Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2007
December 2007[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 18:49, 31 December 2007.
Chat Moss[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. It's a fairly short, though I believe comprehensive, article about a large raised peat bog in Greater Manchester, England, complete with its own bog body. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I believe it fulfills all FACr --Kiyarrllston 13:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
PS:[Query:]should it be " Derek Hampson and Gary Priestnall [said that they] chose Chat Moss because [...]"?
- The reference just says "'It [my emphasis] was chosen for the project because ... ". Adding "said that they" seems to imply some doubt that they actually chose Chat Moss for the reasons given? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- ---I believe that if the artists said it then it is verified that they said it- even if the authors themselves are not reliable in their public statements.
- but their true predominant motive for chosing Chat Moss is unknown even if they did say that.
- At least putting their words up there would improve it - but if the source doesn't have them saying it... ummm... I don't know... -
- Thanks for answering my query.
- --Kiyarrllston 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've added to that bit slightly, quoting the artist's own words. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Have you done a thorough Google search to ensure the article is comprehensive? There are other sources available, especially at Google books. Although, I understand there's a fine line between comprehensiveness and letting an article become unfocused. Epbr123 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. I have yes, along with searches of scientific literature databases like JSTOR, but there may of course be some sources that I haven't found, with new material. Most of the stuff written about Chat Moss is concerned with Stephenson's construction of the railway line through it, rather than about Chat Moss itself. However, I'll be continuing to look for further relevant information to add to this article whether or not it gets promoted to FA, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Epbr123 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Should "site of special scientific interest" have capitals?
Done - "Even after all of the reclamation work that has taken place, parts of the area are still surprisingly remote and bleak." - surprisingly may be POV Done
- "it was decided that the head had been in the bog for at least 100 years" - if this was proven, a better word than decided could be used Done
- "it was reported that of the 54 farms on the moss, occupying 3,000 acres (1,214 ha) – almost half the area of the bog – only three were growing vegetables." - should the second dash be a comma?
Not done Epbr123 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In 1793, William Roscoe had begun work on reclaiming the smaller Trafford Moss" - probably should be "In 1793, William Roscoe began work" or "By 1793, William Roscoe had begun work" Epbr123 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed and done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Should "site of special scientific interest" have capitals?
- Support - fulfills requirements of a FAC article. Rt. 18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support DDStretch (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 18:49, 31 December 2007.
Boeing 747[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is already an A class article and has undergone substantial improvement since ranked A class. It has undergone review by 2 peer reviewers. The Boeing 747 is probably the most known commercial airliner among the general public and 2008 will mark the 40th anniversary of the first flight of the 747. The editors have carefully considered each sentence as well as look at the article in general. Archtransit (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support This article so good it hangs out with the pope. --Keerllston 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) PS: "Cite error 4"?
- Oppose MOS breaches and more. Plenty of reasons why this can't pass FA (or GA before)
- Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway.
- When there is a discrepancy between the WikiProject guidelines and GTL, the discussion may best be handled at the WikiProject level in order to either change the WikiProject guidelines or make changes to both. Consideration of changes to this article is in progress. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? WP:LAYOUT specifically states that there is no prescribed order for these sections. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's only the letter. The spirit and the norm has them in the prescribed order. Even the automatic peer reviewer suggests reordering those sections. About the WikiProject stuff, when a WikiProject guideline and MOS conflict, MOS has priority. 哦，是吗？(review O) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
- On Standard appendices, the Layout guide says "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's hard to make a case for it being "just the letter" when the guideline that you're appealing to specifically and deliberately okays the rearrangement of these sections. Indeed, the only time that an order was ever actually prescribed in the MoS, it was added there as an undiscussed change (here) in October 2005, and was removed only about six weeks later (here) after discussion showed that there was no consensus (see here) to mandate and prescribe this. The current version of WP:LAYOUT phrases this advice in even less prescriptive language. You personally may not like WP:AIR's page content guidelines, they may be at odds with common practice elsewhere in Wikipedia, but there is no conflict with the MoS - please stop trying to frame it in those terms, and please stop reading things into the MoS that are not only not there, but are explicitly said not to be there. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow…it was that old…perhaps another style discussion where a wider portion of the community usually comment needs to take place? 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
- Since it's clear that you feel that the MoS needs to be less flexible and more prescriptive than it currently is, it's up to you to see whether you can build enouigh consensus to change it. However, this is not the forum to do it in; whether you like the current MoS or not should not be a factor in this article's FA candidacy: it meets the requirements of the policies that presently exist. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow…it was that old…perhaps another style discussion where a wider portion of the community usually comment needs to take place? 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
- That's only the letter. The spirit and the norm has them in the prescribed order. Even the automatic peer reviewer suggests reordering those sections. About the WikiProject stuff, when a WikiProject guideline and MOS conflict, MOS has priority. 哦，是吗？(review O) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
The bibliography section should be further reading.
- Done, fixed some wording Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Facts and figures is trivia; get rid of it or merge it into other parts of the article.
- This is discussed in the talk page and can be discussed further. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In that discussion, both peer reviewers suggested this section be removed, and suggestions for how to do so were supplied. Strongly suggest that this is done. 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, fixed. Thanks to Fnlayson. Archtransit (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In that discussion, both peer reviewers suggested this section be removed, and suggestions for how to do so were supplied. Strongly suggest that this is done. 4u1e (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is discussed in the talk page and can be discussed further. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: part of the problem is the huge length of the references. If the references, infobox, and images are not counted, the article is not too far from the 50k suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why doesn't the lead have more of the initial development info in there? I've also said during GAN to increase the size of the lead.
- The talk page is an excellent place for this discussion as it is a complex topic. Consider how to summarize a long process into one or two sentences, if it is possible. In terms of length since that discussion (which predates my involvement in the article), the introductory section is now 1 paragraph longer and 23% longer. (21 lines vs. 17) Additional ideas welcomed. For now, Done Archtransit (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see the lead has improved, however by improving it there shouldn't be any stubby paragraphs. When I first commented, there were three mediocre paragraphs, but now there are four shorter paragraphs. Re including some development content, there could be a little briefing on the idea, how much effort had to go into getting the prototype flying (Everett plant, etc.), and a little bit about EIS. Just my $0.02 though 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- The talk page is an excellent place for this discussion as it is a complex topic. Consider how to summarize a long process into one or two sentences, if it is possible. In terms of length since that discussion (which predates my involvement in the article), the introductory section is now 1 paragraph longer and 23% longer. (21 lines vs. 17) Additional ideas welcomed. For now,
MOS:NUM: number and unit must have a non-breaking space between them.
- Others who understand this suggestion, consider explaining in the talk page as I don't understand. Archtransit (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually MOS:NUM says that "a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended" (emphasis mine). "Is recommended"≠"must".
- Archtransit, what the suggestion means is that whenever a number is followed by a unit (eg. 20.89 m) that in the wiki-code this is written as
"20.89 m". This is so that if "20.89" happens to appear at the end of a line in someone's browser, that the "m" doesn't get split off from it to appear at the start of the next line. With the non-breaking space in place, the whole "20.89 m" will stay together, at the start of the next line. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)- Non-breaking spaces are used with all units that I can find. Most have been covered for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (so Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC) )
- This may be down to a difference of opinion over whether 'Aircraft', 'units' (which currently do not have the nbsp) and similar terms are units or not. I tend towards thinking they are, because they would also benefit from keeping the number and the unit together on one line. 4u1e (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Policy only suggests it for units of measure (sq ft, kg, etc). Going past that is a slippery slope I don't want to get on. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I say, I'd tend the other way, but if that's what the MoS says, then my preference is hardly actionable! 4u1e (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Units" are stuff like nm, m, kg, etc. Other non-breaking stuff isn't necessary unless the layout is seriously screwed ;-) 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- 4u1e is correct; the wording at WP:NBSP is "In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line." It doesn't talk about "units"; it's about numerical and non-numerical elements, to prevent linewrap. For example, Boeing and 747 are a numerical and non-numerical element; they are joined by a non-breaking hardspace to avoid linewrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Non-breaking spaces are used with all units that I can find. Most have been covered for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (so
Vague adjectives, like "some", are in the article and are making sentences redundant.
- Fixed, several "some" words reworded and removed. Archtransit (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Seems Done Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, several "some" words reworded and removed. Archtransit (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Seems
- Please sift through the images—there are some that can be (re)moved from the current sections they are in, since they add no context to that specific section.
- Done Discussion is in progress for additional removal of images. Archtransit (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Deliveries is unsourced.
- Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please make sure all references have a consistent format when they appear in the references section; I recommend the citation templates.
- In progress, much progress has been made. Templates were not used after a very extensive and prolonged discussion with several editors resulting in a unanimous decision in selecting the style of references. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done and a lot of work. Thanks to RJH's very specific suggestions (not shown here). Archtransit (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Most people will not know what a glass cockpit is—please link that and all other jargon.
- Done, technical terms have been wikilinked (high-bypass turbofan, etc.). This is usually acceptable for articles. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The Boeing 747, sometimes nicknamed the "Jumbo Jet",[4][5] is a long-haul manufactured by Boeing in the United States.—long-haul what?
- Done, in fixing the next suggestion, this one was resolved. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The first three sentences of the lead can be combined so that it flows/reads smoothly.
- Done, fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- '
'The 747-400 passenger version, accommodates 416 passengers in a typical three-class layout, or 524 passengers a typical two-class layout.—bye-bye, first comma.
- '
- Done, fixed, Archtransit (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In 1965, after Boeing lost the Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) competition for the development of the large C-5 military transport, the Boeing design was considered as a basis for a commercial airliner.—huge fragment;second comma should be a semicolon.
- Done, fixed grammar but differently to avoid 50+ word sentence. Archtransit (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Over the following months preparations were made for the first flight, which took place successfully on 9 February 1969, with test pilots Jack Waddell and Brien Wygle at the controls,[39][40] and Jess Wallick at the flight engineer's station.—bye-bye, second comma.
- Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, fixed Archtransit (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The infobox picture has no source. Was it the user's own work, taken off of another website, or whatever? If this does not get resolved soon there will be copyright trouble.
- Done Fixed. Archtransit (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- This sentence in Background is not good: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of wider single deck, becoming the first wide-body airliner" Subject of sentence - concern - did not become the first wide-body airliner! How about: "However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo-carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of a wider single deck; the first wide-body airliner was born." Or is that too theatrical?--JCG33 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, fixed. Thank you for excellent suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will work on some of your suggestions more in the coming days. Archtransit (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to comment. I will work on some of your suggestions more in the coming days. Archtransit (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Very good! --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral Basically a good article, but there's a lot of cleaning up still to do. I think I'm right in saying that most of my informal peer review comments have not been considered. I don't expect you to take all of them up - who says I'm infallible! - but since you specifically asked me to review the article, I do expect you think about all of them. Not all of them are needed for FA, I will mark the ones I consider necessary on the talk page. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- An oversight! Will be following some of the suggestions in the next few days. Majority of your suggestions already followed, some others to follow. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to worry! A lot better after recent edits. The following points still concern me:
- No explanation of why it was desirable in the first place to design such a large aircraft. There are strong economic factors which are presumably the reason for overcoming the considerable technical and financial hurdles to doing so. It's partly addressed later on in 'Entry into service', but I think mention is appropriate earlier to explain how the project came into being.
- Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording. Archtransit (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- A similar point, there is no explanation of how the introduction of the 747 created 'a new standard of air travel'.
- Done reworded and reference added to support the new wording.Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Still not clear on times in Entry into Service/Further development sections. Try and make sure that each para has a date somewhere near the beginning to establish context.
- Done Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know I suggested it, but the 'in popular culture' section needs to either go, or be expanded a lot. I think it would be possible to make this section (for once!) encyclopedic for this subject.4u1e (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Section is eliminated and integrated into article. Archtransit (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to worry! A lot better after recent edits. The following points still concern me:
- An oversight! Will be following some of the suggestions in the next few days. Majority of your suggestions already followed, some others to follow. Archtransit (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:SEASON: summer 1969 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
Oppose for now, primarily because the references section is not up to standards. As an example, note #135 consists solely of the linked word "Development". It should look something like this: Lawrence, Philip K. (2005). Deep Stall: The Turbulent Story of Boeing. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0754646262. Retrieved 2007-12-17.(talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC){{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) The reference section is replete with similar examples of insufficiently formatted citations. They should be showing, where possible, publication dates or years, publishers, access dates, authors, &c. Note #3, for example, should show it was published June 26, 2007 and written by Aaron Karp—RJH
- Comment: The article lacks citations. Many sentences have no citations attached to them. While I see that the citations list is already huge, this is an indication that the article could be better written in a summary style with majority of the info present in sub-articles and only minimal highly relevant well-cited info in the main article. There is nothing stopping a user from adding a citation needed tag on any one of the currently existing uncited sentences, an FA should cover all the bases.-- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is no requirement to cite every sentence. WP:CITE says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." One citation can cover a whole paragraph, if a single source contains all the information likely to be challenged. The article would probably be better cited if fewer citations were used, pointing to more comprehensive sources. There are currently rather a lot of citations because each of the references used contains only a small amount of information. Add citation need tags only where you see uncited information that may be challenged. 4u1e (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- - References cover sentences and whole paragraphs in some cases. To say it lacks references now is a real stretch. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some have said the article has too many references, not too few. It appears that the level of documentation is much better than most articles. I would fix the article to address the complaint if there was something to fix (how to address "too few citations" when others say "too many"?). There are roughtly 180 citations, more than almost every article in WP. (United States has 215 citations, India has 130.) Should this issue be labelled as Done? Archtransit (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dunno; we should be worrying about the quality of the sources, not the quantity of citations/references. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- Exactly - are there sufficient good quality, reliable sources cited to cover all points that are or are likely to be challenged? The answer to that is surely yes. (As an aside, I feel that fewer, higher quality sources would be an improvement, but I wouldn't withhold FA over that)If Amar feels that there is uncited material, could s/he point out where the problems are? 4u1e (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dunno; we should be worrying about the quality of the sources, not the quantity of citations/references. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
- Some have said the article has too many references, not too few. It appears that the level of documentation is much better than most articles. I would fix the article to address the complaint if there was something to fix (how to address "too few citations" when others say "too many"?). There are roughtly 180 citations, more than almost every article in WP. (United States has 215 citations, India has 130.) Should this issue be labelled as
OpposeProse is well below the "compelling/brilliant" standard one would expect. The article needs an experienced copy-editor to go over it with a fine toothed comb. I am not a good fixer, but I can spot problems with the language, which in places is hard to parse and difficult to extract meaning from in places. SOME examples (and fixing these will not solve every problem, so don't look at this as a complete list. Enlist help at WP:LOCE...)- "Ultimately, the Boeing proposals that were selected for the high winged CX-HLS and the low winged 747 were completely different designs although influence from the earlier military design in designing the 747 have been alleged" Sentance is a run-on sentance. There are several nested clauses here, and it makes it hard to parse. Consider how many clauses there are... X that were selected for Y and Z were different although influence from A in designing B has been alleged... Its just too much to follow. Much of the article suffers from this problem.
