk:Hurricane Gloria) there are no good peak-strength images available. — jdorje (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support as a major contributor of it. Hurricanehink 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent job on this one. WotGoPlunk 22:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hard not to support this article. It thoroughly covers the subject, is well laid out and gives readers a good overall grasp of this hurricane, which isn't nearly as famous as the other hurricane FAs. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I've gotta support this one. Looks nice. Fieari 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry to be so picky, but the last paragraph of the "New England" section needs to be verified. Where does the 7 come from? The source says at the bottom, "Gloria was responsible for a total of eight deaths in the United States. Two persons were killed in Connecticut, two were killed in Rhode Island, and one each in New York and New Hampshire." So there's discrepancy there as well. This should be addressed before getting FA status. Otherwise though, nice work. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The death toll is actually unknown. That source a Long Island death, as did some other sources I didn't put in the article. That is one death we know, and the Montly Weather Review as well as other sources, the total death toll was 8. 8-7 = 1. Hurricanehink 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... well, I guess that's the way it has to be. Support. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support One of the best tropical cyclone articles out there. Omni ND 22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Changing to Support per my concerns being dealt with in the article. -M^ask 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Im amazed at what a great job the Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones does at improving these articles. Tarret 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C.

Self-nom. Article about an English football (soccer) club. Previously peer reviewed, and I think I've covered everything that was raised. More stable than most football articles, and I think it is reaching a standard comparable to the other sports team FAs. Oldelpaso 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- sometimes after using the noun "Manchester City F.C." or some noun directly related to it, a verb referring to a plural noun is used (as in the first sentence). Other sentences use verbs referring to a singular noun - "In more recent years, the club has fallen on harder times,". Can this be fixed? AndyZ _t 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

British English allows the use of the discretionary plural in such cases, but I've changed the sentence for consistency. From a quick scan of the article this appears to be the only sentence affected, but I'll go through line by line later. Oldelpaso 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The discretionary plural is not just grammatically correct British English, if used properly it's actually more precise. No need change it. bcasterline t 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have to disagree that it's more precise, although it's not incorrect if you want to constantly emphasise the plurality of an entity ("the crowd were boisterous"). The practice grew in relation to cricket teams, I believe, and has spread among some corporate/financial writers in reference to companies ("British Steel have just made a loss"). IMV, it's best avoided here. Tony 13:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The dicretionary plural is nearly always used when referring to any sports team in British English (and Commonwealth English too, I believe), both formally in the press and writtten word, and also common parlance. Since the MoS recommends British English usage and spelling for articles whose subjects are mainly pertaining to Britain (such as this), it is correct to use it; The Ashes and Arsenal F.C. are both examples of existing FAs which do so. Qwghlm 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, but only for one minor thing - this sentence:

City supporters also frequently bemoan their team's unpredictability, which is summarised by the phrase "Typical City".

Although as a football fan I know what the sentence is trying to convey, to the layman it is not particularly informative; if it is to be included it needs context and some references (both to City's unpredictability and to their fans' attitudes). If it's too hard to do that then I suggest removing the sentence entirely. Qwghlm 14:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence and referenced it, is the new version an improvement? Oldelpaso 15:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think it needs a little more to it - a single external link to a news article is not enough to support that statement. Qwghlm 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added two examples. Oldelpaso 17:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that looks good to me. Change vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support, comprehensive and well-referenced article. Brisvegas 09:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This is the first time I participate in an FA review and I must admit that I am not quite familiar with the criteria here. Anyway, hope my comments would help improve the article:
  1. Section Honours: aren't the post-1992 divisions called "Division One" ane "Division Two" respectively per note?
  2. Sections Noted former players and Noted former players: "Noted" sounds a bit odd in this context. Perhaps "Notable" would be more appropriate?
  3. Section External links: what's the criteria for inclusion here? List appears a bit random to me. --Pkchan 11:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Honours - good catch. It is the footnote which is in error, judging by the way the Football League website uses First Division / Second Division throughout e.g.[11]. I have changed it accordingly.
• Noted players - done.
• External links - I have removed some of the fansites from the external links in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. Oldelpaso 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see the changes. Support. --Pkchan 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is the "External links" section above the notes and references? It would seem more logical to first list the notes and web pages used in the making of the article, and then at the very bottom, when the article is "over", list external links to the rest of the web - also it is common practice to do so comparing to all other articles I've read. Poulsen 12:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Moved to bottom. Oldelpaso 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support: No matter the external links or not, it was a enjoyable read with a broad view of the club and its environment, and it is well referenced. It might do well with a picture of supporters celebrating like IFK Göteborg, though. Poulsen 17:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just for your future reference it's better to fix these very small objections yourself and then support, as the nominator tends to have enough on his plate with other things. Pcb21 Pete 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Had photography been invented back then?  :-D CTOAGN (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is Manchester City F.C. singular or plural? I'd assume it's singular, since it's defined as a football club, but I'm not sure. B/c if it is singular, you've got some grammar to correct. - Osbus 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In British English, sports teams are usually referred to using the plural. See Qwghlm's comment above. Oldelpaso 09:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you should indicate that somewhere, otherwise people are going to get confused. -Osbus 00:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article Arnemann 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Although something mentioning Peter Reid's sacking in the history would be good, as IIRC that was what caused the decline. At the moment it reads as if he was still there when they got relegated. CTOAGN (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Support-Good article, well written and avoiding much of the flaws of most Football articles. Logan1138 16:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• support Borisblue 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)