- "The original design was a full-length double-deck fuselage seating eight across (3–2–3) on the lower deck and seven across (2–3–2) on the upper deck." The meaning of these numbers is unclear. What do they mean?
- "At the time, it was widely thought that the 747 would eventually be superseded by supersonic transport (SST) aircraft,[30] so Boeing designed it such that it could easily be adapted to carry freight, so that it could remain in production if and when sales of the passenger version dried up. The cockpit was therefore placed on a shortened upper deck so that a nose cone loading door could be included, thus creating the 747's distinctive "bulge".[14] However, supersonic transports, such as the Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 and the canceled Boeing 2707, were not widely adopted.[31] SSTs were less fuel-efficient at a time when fuel prices were soaring, very noisy during takeoff and landing, and their ability to operate at supersonic speeds over land was limited by regulations concerning their sonic booms" This paragraph seems out-of-order. The thesis seems to be that the 747 had success where the SSTs did not. Well, we have the second part, the failure of the SSTs and the reasons for it, but the other half of it, the idea that the 747 ended up more successful, is left without explanation.
- Organization is poor. We have the "Design" section separated from the "Background and design phase" section; these seem a natural pair, and they are quite far apart.
- Again, the above list of problems is not complete, its just an idea on where to start fixing the article. Its a decent article, but I don't think it meets the exacting standards of a featured article just yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Fixed the above examples raised, several other editors have made similar fixes, outside copy editor contacted for advice. Archtransit (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- -part of that was already fixed last night. The Design section covers detailed design aspects and features for the aircraft and all its variants. The main section labels follows WP:Aircraft/PC layout guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see that copyediting for clarity has been performed, and I must say that it is starting to read better. Some more comments though:
- The 747 is available in passenger, freighter and other versions. The 747's hump created by the upper deck allows for a front cargo door on freighter versions.—A little bit choppy.
- The aircraft flew for the first time on 9 September 2006.[146] The aircraft is not certified to carry passengers other than essential crew.—Same thing.
- Why am I reading the deliveries table right to left, bottom to top? It's confusing for readers who are not familiar with this kind of layout. Also, English is not Arabic. 哦，是吗？(review O) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- Done Copyedit completed by usual editors and subsequently copyedited by an established member of the League of Copy Editors (LOCE). The table with number of 747's made is geared more towards what the recent orders are, hence the order. The LOCE review did not recommend reversing the order. If there are further requests to reverse the order other than the one editor, this can be done. The order of the deliveries table is not a disqualification for FA. Furthermore, all FA articles can be tweaked over time to reflect editorial consensus, including reversing the order of the table! Archtransit (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain - I don't play the FA game, but I'll just mention to anyone who cares that the specifications section doesn't follow WikiProject:Aircraft's layout for this section (the article uses a table, the guide asks for plain text - these days usually supplied in a parameterised template), and that it provides specifications for a range of different subtypes rather than a single, representative model. FWIW --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, when an aircraft has multiple variants that may be widely different from each other, a table provides much better organisation. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
- Agreed, if one were to attempt to show all these variants. But that's not how aircraft data is presented in Wikipedia: a single, representative model is selected and shown. I'm sure I've seen some aircraft articles with a subpage on variants that presents this kind of comparative data, but I can't immediately think of an example. The table would be appropriate and and useful in such a subpage. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Numerious commerical aircraft article use a table like this. Almost makes it standard practice. Adding some guidelines for spec tables has been discussed a time or two on WT:AIR before with no conclusion. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really a standard practice when it's done in such a tiny fraction of our coverage (how many articles out of roughly 3,000-4,000? Maybe 20 at the outside?) Anyway, I know that there's no chance of getting this article and its ilk to conform. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is more than 20 articles (airliners by Boeing, Airbus, MDD, Gulfstream, Bombadier), but your point still stands. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough; but it can't be many more than 20: in any case something about 1% of our aircraft coverage. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the approach, but I do think that we should be consistent. After all, there's nothing peculiar about airliners that requires a different approach from any other class of aircraft; let alone peculiar to "modern airliners from major manufacturers", which is about the only way I can characterise the spread of this practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I said your point was right. WT:AIR or elsewhere would be a better place to cover this. I will say there would probably be disccussions/arguements over which variant to list with the template format. But not with the table format. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've brought up airliner specs standardization at WP:AIR before, but it didn't go very far. For the most part, a semi-standard table has been used in several airliner pages, most done or updated by Jeff. I do understand RL's point on what the WP:AIR guidelines prescribe, but in usage, tables are very common in airliner articles, esp the ever-growing RJs, and I think they have a place, if done right. I think a standardized table with set parameters (there is a LOT of variation!) would be good for these articles, and would like to debate the issue in total again at WP:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I said your point was right. WT:AIR or elsewhere would be a better place to cover this. I will say there would probably be disccussions/arguements over which variant to list with the template format. But not with the table format. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough; but it can't be many more than 20: in any case something about 1% of our aircraft coverage. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the approach, but I do think that we should be consistent. After all, there's nothing peculiar about airliners that requires a different approach from any other class of aircraft; let alone peculiar to "modern airliners from major manufacturers", which is about the only way I can characterise the spread of this practice. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is more than 20 articles (airliners by Boeing, Airbus, MDD, Gulfstream, Bombadier), but your point still stands. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really a standard practice when it's done in such a tiny fraction of our coverage (how many articles out of roughly 3,000-4,000? Maybe 20 at the outside?) Anyway, I know that there's no chance of getting this article and its ilk to conform. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, when an aircraft has multiple variants that may be widely different from each other, a table provides much better organisation. 哦，是吗？(review O) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
Oppose. Um, before we even get to the content, there are MOS breaches all over the place. And inconsistencies such as the double adjective "double-deck", which is variously hyphenated (correct) and unhyphenated. "4 million cubic yards"—I think one decimal place is necessary for the metric: 3 is just too off the mark. 30 miles = 48, not 50 km. Check all conversions. "But though"—are both words necessary? "250 -100s"—MOS suggests spelling out 250 in this instance. "short range versions"—hyphenate; why in quotes previously? Why do we need that little-known country "Japan" linked once, let alone twice? Why is 747-200M et al. bolded? I see hyphens that should be en dashes in the Notes. I see references to web pages I don't know whether to trust: airliners.net; I see author not cited in the Notes (Chaz Hinkle, Ref 116). Needs a sift through the references. Deagal? Who are they? Who's the author? Sloppily written web page. Tony (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)- The conversions are correct. The numbers have been rounded to proper number of signficant figures, e.g. 1 for 4 mil cu yd/3 cu m and 30 miles/50 km. Variants are bolded for emphasis on their first use. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just throw in that bolding of variants the first time they're mentioned (if not every time they're mentioned) is quite common in aircraft encyclopedias and reference works. The practice seems to originate with the annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Notes:
Please see WP:MOSBOLD (Wiki doesn't use bold for emphasis). Please see WP:TRIVIA regarding the "Incidents" and "Preserved aircraft" sections; these two sections appear to be lists of trivia, discouraged. Please discuss the heavy reliance on Boeing as a source.Please see WP:GTL and WP:MOS,commons belongs in External links,See also should not contain links already included in the body of the article,and navigational templates go at the bottom of the article.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)- Done Preserved aircraft as a list of trivia eliminated and integrated into article as a section.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UT
- Done Reduced Boeing references to roughly 40 references and an overwhelming majority are non-Boeing references.Archtransit (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Elminated external links that are in the article already. Archtransit (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Incidents (crashes) is an established section in airliners. Eliminating it would make the article non-standard. Only major crashes, not trivia, are listed. Many of these crashes changed the way things are done.Archtransit (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Bolded variants in text unbolded. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not done struck two items completed, and there are now cite errors. There is still listy trivia that should be converted to prose, navigational templates mid-stream, items mentioned in See also that are included in article, and reliance on Boeing sources hasn't been discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done "listy trivia" now substantial crashes and changed to prose. Boeing sources discussed in talk page and also reduced in number so that other sources far outnumber it. Cite errors no longer there, thanks to Fnlayson!Archtransit (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not done Trivia struck; from reading edit summaries, there appears to be some confusion between external links and see also. Navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article, and articles already linked in the body of the text are not repeated in See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- There apparently is. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
- Done Followed SandyGeorgia's suggestions. See also fixed. Looked for articles already linked to see that no duplication. Navigational templates put at the bottom of the article. (I interpret navigational templates to be those horizontal blue bands that expand, these bands are entitled "Boeing airliners", "Giant aircraft", "Lists relating to aviation". If incorrect interpretation, please let me know.) Archtransit (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I struck one more, there is still the matter of repeat links in See also. Two weeks in, there are still four substantial Opposes on this FAC; I will let it go a bit longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done There is no more "see also" section so problem solved. It seems that all the objections have been addressed so the opposition question should be resolved. Also, I don't see four objections. There's only 1 opposition; User:O whom some say is commenting on bad faith and is opposing articles when discussion should be at the MOS or WikiProject level (but whom I'm just interested in addressing his/her complaints, not throwing punches or making accusations). Otherwise all other opposition has been fixed; User:JCG33 (problem fixed, didn't come up with additional complaints), User: 4u1e (who makes suggestions, all followed), User:RJH (who struck out opposition after everything fixed), Jayron32 (everything fixed and also LOCE editor approved and fixed it afterwards), Tony (everything fixed with the units, etc.)Archtransit (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whether you label it "Related content" or "See also" there are still links in that section which are repeated in the article and repeated in the navigational templates. They aren't needed in See also/Related content. See WP:ALSO. There are still four Opposes on the page. Reviewer's concerns are considered addressed when opposes are struck by the reviewer. Copyedit and content concerns raised by reviewers cannot be overlooked. See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also part is done! Sorry for the confusion between see also and related content. Again, we are not trying to fight you, just improve it! The copyedit comments were made before LOCE review. Before we had LOCE review the article, we re-reviewed it ourselves (showing that we are trying hard!). I've reminded the 4 reviewers to come back here to hopefully strike out the "oppose". Archtransit (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Related content template started out as a Navbox. It basically still is, but does has a more normal section format now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whether you label it "Related content" or "See also" there are still links in that section which are repeated in the article and repeated in the navigational templates. They aren't needed in See also/Related content. See WP:ALSO. There are still four Opposes on the page. Reviewer's concerns are considered addressed when opposes are struck by the reviewer. Copyedit and content concerns raised by reviewers cannot be overlooked. See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I struck one more, there is still the matter of repeat links in See also. Two weeks in, there are still four substantial Opposes on this FAC; I will let it go a bit longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- There apparently is. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
- Where our MoS is in tension with widely-used publishing conventions within a particular subject area, it seems to me to be a textbook case of WP:IAR. What's more, the intention of MOS:BOLD is apparently to discourage the use of bolding for emphasis; the aviation publishing convention has nothing to do with emphasising meaning, but apparently to help readers looking for information on a particular subtype or variant of the aircraft being described. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The aviation publishing convention doesn't apply here. MOS must be adhered to in all FAs (WP:FA?). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
- What WP:FA actually asks is that the article "follows the style guidelines", which is a mite less strident than "MOS must be adhered to" (emphasis yours) don't you think? This is particularly so when MOS itself states that its contents "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The aviation publishing convention doesn't apply here. MOS must be adhered to in all FAs (WP:FA?). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:35, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
- Notes:
- I'll just throw in that bolding of variants the first time they're mentioned (if not every time they're mentioned) is quite common in aircraft encyclopedias and reference works. The practice seems to originate with the annual Jane's All the World's Aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The conversions are correct. The numbers have been rounded to proper number of signficant figures, e.g. 1 for 4 mil cu yd/3 cu m and 30 miles/50 km. Variants are bolded for emphasis on their first use. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Not a problem! Thanks to Fnlayson, bolding eliminated. I concur! Let's work together (isn't that slogan familiar? Boeing people?) to get the FA star! Archtransit (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, 30 miles is 48, not 50 km. Other issues I raised not addressed. Plus: ellipsis dots need spacing (MOS); "It has wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m), winglets of 6 feet (1.8 m)"—hyphen needed and can it be reworded to avoid the ugly repetition? Non-breaking spaces are necessary to avoid what I see now: "The -400", with the hyphen dangling at the end of a line.
- Why does "wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m)" need hypens? I'd understand if it said 6-feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions. The hanging hypen is a browser problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Wing-tip extensions"—it's not a common construction, which makes the hyphen more necessary. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The browser problem is solved by using the {{nowrap}} template. Same for all the WP:NBSPs needed between Boeing (non-numerical) and the numerical element of the name. Unfortunately an article like this is top-heavy on the need for either nowrap or NBSP. It would be ideal if you all would find a way to deal with the unsightly hyphens before numbers so you wouldn't have to nowrap them, but I guess that's the way ya'll do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Fixed now with the nowrap templ. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Por nada. This came up at 7 World Trade Center which was also heavy on the linewrap problems. Having the 7 on one line and the World Trade Center on the next was ugly, and fixing it was a lot of work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Fixed now with the nowrap templ. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why does "wing tip extensions of 6 feet (1.8 m)" need hypens? I'd understand if it said 6-feet (1.8 m) wing tip extensions. The hanging hypen is a browser problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Support This is a well written article that strikes a balance between being too simple and too technical. It mentions some unusual information that even some of the Boeing highlights glosses over. If there were some faults (as mentioned above), I don't see them now (and I've studied this article for nearly an hour). Of the 5 of so FAC's that I've reviewed recently, this is the best one without any question especially when looking at the big picture. Although I wouldn't disqualify it because of the infobox photo, I'd recommend either a photo of a 747-100 or the best selling model. The 747-200 didn't sell as well (?) so having a rarity in the infobox doesn't seem right.Congolese fufu (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done photo changed to suggestion. Archtransit (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about changing the photo, since the 744 has its own article. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:22, 30 December 2007 (GMT)
- Support Struck through prior oppose. In the last few weeks, the language and organization have been tightened up quite a bit. This is now a great article about a very signifcant aircraft, and everyone that has worked on it should be quite proud. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.
Red-winged Fairy-wren[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. It is comprehensive, I have used a monograph as well as bird handbooks and online information and used free pictures I took myself (part of the reason I took the li'l feller up to FAC). I feel it is at least equal in prose to the other three fairy-wren FAs, Superb Fairy-wren, Splendid Fairy-wren and Variegated Fairy-wren and utilised suggestions and criticisms in improving this article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have some structural problems with the way the behavioural section has been subdivided. There is a tiny diet section, yet the first unsubdivided behaviour section also has information on foraging. The first section also includes information that needs to be in the breeding section. The breeding section is currently divided into courtship and reproduction; this should be one subsection (breeding) with possibly two further subsections (Courtship and Nesting), or even three (Courtship, Cooperation and Nesting). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had a problem with ordering material that combines two different issues and am concerned that too much subdivision may make sections too stubby.
I'll alert once reordered.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) - I have reorganized material under behaviour, though kept courtship and reproduction as subheading of behaviour as in other bird FAs, and expanded a bit cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had a problem with ordering material that combines two different issues and am concerned that too much subdivision may make sections too stubby.
Comment Does not appear to meet FAC at this time. The lead is only seven sentences long, and certainly doesn't cover all of the material in the article: obvious things, such as the describer, size of the animal, behavior, and habitat go unmentioned in the lead. The Diet section is only three sentences long. It is a good article, but it is not robust, and comparing it to articles like American Goldfinch makes me think it's somewhat anemic.Firsfron of Ronchester 05:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC) I think all my initial concerns have been addressed. I'll make more observations tomorrow/later today when I've read the new material more thoroughly. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, lead is straightforward to fix. As far as content, it can be tricky how general to go with information, writing up really long articles got me to be ruthless with facts and trim mercilessly. I'll see what I can do and see how you feel after I have fleshed it out as much as I can. Some critters are much more fully studied than others and sometimes there is just more (or less) material to draw on. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update - I have expanded from 17 to 25kb and added info on evolution, and lifespan, and elaborated on behaviour, chick development, reproduction and moulting. I am deliberating - I could add things like Hz frequency of bird call, though this may be a bit esoteric (I will add if others think this a good idea). Let me know what you think (and yes I know I should have added before nominating...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Meets all FA criteria, as far as I can see. I really wish the footnotes hadn't all been moved to the ends of sentences ("footnotes follow punctuation", not "footnotes follow periods"), but since someone below recommended it, you can't be faulted. This article really should have gone though other peer review processes before FAC: the article has nearly doubled in size since it was submitted, indicating that it really wasn't ready. I feel it's ready now, though. It has the proper sections, it has good sourcing from reliable sources, and it conforms to the MOS. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I made a few minor corrections to the prose, but otherwise the article is well written and informative. I know nothing about this bird, but I feel that the information provided was comprehensive for the most part. I would suggest, however, if information is available, expanding the claim that "there is some evidence of decline" of the species. It's a point that is brought up in the (newly expanded?) lead, but there is only one small mention of it in the "Distribution and habitat" section. The evidence, as it were, may be an important factor to explain more fully; I know I was left scratching my head and wondering. Other than that, it's a shame there aren't more images (one of the nest would be great, for example), but I completely understand how difficult it may be to illustrate an article such as this. Wonderful job! María (habla conmigo) 14:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support well referenced, well written, article about a real pretty bird.--Kiyarrllston 14:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support
CommentsI just gave the article a quick copyedit and I just have a few quick concerns. First, is there a picture available that shows the typical habitat of the wren? I think that that would help improve the article, especially as there is room for it, though others may disagree. Also, you mention a decline, but does any reference go into more specifics, ie the reason for it? What animals regularly prey upon the adult wrens? Currently only nest predators are in the article. I realize that this is not exactly the most notable bird in the world from an economic standpoint, but does the species have any relationship with humans? Was it ever on a stamp or coin? And finally, does the MOS say that numbers from 1-10 should be written as the word, ie one to ten? Other than that, I think the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with the habitat. Good idea and I'll sift through my photo album first. I was musing on a relationship to humans but there is little that applies specifically to this bird, if I do I can place the decline stuff. and see what else I can apply. I doubt it was symbolised on anything but will try to confirm this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update - Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers_as_figures_or_words - clarifies this. Could only change 3 to words as all others associated with either numbers over 10 or having decimal points. Have tried to look online, found no refs of this bird on stamps, emblems or symbols at all. The HANZAB book I'll try and chase up. Only specific predator of these birds mentioned is the cat, will have to look up other species, though there may not be much. In any case, bird survival is high so not many predators take them. Got a habitat photo though, and found some other cool habitat refs in the process. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update #2 - found a habitat reference for decline. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- All of my concerns were adressed, so changed to support. Per ref 32 below, I just went there and the document appeared for me. No cookie errors or cookies for that matter. Not sure what is wrong. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: Could you check citation #32? It seems malformed, and the link brings up a cookie error for me. bibliomaniac15 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, it seems to be an issue with cookies enabled (?)- mine worked at home but not where I am now. There was some discussion on another FAC about a better option was to just have doi and skip links as websites which have articles or abstracts often change (schizophrenia talk page I think off hand...). some pdfs are dodgy sometimes too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good, but a few issues:
- In the intro there is no overview of its place in the food chain as a prey species. Two paragraphs is sufficient in relation to the article's length and the guidelines of WP:LEAD, but it still needs to be an overview of the entire article.
- Its a wittle tweety bird that has to hide from nasty critters but is pretty good in doing so. But seriously, I'll see what I can add.
- Update - ok, in essence it is a small insectivorous bird (obviously) vulnerable to predators. Like many Australian passerines it has a low reproductivity and high long-term survival. No specific predators of adult birds are listed, though introduced cats are mentioned as a general problem. I can't place it exactly on a food chain as none of the sources do either, though I have mentioned it is vulnerable to predators. Sorry I can't do more. Other local sources will list the various hawks etc. which live in the area though I have not seen any refs linking a particular species to this one. If you can elaborate a bit more what you think the article needs I will see what I can do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, footnote citations always go outside punctuation at the end of the sentence, never within. If there are multiple cites, simply place them both there. Places where this occurs (such as in Taxonomy, Description, Diet, and Distribution and habitat) need to be fixed. Citations in the middle of the sentence looks messy and unprofessional. Done - I did often stick after commas/clauses if there were a ref for each but have changed that as requested.
- As it firmly asserts the scientific opinion of a particular person, the first sentence in Evolutionary history needs a direct citation. One citation for the entire paragraph is really the barest of minimums.
- To my knowledge, footnote citations always go outside punctuation at the end of the sentence, never within. If there are multiple cites, simply place them both there. Places where this occurs (such as in Taxonomy, Description, Diet, and Distribution and habitat) need to be fixed. Citations in the middle of the sentence looks messy and unprofessional.
- ok, have duplicated ref given it is one author and his coherent assertion
- Something is wrong with the formatting of ref number 32, the single bracket external link syntax making the title show up as a link isn't working.
- It's weird. Works for one computer and not on another. As pointed out above, it was suggested that this is a good reason for leaving doi or pmid only and not links as issues arise. I have now included doi so I guess link could be removed. Question is, which is better, a link which works for half the people reading or doi only. I am easy either way.
Other than those, looks similar to your previously exemplary work. Good job. VanTucky talk 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.
Sonatas and Interludes[edit]
This is a self-nom and also my first time here. The article is about a major work by a very important avant-garde composer, John Cage. It had a peer review, which is now archived and has recently went to GA status. The GA reviewer suggested that the article may qualify for FA status, and since I can't really see how to improve the article further, I decided to give it a try. Jashiin (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You improperly place links in your citations. You should use the cite news and cite web templates. Look at other FAs for examples.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The bit about templates at WP:CITE#Full reference templates states that "the use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." - are you sure they are mandatory? Jashiin (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That sentence was put there in the distant past to resolve a historical dispute and does not have much practical application. Cite templates provide reference information in a way that is likely to satisfy the FAC process. It is, of course possible (but relatively difficult) to produce neat, informative and consistent references without using cite templates, but articles with naked URLs have no chance of getting through this process and I'm amazed this article got to GA with them. --Grahame (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let me get this straight: 1) Do I have to use the cite web and cite news templates for every one of the five links, or make an exception for the two that are a PDF and a streaming audio? and 2) Do I have to use the same templates for every recording reference in the Recordings section (it was originally modelled on Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography, and the reason I didn't reference the links as usual was that it'd clutter up the notes section)? Jashiin (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think I got what you meant by "naked URLs" - I've just replaced all of those in the "Recordings" section with "cite web" templates. I hope this was what you meant. As for the rest, I'm still not sure whether I understand the requirements correctly. Do I really need to use "cite web" for the first reference, for instance? It is, after all, a dissertation, not just a web page. Jashiin (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that you do need to use cite web in ref 1, but I have modified it so that the link is tidier (in my view anyway), I've similarly modified ref 11, because it leads to a streaming audio. Refs 22, 42 and 45 are ordinary cite refs and I've changed them. Now I think the refs are OK.--Grahame (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- That sentence was put there in the distant past to resolve a historical dispute and does not have much practical application. Cite templates provide reference information in a way that is likely to satisfy the FAC process. It is, of course possible (but relatively difficult) to produce neat, informative and consistent references without using cite templates, but articles with naked URLs have no chance of getting through this process and I'm amazed this article got to GA with them. --Grahame (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is an excellent article on an important piece, and I certainly think it deserves to be featured! ----Wolf m corcoran (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Usage Query "low, the middle and the high registers, of which the former" I thought former and latter were used only where there were two - otherwise use "first was used" - Do I misapprehend?--Keerllston 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're correct - I've changed "the former" to "the first" and "the latter" to "the last". Must've been a leftover from an earlier version of the text. Thanks for noticing this! Jashiin (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment—I won't oppose (not feeling mean at the moment), but it does need a lot of work. Have you got collaborators?
- Thanks for your comments, Tony. No, I don't have any collaborators here, and it seems that very few people are interested in Cage-related articles. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The aim of the pieces is to express the eight permanent emotions of the Rasa Indian tradition, although Cage never specified which piece expresses which emotion, or if such a connection exists"—insert "specific" before "connection"?
- I'm not sure why you think it is required there. The reader knows what connection we are talking about ("which piece.. which emotion"), and surely any such connection would be, so to say, "specific". The "specific" quality is referenced in the sentence by "such a" - ie. the one described, piece-emotion. Also, the sentence would then read as "Cage never specified if a specific connection..", which doesn't look good. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The cycle contains 16 sonatas"—"comprises"?
- Done But "comprises" is used later in the article in a similar sentence - I was aiming for variety. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The technique of rhythmic proportions, which Cage used to compose Sonatas and Interludes, has already been developed by him in a number of works, but in this collection he elevated it to a new level of complexity." Disorganised and wrong tense ("had"): "In Sonatas and Interludes, Cage elevated his technique of rhythmic proportions to a new level of complexity." (I was toying with the naming of the previous works in which he'd developed this technique, but heck, this is only the lead. Name them further down?)
- Uh, I'm not sure I understand. 1) Wrong tense where exactly? [had, not has] Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Did you mean that the original sentence should have had "had already been developed"? 2) What do you see as disorganised? The technique used - has already been developed - but here it is elevated to a new level. Seems logical to me. 3) If I substitute the sentence with what you suggest, the "has already been developed" detail will be lost.[No, if it's "elevated to a new level of complexity in this work, of course it's been (partially) developed in previous works; you don't need to say so, and "a number of" is vague and unencyclopedic, so better not to try to give a sense of numbers until you specify these works later. Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done
4) Mentioning some earlier works is a great idea - 
Done (but not in the lead).
- "In the resulting pieces a short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines the structure of the work as a whole and that of its parts, including the construction of melodic lines." Bit flabby and awkward. Develop a radar for redundancy and hunt down vagueness. --> "A short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines the structure of the work and that of its parts, informing structures as localized as individual melodic lines." But I'm still unclear about whether these natural numbers etc. are part of Cage's technique of rhythmic proportions (I guess they are—best to say so. Also, did he get the idea from Messiaen?) Hope you're going to say later how it's elevated in this piece?
- Well, I went through your redundancy excercises a long time ago and received high marks :) But I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're talking about. The "in the resulting pieces" bit wasn't just arbitrary; [but "resulting" is unclear: from what? Not a good connector.]
- it was there to connect this sentence with the previous one. A = "The technique of rhythmic proportions blah blah", B = "The use of this technique results in blah blah". I didn't start the sentence with "the use of this technique" because then the word "technique" would've been repeated twice. The idea was not derived from Messiaen, and furthermore, I don't think that discussing the origins of this technique in any detail belongs to this article (I'm working on John Cage and it'll be covered there, PLUS in the article dealing with the first piece composed using the technique).
- Now, about the numbers. I don't know how you read that sentence; to me it spells that the technique results in pieces in which "a short sequence of natural numbers and fractions defines blah blah blah", and of course that means that the numbers are a part of the technique. There's no one uniform sequence, naturally, the sequences are different in different pieces. Finally, although the technique itself is rather simple, explaining it briefly is very difficult. There's a passage in the "Structure" section that explains it, all kinds of details are mentioned and I even needed to make a graph to illustrate it. Given the complexity of that explanation, surely in the lead it would suffice to say what I have said? Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that they are important in this context: dates of composition and dates of the composer's life. You'll see that in the rest of the article single years are never linked. This was discussed during the peer review, too. Jashiin (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) What information on those four year pages deepens the reader's understanding, as required by MOS? Tony (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: An interesting article, with well-chosen images and a very thorough text. A bit wordy, and with the odd clumsiness. Here are some specific points you might address (some of which are already noted above, I see):
- Thank you very much for your comments, they were very helpful! I guess the odd clumsiness comes from the fact that English is my second language. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that rasa should be capitalised in Rasa tradition and Rasa aesthetic. The word is never capitalised at the article Rasa itself. Would you write Sonata tradition?
- Done
- ...has already been developed by him. Why "has"? "Had" would be normal in the context.
- The whole sentence has been rephrased per Tony's suggestions above; I'm not sure whether the current version is ok. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...defines the structure of the work as a whole and that of its parts, including the construction of melodic lines. Fiddly. Better: "...defines the structure of the whole work and of its parts, including the melodic lines." Note that the construction does not itself have a structure. There are too many needless "interstitial" words in this article.
- Done
- With the last point in mind, you might compress the first few sentences after the lead. Try this: "Cage underwent an artistic crisis in the early 1940s.[9] His compositions were rarely accepted by the public,[10] and he grew more and more disillusioned with the idea of art as communication. He later gave an account of the reasons:..." (The date and other details can go in the note to the quote that follows.)
- Done
- More of the same: "...an Indian musician who came to the United States concerned about Western influence on the music of her country. The purpose of music, according to Sarabhai's teacher in India,..."
- I tried to rephrase the Sarabhai-related sentences, but, um, they really seem allright to me in their present forms. Certain details about what she decided to do in the US and who taught her can't be left out, I think. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...Cage started studying the writings.... Sometimes an unintended alliteration (or assonance, rhyme, etc.) makes for distraction. Surprising and subtle, but true! Read your work aloud, to discover these things. Better: "...Cage began studying the writings...". Note also the ease of saying Cage be..., compared to Cage sta... (!).
- Done, didn't catch that. I actually do read these things aloud and usually spend at least one hour on each paragraph! :) Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...four white (humor, wonder,... The opening bracket is not matched with a closing bracket. The whole complicated sentence needs recasting, perhaps as two or three smaller sentences. Avoid brackets within brackets; and if you can't, have square brackets within round brackets. (Here I use British terms.)
- Well, I got rid of the brackets within brackets, but I've got no idea how to make three smaller sentences, and how to avoid repeating the word "emotions" (see the current version). Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- You can listen to a short excerpt.... Avoid this second-person you, in accordance with this advice at WP:MOS.
- That I have no idea how to change. Making it a full-fledged media sample like in most articles (ie. with a separate box near the text) is pointless, as it is a tiny sample illustrating the percussive side of the work. My first impulse was to make it "Listen to...", but that doesn't address the point, does it? Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cage has also stated that.... Probably better like this: "Cage also stated that...". Especially considering that Cage is now dead.
- Done
- The work on the project was interrupted.... The first the is unnecessary and "clogging". Again, detect such small infelicities by reading aloud: without haste, and preferably to some willing accomplice.
- Done
- ...a ballet in one act which too was inspired by ideas from Indian philosophy. The which too was is a little unnatural. Try: "...a ballet in one act, also inspired by ideas from Indian philosophy."
- Done
- Although critical reaction was not uniform,[22] it was mostly positive,.... "Critical reaction was uneven,[22] but mostly positive,...".
- Done
- ...which Cage received in 1949 and which allowed him to make a six-month trip to Europe. During that time he met Olivier Messiaen,.... "...which Cage received in 1949, allowing him to make a six-month trip to Europe. There he met Olivier Messiaen,...".
- Done
- ...on 7 June 1949, and befriended Pierre Boulez,.... "...on 7 June 1949; and he befriended Pierre Boulez,...". (Momentary but distracting uncertainty as to the subject of befriended. Note the semicolon.)
- Done
- ...the salon of Suzanne Tézenas, Paris. "...of Suzanne Tézenas in Paris."
- Done
- ...Cage's early period.". This is from a note. Don't duplicate such a full stop. In this case, the second should be omitted. See WP:MOS. Generally in the notes, make punctuation completely rational. (Full stop at the end of the note? Why, or why not? Some might need one because a new sentence is started within the note; some might not. Use a definite principle to settle this. Use the en dash consistently for ranges: one or two are hyphens, as things stand.)
- Done, this was a typo.
- There's more where that came from, if you want it! See what you think of this instalment first, though. Also watch the abbreviation ie., which should be i.e. (two Latin words, not one). Don't let me discourage you! It's a fine article. Not yet polished to the standard that I for one would like to see. But it could be, soon.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for your comments. Any other suggestions are very, very welcome! I guess that maybe I should've asked the league of copyeditors to assist me with this article. I submitted it to the FAC page because the GA reviewer suggested so and the prose was complimented during the peer review, so it never occured to me that such a through copyedit was required. I'm sorry I'm making you do all this work. Jashiin (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Quick comments (I haven't read the above). "You can listen to a short excerpt from Sonata II, which is clearly inspired by Eastern music" - this seems a bit awkward. I thought self-references should be avoided? Wouldn't it be better to have a window on the right hand side, explaining the music? Also, I believe the notes section should be converted to a reference section. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment! Actually, this bit is currently being discussed above; the problem is that the sound sample here (like all sound samples in the article) is fully integrated with the text; its a tiny (8 seconds) example of the "percussive" sounds in the work. Putting it into a separate box would ruin this, and it seems kind of silly to me to have an 8 second sample in a big, separate window. That said, would something like "A good example of this is Sonata II, which is clearly inspired by Eastern music: [sample here]" be better? Jashiin (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Noetica again): OK, Jashiin, you have done some good work in response to comments above. I've actually gone in and edited a couple of things myself, since it would have been complicated to work more indirectly. See the links to the underdeveloped little article Navras, in particular. Note that the spelling of transcriptions from Sanskrit and other Indian languages is always slippery, but it's no big problem.
- Let's move on to Analysis, now. First, here and everywhere else you should make the dashes regular. The article uses the unspaced em dash most often—which I personally don't like at all, though it is the most usual choice. Put it in place of the spaced hyphen ( - ) and the spaced en dash ( – ) that we see in the article. Usage in the notes and other "end matter" is more problematic, but at least be consistent with all dashes there, too. Particular points:
- ...in Sonatas and Interludes the preparation of the piano is very complex...: "...in Sonatas and Interludes the preparation is very complex...". No needless repetition.
- 4 pieces of plastic: "four pieces of plastic". Consistency: words for numbers up to ten (compare other numbers nearby), as also for numbers starting a sentence. (I don't like this practice, but it is there at WP:MOS.)
- the detailed instruction: "the detailed instructions".
- no strict plan to which to adhere: "[...] if you enjoy...": "no strict plan to adhere to: "if you enjoy..."." Less stilted and pedantic; far more idiomatic. And drop the square-bracketed ellipsis: nothing resembling a risk of ambiguity or misattribution here.
- ...roughly three areas: the low, the middle and the high registers, of which the first is the most heavily prepared and the last has the lightest preparation.: "...roughly three registers: low, middle, and high. The low register has the heaviest preparation, and the high register the lightest." Crisp and clean; avoids first and last, which take time and patience to process. Note the serial comma, which is standard in this article.
- ...and much of the pianistic character of the sound,...: "... and a pianistic character;...". Note the semicolon.
- ...drum-like sounds, detuned versions of the original notes or metallic, rattling sounds that...: "...drum-like sounds, detuned versions of the original notes, or metallic, rattling sounds that...". Study the sentence with and without that serial comma after notes. See how it makes a correct reading much more likely, and much easier?
- ...which makes the hammers strike only two of the three strings of each note: "...which makes the hammers strike only two of the three strings of each note (or one, for notes with only two strings)".
- but sounds fairly normal: "but it sounds fairly normal". The it improves the grammar and the clarity.
- on particular notes, still others: "on particular notes, and still others". Otherwise you'd need semicolons.
- [Caption:] Listen to the definitive recording by Maro Ajemian,...: "The definitive recording by Maro Ajemian,...". G4-flat: "G-flat4" (consistency). Serial comma after that "G-flat4". Spelling: discernible. Em dash, not spaced en dash.
- Coming along well, Jashiin! We'll get there, I think. Fix those things, and then I'll have a few more for you.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks again! I've left the spaced hyphens in the text of "Recordings" section unchanged for now - I think em dashes just wouldn't look right there. If we can't leave them like that, could we change them to commas maybe? (this doesn't apply to the hyphens in references; those are used for page titles and the actual page titles use hyphens).
- Also, I've just added a short sentence to one of the references in "Piano preparation" (its a last minute addition that I've been thinking about for a long time, I wasn't sure if the article needed it) - I tried to make it as compact as possible, but I guess its still not exactly right; could you please check that as well? Its the latest edit. Jashiin (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Noetica, yet again): Nice work, Jashiin. That addition you mention looks all right, but the note as a whole might be clearer this way: "See examples of analysis in Perry, and in Nicholls, 83–84. Nicholls also points out that some of the sonatas have identical note combinations." Does this say what you mean, and in a more focused way? Note the in before Nicholls, too. Clearer that way. O, and in that caption we talked about last time, shorten to "The soft pedal is depressed..."; note that is frowned upon (except as I use it, in discussion here) as mere filling. Now let's look at the section Structure.
- The cycle comprises 16 sonatas and 4 interludes, arranged symmetrically. Four groups of four sonatas each.... Ah, yes. This is a real difficulty with numbers. What to do? When you get "statistical" in your writing, it looks bad if you stick rigorously to the policy of words up to ten, figures above ten (which you don't do, anyway). I'll have a look back over the earlier parts again; but here I recommend what major style guides recommend: override the rule in favour of consistency. So: "The cycle comprises sixteen sonatas and four interludes, arranged symmetrically. Four groups of four sonatas each...". (In fact, such a case is what motivates me to prefer the word–figure break at a hundred.) Then continue with the same policy for the rest of the article, yes? In running text, reserve figures for identifying numbered items, and proportions, etc.
- Done, although I'm not sure if I corrected all the instances. Should "10-bar" be "ten-bar", too?
- That said, you have been seriously inconsistent in applying numbers to sonatas and interludes. You mix Roman numerals and Arabic numerals: "Sonata III", but "sonatas 9–11". Tsk! Make these consistently Roman, for all sonatas and all interludes, including ranges. "Sonatas IX–XI", for example. Or Arabic numerals, if the original score and the existing analyses prefer those.
- Done
- ...i.e. they are not built, like classic sonatas,...: "i.e. they are not built, like classic sonata movements,...". As I'm sure you are aware, sonata form is something for a movement of a sonata to have, not a whole multi-movement sonata.
- Done, whoops! :)
- ...most of them adhere to the structure of the old sonata model (found, for example, in the works of Domenico Scarlatti) in that they, too, consist of two repeated sections, and their structure is AABB.: "...most of them have the structure AABB (two repeated sections) found in pre-classical sonatas, like those of Domenico Scarlatti."
- Done - I also capitalized Classical in "pre-Classical" (Boulez does it later on in a quote, so I thought I'd change it here too for consistency - or am I wrong?) and wikified it.
- prelude, interlude and postlude.: "prelude, interlude, and postlude." Serial comma.
- Done
- ...given a separate title Gemini—after the work of Richard Lippold: "...given the joint title Gemini—after the work of Richard Lippold". Otherwise the scope of the title is indeterminate. And put the link after the italicised title: "...referring to a sculpture by [[Richard Lippold|Lippold]]." And no link for sculpture, I suggest.
- Done
- on both macro- and microscopic level: "on both the macroscopic and the microscopic level". Easier this way. Though the floating hyphen was technically correct, you need the intervening, and microscopic is too "fused" already to work with that hyphen.
- Done
- The structure of the piece is AABB, units are separated by a double bar.: "The structure of this sonata is AABB, and the units are separated by a double barline." The piece is the whole composition. Bar, measure, and barline are notoriously jumbled in English. Be careful: consistency, so that beginners are not led into confusion.
- Done; I removed the second part of the sentence (, and the units are separated by a double barline.) because this is already covered in the previous sentence. I guess I didn't notice that before.
- The first section, A, consists of a single unit, the music in which is composed according to the given proportion (corellation on the microscopic level).: "Section A consists of a single unit, composed according to the given proportion: correlation on the microscopic level." Grammar with which was non-standard; redundancy in calling a section both A and the first section; spelling of correlation.
- Done
- This section is repeated twice, and, as it consists of a single unit, AA forms first part of the proportion on the macroscopic level: 1, 1 (units).: "A is repeated, and AA forms the first part of the proportion on the macroscopic level: 1, 1." If this is not what you mean, then I cannot grasp your meaning, and you need to rethink how to communicate it. (By the way, repeated twice would yield AAA!)
- Done
- The second section, B, consists of...: "B consists of...". You set up this shorthand with A and B, so use it!
- Done
- Since this section is also repeated, this results in the second half of the proportion: BB equals to 3¼, 3¼ (units).: "B is also repeated, and BB gives the second half of the proportion: 3¼, 3¼."
- Done
- Therefore AABB = 1, 1, 3¼, 3¼ (corellation on the macroscopic level): "Therefore AABB has proportions 1, 1, 3¼, 3¼: correlation on the macroscopic level." Your meaning? (Watch spelling, once more.)
- Done
- the musical phrases in each unit: "the musical phrases within each unit". The emphatic form within is needed here for contrast.
- Done
- This kind of effect is achieved by using asymmetric musical phrases.... Which kind of effect? Your meaning is obscure. So is a lot of the rest of the paragraph, I fear. Let's return to that later.
- The point is that the proportions here are so complex that Cage had to use asymmetric musical phrases, constantly changing time signatures, etc., to make them work. Then I give an example of how complicated some of Cage's solutions can be. Two other things had to be mentioned: the adherence of the last four sonatas to the 10-bar unit, and the fact that the microstructure of a sonata may deviate from its designated proportion.
- Cage has frequently used...: "Cage had frequently used...".
- Done
- ...the technique and its variations before. After all that, it is not obvious which technique exactly you are referring to here! Try to find a phrase that neatly identifies it.
- Well, there's no standard name for the technique; the explanation of it in the previous paragraph actually begins with a name: The main technique Cage used for composition is that of nested proportions:.. We can't start this paragraph with a sentence like "This technique is called.." or "Cage had frequently used this technique of nested proportions..", because this information is already given in the previous paragraph. Hmm?
- which was the first piece to use it: awkward repetition of use in a slightly altered sense. Then also: partly because fractions are used, and one of the last to use this technique, and would switch to using. But let's leave all of that too, until we've clarified what precedes this paragraph.
- between the tradition and the innovation: "between tradition and innovation". Do I detect a trace of Slavic uncertainty concerning the definite article the? :) Actually, the is possible in this case, but unnecessary and a bit unnatural.
- Done Ouch, you got me there! :) In school they had taught us some very strict rules about the articles; later I studied on my own, but I guess that some of that school training remains and I tend to be either very strict about articles or very uncertain about whether I need to use "the" in a particular case.
- Keep at it, Jashiin! This was the hardest section, and still needs a little work. Make changes as I suggest; rethink as I suggest. Then I'll have another couple of things to add about this section, and also about the remainder. I think it will all be fine, after that.
- One last thing. Go back to an early caption: John Cage and Maro Ajemian, the pianist Cage dedicated Sonatas and Interludes to. That to is really awkward at the end, especially since you have no full stop. In fact, do put full stops at the end of all captions. And change this caption: "John Cage with the pianist Maro Ajemian, to whom he dedicated Sonatas and Interludes."
- Done
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Noetica, yet again): Nice work, Jashiin. That addition you mention looks all right, but the note as a whole might be clearer this way: "See examples of analysis in Perry, and in Nicholls, 83–84. Nicholls also points out that some of the sonatas have identical note combinations." Does this say what you mean, and in a more focused way? Note the in before Nicholls, too. Clearer that way. O, and in that caption we talked about last time, shorten to "The soft pedal is depressed..."; note that is frowned upon (except as I use it, in discussion here) as mere filling. Now let's look at the section Structure.
- Comment (Noetica, nearly the last time, I think): It's looking good, Jashiin. I have just now edited a few things myself, along the lines discussed above. See what you think. Have I worked out your meaning accurately? I had to guess at one or two points. I'm still not sure about this: This kind of effect is achieved by.... It occurs at the start of a paragraph, which makes the intention even less sure. You explain above: but now put something in the text that sums up your intention crisply and briefly.
- When you're satisfied that all of your meanings are properly reflected in the text, I think you should address the "end matter", by which I mean the references and everything else that follows the main text. Some small matters of punctuation need regularising. Apply an eagle eye to this. (Don't make me exert the full force of my own pedantry!) An example: here and there you have things like "p. 35–66". For a start, this should be "pp. 35–66", and you should regularly have a hard space (see WP:MOS) to avoid bad line breaks. You do it like this, every time: "pp. 35–66". HOWEVER: in fact you should not use the form "p. xx" at all, because the style you have established for page numbers and the like is simply "xx", and "xx–yy", yes?
- Fix all that, and raise any further questions with me. Then very soon I'll be happy to give the article my commendation.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I rewrote the paragraph. Now it starts with some general information on proportions and the detail about the last four sonatas' proportions (before, that detail was kind of detached from the rest of the paragraph; I provided some context). Then I give the explanation we were talking about, slightly reworded. "In many" is there to avoid using the words "frequently" and "frequent" too much; I think it is a little bit vague but I can't think of anything else just now. Anyway, is this better? As for your edits, I agree with every one of them.
- I also changed the formatting of references; now the "p. xx" scheme is used throughout (I thought that simply "xx" would look confusing in magazine article titles and such, because of the amount of numbers involved. I also added full stops everywhere for consistency. Jashiin (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Noetica): I like those changes, Jashiin. I have done a little more housekeeping myself, just now. I also made a redirect article Makrokosmos, since that seems independently useful and also avoids a redlink in this article. You might want to check my changes, and perhaps make small amendments.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support. This article came to us already in pretty good shape. Since then, Jashiin has responded extremely well to suggestions for its improvement, conscientiously polishing the details. Sonatas and Interludes is now well and truly worthy of acceptance as a featured article, and as an example of what can be achieved at Wikipedia. It should inspire other editors of music articles to strive for a similar standard of excellence. I commend it to editors here, and I urge that it now be accepted without delay.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Notes; References are incomplete and incorrectly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources need a publisher, author and publication date should be given when provided, and all websources need last access date. Also, there is WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MOS#Captions puncutation of sentence fragments needs to be corrected. OF concern; since your websources don't have identified publishers, did previous reviewers check for reliability of sources?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks Sandy. I agree that some things need addressing with referencing. I had thought that most of this would have been fixed in the earlier review, but apparently they were not.
- Please note this, from Wikipedia:Mos#Exceptions:
Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either There were 5 cats and 32 dogs or There were five cats and thirty-two dogs, not There were five cats and 32 dogs).
- On the basis of that ruling, which clearly applies in the present case, I am a reinstating words for numbers at a couple of points.
- I had forgotten the ruling about captions. Thanks for reminding me!
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. The issues with captions and overlinking have already been fixed either by other contributors or me. But I'm not sure exactly which references you're naming incomplete and/or unreliable. There's publisher/author/publication date for every single book, dissertation and article referenced. The web links: I've added a "date accessed" to the Grove Online reference, the Ishii dissertation and the Cott interview. Not counting the Grove dictionary, which is obviously reliable, there are three kinds of web references in the article: newspaper articles (again, obviously reliable; dates of publication etc. all given), record label websites (yet again, obviously reliable) and "additional" URLs: ie. the Ishii dissertation was used as such, the URL is provided for convenience, not as a web source. Naturally the dissertation is a reliable source. The situation is the same with the Cott interview: Other Minds, Inc. does not have any details on the exact date of the recording, but otherwise it is a completely reliable source. If you think otherwise because of the date uncertainty, I can remove it from the article, because most of the things Cage said there were referenced in Pritchett, Nicholls, et al - I can simply add some more citations from those - its just that the article already relies on those books a little bit too much, and I thought adding some more sources, especially an interview with the composer himself, would be a good idea. Jashiin (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:35, 30 December 2007.
Virginia Tech massacre[edit]
- check links —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The primary reason for previous rejection was article instability. The article now seems to have settled down and the other minor issues (excessive footnotes in lede, etc.) have been addressed. Overall this is an excellent article and it has been cited in external publications as an example of excellence in WP. Ronnotel (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes to FA status. Sad happening, good article. A symbolic tribute, perhaps. Shiva Evolved (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I just went through tweaking the placement of a bunch of references.
- Besides that point, there's an outstanding {{who}} tag in Gun politics debate, dated from September.
- I removed the uncited statement, we'll see if others object and can provide a reference.--Sfmammamia (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, the image placement (left and right floated images) in sections like Responses from other educational institutions is usually frowned upon.
- Next, you introduce the term "EMS" in West Ambler Johnston shootings without explaining it, while later in the article, you wikilink emergency medical services: WL and full spelling should occur first, then abbreviation at later iterations.
- Done, although I left full spelling on second reference, since it was so far away from first ref. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Consistency on "am" or "a.m." is needed.
- Done. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The semi-automagic peer reviewer thinks there's a mix & match of AmE and BrE, but that could just be in quotes or references from places like the BBC - worth checking over for them though.
- Finally for now, in Media response, the correct title for The Times is just that, not Times; however, changing it with the existing sentence would look odd, so perhaps it'd be worth considering changing it to something like "Gerard Baker, a columnist at/on/for The Times, ...". Carre (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC* )
- No to FA status, at least for now. It's a very good article it may warrant FA status soon but not right now. Recent edit wars and an unfinished discussion about whether or not it's appropriate to include information about halloween costumes lampooning the incident. Let's get some consensus there before featuring it. Also, we should consider semi-protecting the article when it's featured. It's been the target of much vandalism in the past.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dont mean to minimize your concern regarding this, but I don't see this particular issue as worth holding up FA status over. By all means let's find consensus phrasing on this, but the issues that held up FA before were, IMHO, much more substantive. Ronnotel (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment – Is it possible to update the statement "As of June, no backlash against Asian Virginia Tech students was publicly reported"?--Grahame (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- Can external links in the body of the article be removed?
- Can't find an instance of this in the article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I found one Hokies United in the Campus Memorial Section. I could have removed it myself but I have left it to the lead editors to decide on how they want to link Hokies United. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --Sfmammamia (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can the citations be made consistent by using a template like cite news or cite web wherever applicable. This will solve MoS issues.
- Citation 77 seems to have a problem Done
- It seems no citation has been given. I'll try and sort it now. — Rudget Contributions 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. — Rudget Contributions 19:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The links-checker tool indicates problems with some web-links as seen here. Please correct them -- ¿Amar៛
- I have corrected the out-and-out broken links. Others that still need attention? --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk to me/My edits 08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: it's okay. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The response section still includes unnecessary blather that does not directly relate to the incident. The costume incident and the professor re-enactment at Emmanuel College are some specific examples. I also still think that the gun politics debate belongs on a different page. On a different note, is it necessary to have multiple references for some sentences? There are several places where a sentence is followed by 2, 3, or even 4 citations. If we reduced this number down to one each, the page should become shorter as the list of references at the bottom would necessarily be shortened. I'm not sure on Wikipedia policy on this matter, but it seems to me to be overkill to have 3 citations that all discuss the mental health report that dismisses Cho's alleged autism. I think one citation to the report or to a secondary source summarizing the report would be enough. Also, why is there an external link to "Scientology at Virginia Tech?" Rooot (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That external link has been removed. In some cases, I think multiple cites are valuable or even necessary (better perhaps than interrupting sentences where separate cites support specific phrases). In others, multiple cites may be overkill, but pruning them requires care. Is too much citation really a critical criteria for featured articles? --Sfmammamia (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, that's why I asked. The reason I brought it up was because I think the article is too long and this would be a way to shorten it. I also think that having multiple sentences with 4 citations makes the article less aesthetically pleasing. But this isn't really a big concern for me. My opposition is based on the length of the response section. I just did a minor revision to it and now it looks better to me. I don't like the "Bones" show item as it seems to be trivia to me, but it's not that big of a deal. The article as a whole is looking much better than it did, but I still think it needs a little more time to stabilize. It seems that there are still a lot of emotional edits going on, which is why so much unnecessary information keeps being added. Rooot (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rooot's concerns about the response section have been addressed; it has been pruned. If the mention of "emotional edits" refers to the discussion last week, the two editors with the most adamant comments have not posted in 5 days. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support—mostly well-written and a fitting tribute to those who died. Chilling. Who wrote it? Well done. But a few quibbles:
- Tell me, is that a massacre infobox, is it? I can't for my life see why you'd want to stratify and compartmentalise all of the information: it needs to be conveyed in the body of the text, and probably all is. This is infobox-mania.
- " While it is unclear how Cho gained entrance to the facility, it is possible that he simply followed another authorized student in."—That's a WPian's opinion, is it?
- Fixed -- the detail is actually more accurate now and is sourced.--Sfmammamia (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- "suffered enough."—Nope, logical punctuation require on WP (dot after the closing quote, unless the quote is not nested within one of WP's sentences. Please check throughout.
- "Other responses"—why not merge the parastubs? In that section, I'm pleased to see a full date that is not tainted by the dysfunctional autoformatting system. But it must be consistent (both raw date format and whether autoformatted) throughout the article. Please consider removing all of them for a cleaner appearance and easier maintenance: you're allowed to now. Tony (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: About.com is not a reliable source, particularly for medical diagnoses, and the information there is based on a biased, non-medical source. New York Times archives are now available without login; please doublecheck the dead link listings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Corrections made by Sfmammamia. Arsonal (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: A few bits of MOS cleanup needed still. See WP:NBSP regarding non-breaking hard spaces between numerical and non-numerical elements to prevent line wrap, for example on times. There is still an external jump in the text (The bill, H.R. 2640, mandates improvements in state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to ... ). All references should be fully completed and formatted; for example, the first reference I checked (number one) is missing the publication date (May 21, 2007). The third footnote, CNN, is also missing the date; please check that all sources include author and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. - Though I agree with SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) about fixing up some minor sourcing issues, for the most part it's incredibly well-sourced, well-done. In response to some above comments about multiple citations after a sentence - personally I think that's fine, and in some cases even appropriate to have more than one citation after a sentence. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
- Now there are captions that need the final period: the football one, the students in class one. Please check through. Full sentences vs extended noun phrases (which don't have the period). Tony (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Captions that are sentences now have periods. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 21:44, 27 December 2007.
Emma Goldman[edit]
Over the past month or so, I've rewritten this article – with the help of Lquilter, Kaldari, and Malik Shabazz – to bring it up to FA status. It has since received a set of peer reviews, and I believe it's now in FA territory. – Scartol • Tok 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support vote: complete article, with many references :) --Brískelly[citazione necessaria]
- Just a few minor comments/suggestions, really. Didn't spot much:
- First para of "McKinley assassination", "July of 1901" – I think the "of" is frowned on by MOS;
- Done
- "US$" repetition throughout. Again, minor MOS thing, should only be US$ on first occurrence, then just $
- Done
- Curious on the Notes & References – citation#1 has full publication details, while most of them use Harvard style with the full details in References. There are a few like that.
- If the source is referenced only once, the details are in the "Notes" section; others are pointers to the books in the "References" list.
- No publisher detail on Havel's work? I realise it's pre-ISBN, but publication detail?
- Done I've removed this pending more information; it's not referenced by the article, so it's not essential.
That's it. Carre (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, forgot - the 90% font size in the blockquotes: normal? Allowed in MOS? I don't know, but raising the question. Carre (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did this because the blockquote in "Most and Berkman" is right beside an image on the left side (thus not indented on the left), and it wasn't clear that it was a quote. I did the others as 90% for consistency. MOS doesn't say anything one way or another.
- Thanks for your careful attention to detail! – Scartol • Tok 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The MOS addresses font size at Wikipedia:MOS#Miscellaneous; smaller fonts are very hard on older eyes. The MOS states that it is not good practice; my eyes agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I take it then that you don't feel this is one of the special cases which the MOS allows for?
How would you suggest we set apart this blockquote?– Scartol • Tok 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC) - I've rearranged the images (and removed the Most pic) to avoid placing a left-aligned image beside a blockquote. The blockquotes are all at 100% now. Sorry for the confusion; I should have figured this out earlier. (Live and learn, I suppose.) – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I take it then that you don't feel this is one of the special cases which the MOS allows for?
- Support A detailed, informative, encyclopedic, well-referenced biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh wow, it's at FAC already? Well, support. I gave it a pretty thorough look at PR and it was quite good in my opinion. I do have a thought though: the bit about Petrushka reads almost as if there was (in our modern sensibility) some sexual abuse involved. To me the mention of Petrushka doesn't really seem to have major significance in Goldman's life. That really jumped out as peculiar during my second reading. --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm a little worried about not having the intro referenced. gren グレン 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are there specific points you feel are in need of a citation? Given the relative uncontroversial nature of the info in the lead (a simple rundown of the generally agreed-upon major points of her life), we didn't consider them necessary. If there are particular spots where you feel citations are needed in the lead, I'll be happy to add them. – Scartol • Tok 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- No... which is why I didn't oppose. But, since we are Wikipedia and not a scholar I thought standard practice was to not leave anything uncited because we aren't considered to be trustworthy. I assume most everything will be cited in the body, but, why make them wait to get the citation. Another thing is that it guards from vandalism added to the introduction since something added without citing new sources can easily be removed whereas now it is harder to justify its removal. gren グレン 00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- A lead cluttered with citations looks a little unpleasant and intimidating (and since the lead races through topics to give a summary you'd want one for every sentence if you were going to give them with the same depth as you do in the body), and I've always thought of the body of the article as being the reference for the lead; so long as I know that's standard practice, or at least was when I was more active. --RobthTalk 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is my experience as well. My three previous FAs (Balzac, Achebe, and Tubman) all have uncited leads. As for deterring vandalism, I believe the only thing which truly does so is protection of the page. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to WP:LEAD, the lead "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". I have usually taken this mean that, per WP:V, any controversial or statements that might be challenged need to be sourced (such as X person was the first to do something). Nothing in the lead of Emma Goldman seems to me to require this kind of citation. I agree with the previous editors that we don't want to clutter the lead with citations - restricting ourselves to statements that really must be cited is the trend I have seen developing. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, with some feedback. This is generally excellent, and quite neutral, especially given that it's a biography of someone who incites such strong opinion on either side. A few comments:
- I had a bit of trouble following the chronology, particularly in the lead; dates here, ages, there, amounts of time with no dates given. I can see the stylistic reasons for it, which is why I didn't change it around myself, but I'd like to see it made easier to follow.
- One statement that struck me as a bit oddly phrased, at least, was the statement that Goldman was sent to the workhouse, "where she was warmly received by the inmates." I don't have the source, so I don't know what information this is summarizing, but it's a strange thing to put in; ordinarily when someone goes to prison you don't mention what the other inmates thought of them, so an explanation of how she was well received might go well here.
- That's all I got for now. Good work. --RobthTalk 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. While writing I am always nervous about drifting into WP:Proseline, so I suppose I've veered over into the other lane. I'll try to clarify. Because the source only says she received a "flood of support", I've altered the wording of the prison sentence to: …she spent two weeks in a prison workhouse, which she saw as an "opportunity" to reconnect with those rejected by society. Thanks again. – Scartol • Tok 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a carefully researched, well-written, comprehensive, and engaging article. I have peer-reviewed this article, and all my concerns have been addressed there. Wonderful work, all! Awadewit | talk 05:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:55, 27 December 2007.
Francis Harvey[edit]
Self-nominated article on posthumous First World War Royal Marines Victoria Cross recipient. Is a GA and has been peer reviewed. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. Aren't there any plaques or such dedicated to him? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I expected there would be too, but I had a search online (where there is a databse of memorials) and couldn't find any. If anyone turns one up then please add it to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Opposein general it's nicely written, pretty,but...Seems strongly lacking in references/citations,"Harvey's guns again caused devastation" - isn't this a bit too POVish "encyclopedia Britannica" tone? - - rather common in the article. - this guy is a hero isn't he?
--Keerllston 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To address your issues one at a time, a) If you think something is uncited then please add a [citation needed] tag to that point and I will endeavour to source it. b)
What exactly is your point?Are you suggesting that the article is unencyclopedic in tone?If that's what you mean then please just say so without snide references to "encyclopedia Britannica". Do not make sarcastic comments at FAC, it's rude.
- To address your issues one at a time, a) If you think something is uncited then please add a [citation needed] tag to that point and I will endeavour to source it. b)
- I will attempt to edit this
so-called"heroism" out of the article, perhaps you could aid me by giving some more examples of it. (FYI, given its context in the article I don't think devastation is inappropriate where it is. Its hardly a heroic adjective and does quite factually describe the effects of his gunnery on both German forces. Nevertheless, perhaps you would prefer "serious damage" instead?)--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- Given improved quality Opposition withdrawn.--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh... as to b) - didn't mean to be snide or sarcastic. - I believe I didn't find how to phrase it properly and therefore phrased my concern improperly... I'm sorry for that.
- in regards to a) - it is a symptom not the actual problem - it can signify lack of comprehensiveness, verifyability, and work hours put into it.
- --Kiyarrllston 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given improved quality Opposition withdrawn.--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will attempt to edit this
Please discuss the authorship and reliability of this source, which appears to be a personal webpage:http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst the host is indeed a personal webpage, the specific part of the page quoted is here. This, as the page states is copied from an unpublished memoir of an officer aboard HMS Lion named Alexander Grant held at the Imperial War Museum. A search here has not yielded results, but as only 65% of documents have been digitised, this means very little. I have contacted the owner of the page to ask if he can provide any proof of provenance, but I think this link is valid as the source is a memoir of a participant, not an opinion piece.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Opposeuntil the huge sentences are tamed. For example: "Specially requested for HMS Lion, the flagship of the British battlecruiser fleet, Harvey turned her into one of the very best ships for gunnery in the Royal Navy and in her fought at the battles of Heligoland Bight, Dogger Bank and Jutland, during which the guns under his command sank two German cruisers and almost destroyed the German battlecruiser flagship SMS Seydlitz." Why not make it: "... the Royal Navy; in this ship, he fought at ..."? Give the poor readers a chance to take a breathe. If you have to use the female attributive, don't repeat it so shortly after. Also:
- 13.5"—thought it was a closing quotation mark—13.5-inch guns. Done
- Q in quotes; Lion's itaclics? Perhaps, but check the logic. I see that Chambers didn't use the quote marks.
- 13.5"—thought it was a closing quotation mark—13.5-inch guns.
- Little explination here. "Q" is the style used by the London Gazette, whilst Snelling and the other books use a plain Q. Chambers is from Snelling hence Q whilst I originally went with "Q" as per the London Gazette. I have now reveresed this so that Q is used as standard in the article and the only incident of "Q" is in a quote from the London Gazette. As for the italicising of Lion, it is standard both on Wikipedia and elsewhere to italicise the names of ships but not their prefixes (eg HMS). This is following that convention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- See MOS on formatting of times: colon, not period. Done
- Stilted prose: "Turning to his sergeant, the one man still standing, Harvey instructed him to give a full report to Admiral Beatty. Then, the ship saved, Harvey collapsed dead." - Attempted, hopefully this is better now.
- Pedantry: space after "p." in the notes (inconsistent). Done
- See MOS on formatting of times: colon, not period.
It's worth promoting after another massage. Tony (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Query I note abnormally large sentences in section Jutland - I am not sure if they are run-on sentences, but they don't seem very pretty either way - could you tell me if this is improvable or not even a problem?"Harvey, despite severe wounds and burns, realised that the shell hoist leading to the ship's main forward magazine was jammed open[,] and that the flash fire would rapidly travel down it[,] resulting in a main magazine explosion[,] that would tear the ship in two and kill everyone on board."
--Kiyarrllston 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:55, 23 December 2007.
Internationalist (album)[edit]
Article has been collaborated on by WikiProject Powderfinger and WikiProject Australian music, and I've rewritten it a few times. AFAIK the article contains most of the available sources on the subject - a lot of stuff has gone down the memory hole since the album came out almost 10 years ago. Obviously, I'm happy to act on any comments. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 10:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The lead needs work. There's some peacock terms and redundancy with phrasing like "most adventurous work to date" and "The album contained the band's boldest political and social commentary to date". It could stand to be expanded, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I did a bit of work on the lead. [7]. I'm happy to expand if you can find any new content. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I find it perplexing that an album with such coverage and accolades could be so vastly unsourcable only just over 9 years from its release, especially since it's the group's "mainstream" breakout album. Ironically, despite its own minimal coverage, it bears a great deal of reflections by reviewers using it as an anchor point of "what powderfinger's music should be like", almost marking it their ultimate album or the legacy release. Unfortunately, that reflection is accumulated by many reviews and none pegs it quite like that, making it original research for me to say it on the article (for now). That said, I believe we have all the information we're possibly going to gain, and it's well written and all. As a contributor, I give my support (though I've not contributed in a while). --lincalinca 11:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Overall, the article needs work. There are currently two reviews in this article, which is about an album that was released less than ten years ago. There's got to be some more stuff out there. On an WP:MOS note, the article goes from using "quotation." to "quotation". a few times. A "Context" section could greatly benefit the article considering I (and many other's who, for example, like the album) don't know anything about Powderfinger. There are also a bunch of small inconsistencies, for example "Bass guitarist John Collins..." should not link to the actual instrument but rather the role of a bassist and consequently reworded to read "Bassist John Collins..".
- I've found some more reviews ([8][9]) and will add them now. I also started on a context/background, but there really isn't much (most sources are from here) to work on :( I fixed the bassist link, and I'll look at quotations soon. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like I'm just reading a bunch of quotes to tell you the truth. Quite a lot of the prose is filled with quotes that have little or no significance. Don't get me wrong, quotes are essential to demonstrate how someone feels during the recording process, of a particular event that caused strife (the list goes on forever) but the article uses them a bit excessively. Similarly, much of what is not quoted explains what the guitarist, singer, etc. meant by what they said. Sentences like "Numerous songs on Internationalist were politically and socially influenced, although the band denied it being a deliberate motif" need tweaking for fluency and are relatively colloquial. NSR77 TC 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, since I've never heard the album, you may want to explain what political and social events they comment on. It is very ambiguous. All that's in the article now is that the album explores these topics, but it does not divulge into how or why. This is key. NSR77 TC 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - does [10] this] help in that regard? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and the "Legacy" section should be scrapped unless a lot more information can be added. Right now it consists of one reviewer's thoughts that Internationalist is better then two of the band's other albums. NSR77 TC 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still kind of uneasy with the article. It's not very comprehensive and there's been way too much work going on during the FAC that should have occurred before (in a Peer Review). However, since I can't cite anything specific, I give the article very weak support. NSR77 TC 00:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Needs work, a thorough copyedit. Thorough. A copyedit that will not miss errors like not wikilinking to the word wikt:internationalist, or repeated links, or addressing members by their last name and then later by their full name, or a red link, or use of the word "whilst", for example. I'd normally go through and correct most of these myself, but I'd rather leave this one to you. Spebi 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well sourced, meets FAC criteria in my opinion. Most suggestions so far don't seem out of reach. — Rudget Contributions 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I performed a thorough copy-edit [11] of the article and i think i've fixed most of the standing MoS etc issues.. The issues remaining are:
- Needs a Background section.
- Done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Although it shared similar personnel with its predecessor, including producer Nick DiDia," - but the prev album did not have DiDia... Actually, that whole sentence can be removed, incl. the part about Tiddas (they're mentioned later anyways)
- Done (removed)— Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The legacy section needs a rewrite, or can be altogether done away with (as per NSR77)
- Removed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe a few more reviews.
- That's seriously all I can find :( — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Tommy Stardust (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Sorry all, I was offline yesterday - I'll try to address everything ASAP. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Article has bias in certain instances. For example, "It did, however, cement the band's position on the Australian music scene, with highly positive reviews" from the lead. The word "highly" is subjective, and an opinion. This is the conclusion of whomever wrote the article, and not the opinion of a biographer or anyone of that nature. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reworded. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The song's music video was one of Powderfinger's more lavish visual works, featuring computer graphics for the first time.[15]" - This is an opinion, so therefore needs attribution. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The source describes it as "lavish" etc. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, as it still needs attribution. Whether something is "lavish" is an opinion, not a fact. Currently, the sentence is written as though this is a fact. The sentence needs to say whom this is according to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I removed the word lavish - turns out the source didn't use that exact word (m'bad). [12]. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, as it still needs attribution. Whether something is "lavish" is an opinion, not a fact. Currently, the sentence is written as though this is a fact. The sentence needs to say whom this is according to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Australian music magazine Juice selected Internationalist as one of their top 100 albums of the decade of the 1990s." - The writing is awkward in this specific sentence, and the sentence needs a citation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Found a ref, reworded a bit. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- "With Internationalist, Powderfinger first set their sights overseas, receiving lucrative spots at numerous music festivals in the U.S., including South by Southwest in Texas.[17]" - Whether these spots were "lucrative" is the opinion of the writer and therefore original research. Unless it can be attributed to a specific critic, it should be removed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- POV removed, reworded. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The word "lucrative" is still present in the lead. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In 2000, two years after its initial release, "The Day You Come" was played an estimated 18,000 times on national radio and television.[12]" - Estimated by whom? How did they come to this estimation? LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed - probably not factual. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Article is also inconsistent in using numerals. For example; "Sputnikmusic reviewer James Bishop called Internationalist a "beautiful, incomparable and truly surprising album", giving the album a perfect 5 out of 5." Elsewhere, numbers have been spelt out. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, I'll see if I can find any other instances. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- "It was played 4,000 times on radio in 2000, compared to the 18,000 of "The Day You Come"; a statistic Fanning jokingly described as "pretty pissweak".[12]" - Are these statistics factual, or more estimations? LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removed - probably not factual. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, generally well-written and everything looks in order. A few things, however.
- Fanning and Collins agreed that "music can be a vehicle for that escape." — I know we want to avoid sounding like a newspaper, but surely both of them didn't say this? One said it and the other agreed, or similar? It's generally better to provide direct attribution for quotes that like, in that directly cite who said it. I'm wondering if it can be tweaked, but I'll leave it to you.
- Bassist John Collins said of DiDia; "Nick was really good...The way Nick based the record was that he wanted to record the band how we were at that particular moment, he didn’t want to play around too much." As a result of this attitude — I know the reference at the end of the paragraph may include this quote, but generally the reference must be straight after the quote (Wikipedia:Citing sources#When you quote someone).
- and the album was mixed by DiDia soon after — link "mixed"?
- Collins and lead singer Bernard Fanning described the album as not being "as easy listening as their previous work" — as above.
- Numerous songs on Internationalist were politically and socially influenced, although the band denied it being a deliberate motif. — reference at the end of the sentence.
- He said the reinvention was as much for the band's own interest as it was for the "public's perception". — the punctuation here (" before the .) is inconsistent with the rest of the article. You may want to check for other instances of this as well (there's one about punk band that I noticed, and there may be more).
- "Fanning explaining that the band did not intentionally discuss political issues, saying "we don't try to do anything in particular"." As above.
- Fanning said of "The Day You Come" "I wouldn't certainly say that we've written any protest songs- The Day You Come is the closest to that kind of song, and that typically, like most of our songs can be construed in many ways. And it was particularly about the way Australian electorate I suppose is moving, and thinking." — that's a long quote; would {{cquote}} work? Regardless, the double-" near the start needs remedying, as it breaks up the flow.
- because, according to Haug, the band — this is the first time Haug is mentioned in the section, and in a long time, so maybe having his full name would work (possibly linking also).
- The second-last paragraph in the Album and single releases section is one sentence. Although I agree that partioning paragraphs for singles is a generally good idea, one sentence is too short. Maybe combine it with the last paragraph?
- Despite being fans of Swervedriver, who were renowned for "their capability to reproduce their album sound perfectly in the live setting, Fanning said Powderfinger" — who said the quote, and where is the reference for it?
- Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile and...fun", as were the performances in Austin — surely the quote would be better as two separate quotes?
- Can you clarify on this? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it could read Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile" and "fun", as were the performances in Austin? Daniel 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it could read Coghill, however, described the showcases as "worthwhile" and "fun", as were the performances in Austin? Daniel 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- "people (in Australia) are going to get sick of you pretty quickly — I think quote convention is square brackets.
- The quote from Haug in the second paragraph of Response needs a reference.
- Lewis also contended — the "also" is redundant to "contended".
- Might as well throw in a reference for the ARIA Awards section somewhere.
Otherwise, looking good. Daniel 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Need to run - will do this ASAP. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apart from one thing I specifically replied to, everything is Done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apart from one thing I specifically replied to, everything is
- Comments I really am leaning towards what Spebi is saying; it needs a good copyedit: it misses possible links, it needs a bit of grammar fixes and lowering of the complication of sentences (hypocritical coming from me; I know I'm terribly verbose ;)) and there are many quotations that are missing sources:
- ..."constantly re-invented themselves, and with success, I think"
- ..."as easy listening as their previous work"
- ..."Nick was really good...The way Nick based the record was that he wanted to record the band how we were at that particular moment, he didn’t want to play around too much."
- ..."we don't try to do anything in particular"
are all examples of this. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- All Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Query Is there any reason for why the heading is "Response" instead of the (standard?) "Reception"?--Keerllston 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was never sure what the "standard" is...I've changed it now - Done — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Object—Not ready yet. Not written to the required professional standard; MOS breaches. Here are examples that indicate the need for a total copy-edit throughout.- Second sentence: "The album's title refers to the ability for music to assist one in escapism."—I don't get it.
- I'm not sure how it isn't clear - combined with the escapism article (which it's linked too) it seems fairly obvious to me. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- But the readers shouldn't have to hit links to understand the logic of the sentence. What has escapism got to do with the title of the album? It's the second sentence, and stumps me. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about now [13]? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- But the readers shouldn't have to hit links to understand the logic of the sentence. What has escapism got to do with the title of the album? It's the second sentence, and stumps me. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it isn't clear - combined with the escapism article (which it's linked too) it seems fairly obvious to me. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Second sentence: "The album's title refers to the ability for music to assist one in escapism."—I don't get it.
- Sorry to be like a dog at a bone, but "and the ability of an internationalist [links says "one who advocates internationalism"] to overcome racial and social tension" is very odd indeed. Why is it that someone who advocates internationalism (whatever that is, maybe I do? Unsure) be thus able to escape racial tension? Perhaps people who are free to move from country to country might in doing so escape racial tension (some have, sure), but are they advocates of internationalism, or merely refugees or free-birds? I think you need to remove the statement from the lead and unpack the meaning further down, where there's space to include detail. Can you have a look at the lyrics and any other sources that might reveal the answer to how to frame this? Tony (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed the statement from the lead, I'll try it again (in the "Background" section) and probably end up quoting a bit more (source). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evidently, I'm starting to share your confusion. Hence I through in a quote instead ;) [14]. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed the statement from the lead, I'll try it again (in the "Background" section) and probably end up quoting a bit more (source). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Third sentence: "Internationalist was often labelled Powderfinger's most adventurous work, with lead singer and songwriter Bernard Fanning experimenting further in his lyrics than before."—Slight discomfort at the sudden assumption that I know already that Fanning had been adventurous in this respect.
- Done (reworded). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fourth sentence: "and was certified platinum several times in Australia"—You don't know how many times?
- Done - A number was found, and sourced. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- "It was the recipient of four ARIA Awards"—Just "It received"?
- Done (by Spebi — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Last sentence in the lead (a parastub): "Despite its popularity in Australia, Internationalist failed to launch Powderfinger in the overseas market. It did, however, cement the band's position on the Australian music scene, with the band receiving fairly positive reviews on the album." A professional standard of writing is required for FAs. Such as: "Internationalist received fairly positive reviewers in the Australian press, and cemented the Powderfinger's position on the local music scene; however, the album failed to launch the band in the overseas market. on the album." See the difference?
- Indeed I do; thanks. Done by Spebi. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, and sorry for my cut-and-paste errors in the example. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, yeah, I had a bit of trouble working out what was going on... :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, and sorry for my cut-and-paste errors in the example. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed I do; thanks.
- Logical problem in "although": "They also spent some time in the United States in mid-1997, although most of the songs on Internationalist were written in Brisbane by Bernard Fanning, rather than abroad." Huh?
- Done - "But" works better in this context (along with a minor reword). — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does, but it's still not logical. "But" or "however" indicate that you're about to go against what you've just told us. Why is it that spending time in the US then was somehow unexpected because he had written most of the songs in Brisbane? Sorry to be difficult, but ... Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Aah, I see the problem now (I think). I also re-read the source and it seems I misinterpreted a bit...how about now? [15] — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does, but it's still not logical. "But" or "however" indicate that you're about to go against what you've just told us. Why is it that spending time in the US then was somehow unexpected because he had written most of the songs in Brisbane? Sorry to be difficult, but ... Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- See MOS on ellipsis dots and their spacing, and on punctuation in quotations.
- WP:PUNC stuff Done [16] to the best of my interpretation of the guideline and the article text. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:PUNC stuff
- No hyphen after "-ly"; see MOS on hyphens. "Australian-based". "18-second", etc; and chop "long" from the info page for the first sample.
- I removed the "long", but I'm not really sure on your other point - could you please clarify? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's usual to hyphenate double adjectives, esp. when they occur before the noun. "20-second sample", but "the duration was 20 seconds". "Australian-based" is always hyphenated. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gotcha. I can't see any such issues in the article though... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's usual to hyphenate double adjectives, esp. when they occur before the noun. "20-second sample", but "the duration was 20 seconds". "Australian-based" is always hyphenated. See MOS on hyphens. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the "long", but I'm not really sure on your other point - could you please clarify? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it's OK, but it would be better to make the fair-use jusification stronger by inserting educational value (see WP:NFC. For example, how is it "rough", in musical or lyrical terms? Educate us. Tony (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've replied inline to most comments, and a fair bit has been done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can see a couple of areas in the Response section that discuss a review of the album, but there are quotes and other important information that need to be recited (as in
<ref name="name" />). All quotes should be cited, even if you're using the same reference over and over again. Spebi 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done (AFAIK) - Tell me if I miss any. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- None missed. This really looks featured quality now, I'm really impressed :) Support. Spebi 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't do much FAC reviewing so I couldn't pinpoint teensy errors, but overall this seems like a very fine piece of work. Well done! Support. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn the oppose, but please keep working on it. Tony (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've done a bit more and replied to some comments. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, though I would like a citation at the part where it has the tracklisting and times. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- That was removed a while back - I'll add it back. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.
Final Fantasy Tactics[edit]
Self-nomination. I'm trying this again. Currently a Good Article. Article has been given proper citations as with other Featured Final Fantasy game articles. Images have also been given fair use rationales. Formatting is addressed. No glaring grammar mistakes. — Blue。 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The reception section is lacking. This is a PSOne game released in 1997/1998, yet the critical reception section relies solely on GameSpot and IGN, sources that were no influential, respected or well read at the time. There is no reception from any country outside of the United States. There is no sales data. - hahnchen 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've wrote in sales figures and inserted the sources. The only reception for a country outside Japan is a poll by a Japanese magazine, but it is suffice. Please outline reviewers or sources that are considered influential, respected or well read at the time. — Blue。 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Game reviews are just like music reviews, IGN and GameSpot are fine for recent releases, just as Pitchfork Media and All Music Guide are for albums. But for something a bit older? I'd want to hear from Rolling Stone and the NME. Review quotes from EGM, Game Informer, or Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine would be a lot stronger than the current lineup. I'm not familiar with RPGfan, and do not believe that their arguments add anything to the reception section. I'd want some Japanese reaction contemporary with the release though, Famitsu's score should be enough. - hahnchen 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Found Famitsu score, and a quote from one of the three magazines stated above. RPGFan's argument is a valid criticism on the game, that is unless a stronger reception can be found and placed instead. — Blue。 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The single Metacritic snippet from EGM isn't enough to satisfy my concern with the article. Why have you chosen to use the 2000 RPGFan review over the 1998 RPGFan review? Either way, the box out should show that there were in fact two reviews from two writers at RPGFan. Right now, it reads as if the single RPGFan quote is their single official take on the game. - hahnchen 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've inserted another magazine quote. And the two reviews generally convey the same criticism, though there are noted differing opinions, so have been tweaked. — Blue。 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - With the addition of sales figures and reception information from other countries, this article is finally comprehensive and is referenced from top to bottom. It will make a good Featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Bluerfn's nomination. Greg Jones II 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Object. Too many unreferenced claims; for example Setting and Characters have not a single reference.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)- Done References have been made for the plot section. It may be in-game reference but it is suffice to support the claims. — Blue。 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there are still paragraphs missing citation. First para in Legacy and in Development.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done References have been made. — Blue。 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the citation for the last para in characters? The Legacy section still has its last para missing citation, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done References have been made. — Blue。 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - The article is well written, comprehensive, follows style guidelines and has appropriate images. An excellent article in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
- Support another vastly comprehensive and well-done FF article, good job. igordebraga ≠ 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, one of the source (#71) is a Tripod page from a fansite. It isn't a reliable source! FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have replaced that ref with a direct ref to Famitsu, from which the information was derived. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Axem. — Blue。 04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - all issues that were raised have been taken care of to my satisfaction. --PresN (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Bluerfin, have you asked the Opposers to revisit? Please complete all websource citations per WP:CITE/ES; all need a publisher and last accessdate, and author and publication date when available. Most of the sources do not identify the publisher. Did reviewers check for reliability of sources when source publishers weren't even listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 13:59, 22 December 2007.
Spiderland[edit]
Self nomination This article, about a 1991 album by indie rock band Slint, is currently a Good Article and has been recently peer reviewed. I am confident that it satisfies all Featured Article Criterion and is well-referenced, well-written, and comprehensive. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You've used British dating throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done All dates now reflect American formatting. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Conditional supportFor a cult album like this, it's nice to see virtually every reliable source that exists referenced. Some things that need fixing before I go all the way:- I had to change some collective noun usage in regards to the band itself. Double-check that "Slint" is always treated as a singular noun.
- I don't think it's necessary to mention that PJ Harvey and a member of Pavement are fans of the album in the lead. Possibly rework and combine with previous sentence if you want to keep it there.
- "Another source wrote . . ." Might as well name the source in the prose, or rephrase. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sentence "'Good Morning Captain' has been compared to Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' by David Peschek of The Guardian, 'if it's possible to imagine Stairway to Heaven bleached of all bombast.'" is awkward. The meaning became clearer on the second reading, but it could be further clarified.
- Ref 24 (Robert Christgau) needs to list the publication.
- The statement "The album has now sold over 50,000 copies" should be more definite and less timely. Write something along the lines of "has sold this many copies as of this date" or at least remove the "Now".
- It's confusing when you refer to Pitchfork and mean the music festival the site put on. At least, it is to me (probably not to anyone else). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the review. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good times. Support. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, all issues addressed.
Comment, nice, thorough about details, but could use being more explicit about why this album is important. Will probably support if the following issues can be fixed.- Slint broke up shortly after Spiderland's release. - That sentence in the lead implies that the album had something to do with the breakup, which would be important to write about in the article body, but I don't see that in the article body. Is the implication unjustified, or am I missing the text that gives the connection?
- The article does mention Slint's break-up as it relates to the album in the first few sentences of the "Legacy" section, but I removed the sentence from the lead anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Similarly, am I missing the part that says that Spiderland is really the album that made the band? The lead just says it was their second album, which is nice, but hardly impressive. The Slint article, on the other hand, says "Slint's first album Tweez was recorded by Steve Albini in 1987 and released in obscurity on the Jennifer Hartman Records label in 1989. It was followed two years later by the critically acclaimed Spiderland, released on Touch and Go Records and recorded by Brian Paulson[1]. Considered a seminal work, Spiderland is an album characterized by dark, syncopated rhythms, sparse guitar lines and haunting subject matter. The record's impact was such that some have suggested it is the first true post-rock album ..." Shouldn't some of that high praise, especially in comparison with Tweez, be here too? Otherwise it's not so clear why Spiderland was such a big deal. If you can't think of anything better just drop those sentences in the Context section directly.
- I think that the "Legacy" section sufficiently notes the album's importance and influence. Some of the Slint article delves into hyperbole, and it's virtually unreferenced, so I'd prefer not to model after it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- "theory that band members had to be periodically institutionalized during the completion of the album."; The recording was completed in four days. - Er... how's that? How can multiple people be periodically institutionalized during a period of 4 days? Were the periods measured in hours or something? Are you sure the first quote isn't a joke?
- It does sound a bit odd that members of Slint could have become crazy and were checked into an institution during a four day recording. It seems highly unlikely if not impossible, but the rumors that these events occurred certainly exists. I don't believe that the article presents these rumors as true, but does acknowledge that they exist. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, - can you link to something explaining what an angular guitar rhythm is? The link to dynamic goes to a disambiguation page, can you make it more clear?
- I fixed the dynamics link, but unfortunately "angular guitar" is a specific term that doesn't link anywhere. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Spiderland received minimal attention from major publications upon its release. " OK, so when did it get the major attention that made it a seminal work, etc.?
- Robert Christgau ... criticizing the album's lyrics - I was going to ask what, specifically, he criticized about them, but thought I should go to the reference and see ... and I still couldn't figure it out! What is he saying about the lyrics? I can't even honestly tell that it is criticism of the lyrics, it's so short. Explain or strike, please. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Christgau is notorious for giving really short reviews. I interpreted his statement "And if you promise not to mention their lyrics they promise to keep the volume down" as criticism, as he is implying that Spiderland's lyrics are so bad that the band members themselves don't want to talk about them. Should I include this quote in the body of the article? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Slint broke up shortly after Spiderland's release. - That sentence in the lead implies that the album had something to do with the breakup, which would be important to write about in the article body, but I don't see that in the article body. Is the implication unjustified, or am I missing the text that gives the connection?
- Hmm. You addressed several points, but the leadoff to the "Legacy" section bothers me, especially since it seems to be the album's claim to fame, so arguably the most important section in the article. Its first two sentences are about the band breaking up. If the breakup had nothing to do with the album, how is it a legacy of the album, or especially something to lead off the section about the legacy of the album. Can they be moved down into "Reunion" or something? It at least makes more sense that the breakup be important to having a reunion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Somewhat unsure oppose. Well-referenced, well-written for the most part... I had never heard of this band or this album - thanks for the introduction
"the album contains dark, narrative lyrics that emphasize alienation." - word choice - "dark" is not very descriptive - do you mean depressing? morbid? evil? sad? suicidal? despairing?- using "dark" is not very encyclopedic...
It's kinda short - definitely so the lead - is it proper length? - I thought it might be because the article on Slint was longer- but very not the case...
--Keerllston 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)- I removed the term "dark" from the lead altogether, which I also expanded a bit. I believe that the article's length is appropriate given the subject matter and the amount of information available. Also, the length of the Slint article in relation to the length of the article on this album is irrelevant. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- well... see - you say it's "irrelevant" and I do respect your opinion - but in another review of a candidateship (that of constantine II of scotland) - the reviewer noted that it is valid - because wikipedia is not about repeating things many times - but also because context and how things fit into a bigger picture is important.
regarding length - I was expecting bigger if I didn't make myself clear- by "information available" do you mean that information is hard to get? In my experience in FAC - I have found saying "information is hard to get" and similar are often - later proven untrue - and information is finally found - finally bettering the article in terms of comprehensibility
--Keerllston 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- The length of the Slint article is irrelevant to the length of this article because only this article is being reviewed to be featured. Secondly, by "information available" I didn't mean that I had only drawn from a small portion of all the information on this album; rather, I meant that I have drawn from all information about this album, but that the total information is limited because of the small relative mainstream attention given to this album. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I must reiterate that I do believe that it is an appropriate length. It is only slightly shorter than the recently featured album article, Loveless (album). If there was any amount of unused information left about the album I would add it to the article, but there is none. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- well... see - you say it's "irrelevant" and I do respect your opinion - but in another review of a candidateship (that of constantine II of scotland) - the reviewer noted that it is valid - because wikipedia is not about repeating things many times - but also because context and how things fit into a bigger picture is important.
- I removed the term "dark" from the lead altogether, which I also expanded a bit. I believe that the article's length is appropriate given the subject matter and the amount of information available. Also, the length of the Slint article in relation to the length of the article on this album is irrelevant. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- A few comments/suggestions:
- The infobox has "Touch & Go" and the intro says "Touch & Go Records", but both should probably be "Touch and Go Records", if only to be consistent, as well as to maintain encyclopedic formality, but also to reflect the full name of the label. Touch & Go is also mentioned as such in the Legacy section.
- Done
- Chicago in the infobox should be changed to to Chicago, USA, to avoid any US-centrism.
- Done
- The first paragraph of the first section seems unnecessary. Context is one thing, but the information provided seems to have nothing to do with Spiderland except in the sense that it happened before. The section would probably be stronger if you just started talking about the album as soon as possible.
- I do believe that this paragraph is relevant. It serves as a basic introduction to the band and its members, and notes the change in style from Tweez to Slint to Spiderland. Other featured articles (Fuck the Millennium) use similar styles of summarization. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Going off the previous point (and assuming you take my suggestions to remove the first paragraph), I'm not sure "Context" is the correct title for the section.
- Not sure about the wikilink of traumatic, especially since it links to psychological trauma, which infers additional information from the quote. It could've been physical trauma, for all we know, so best leave the quote to explain itself.
- Done
- I'm not sure what a "live in-studio recording style" is. Might be good to explain.
- Done
- Saying "The music of Spiderland is defined by its use of angular guitar rhythms, etc, etc..." is a bit of a broad semi-POV statement. To a foreigner the instruments used might define it. To a feminist the fact that it was created by all men might define it. I guess my point is that it's poor word choice.
- Done
- A few of the descriptions in the same section are a bit iffy, and generally not backed up by the souce (ie "jagged, thick guitar")
- "the song's lyric" I think this should be "lyrics"?
- Done
- Not so sure about the wikilink for "treading water".
- Done
- The Steve Albini review quote is a bit lengthy, especially since it is so overwhelmingly positive.
- Unfortunately, the Albini review is the only contemporary review of Spiderland, but it is also one of the most notable reviews of the album (it is often mentioned in articles about the band or the album). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why aren't the reviews mentioned in the Reception section mentioned in the infobox?
- All of them were, except for the Rolling Stone one, which I added.
- "Spiderland's sales have gradually increased through time." Isn't this a really obvious statement? I understand what you mean, but it sounds like "Spiderland has sold more copies has time has past." Furthermore, this implies sales data, which begs for a citation.
- Done
- "Spiderland has become a landmark indie rock album and is considered, along with Talk Talk's Laughing Stock, to have been the primary catalyst of the post-rock and math rock genres." is a very broad statement to make, especially since it's only backed up with a single source.
- Done backed up with a second source.
- "In spite of plans" I think you mean "Despite"?
- Done
- Why is the Jim DeRogatis quote split up into two quotes?
- Done
- I'm not sure what "(*) designates unordered lists." refers to.
- Done Got rid of it, unnecessary.
- The infobox has "Touch & Go" and the intro says "Touch & Go Records", but both should probably be "Touch and Go Records", if only to be consistent, as well as to maintain encyclopedic formality, but also to reflect the full name of the label. Touch & Go is also mentioned as such in the Legacy section.
I hope the above doesn't sound too daunting. Overall my comments are relatively minor: the article is generally very informative and well-conceived. If you can take care of the above notes, I'd be happy to lend my support. Drewcifer (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent work! Definitely FA quality. Though I still have reservations about the context section and the glowing Albini quote, a difference of opinion shouldn't hold the article back. Keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not opposing, but there are a few things to fix. I copy-edited the opening (hope some of those statements are referenced further down!).
- Where a quote is wound into a larger WP sentence, put the period after the closing q marks. (MOS)
- Done
- See MOS on final period in captions that are not full sentences—here, all of them.
- Done
- Text in sample boxes goes beyond the right side of my window—perhaps it's my Safari browser? Doesn't happen in other articles. Info on sampled songs in the main text is excellent.
- I'm not sure what this is caused by. I checked on Safari (I typically browse in FireFox) and the error didn't appear. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why link that little-known country the US? And I see further linking of obscure countries in the table at the bottom. Save us the untidy blue splotches, and leave the high-value links undiluted for our readers, yes?
- Done
- I think MOS says to prefer three normal periods for ellipsis dots. And when they come after a period, use four dots unspaced. Tony (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- Where a quote is wound into a larger WP sentence, put the period after the closing q marks. (MOS)
- Notes: In addition to the MOS items mentioned by Tony, MOS:CAPS#All caps, Frere-Jones, Sasha. "YOU THOUGHT I WAS BACKING OUT". sfj.abstractdynamics.org, July 25, 2005. Retrieved on November 11, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.
Opera (web browser)[edit]
A lot of work has gone into this article, and I believe that it now rivals the featured article Mozilla Firefox in quality. This article has already been promoted to good article status, and I think it's ready to receive featured status.
I nominated this article once before, but only received one comment. I'm hoping that this time there will be more comments. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support: I am supporting this article because Opera is the worlds fastest browser and better than Firefox. --Saud Iqbal (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- If that's really your reasoning, you might want to take a look at WP:WIAFA. 140.247.131.86 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes...we're judging the article about Opera, not Opera itself. What are your thoughts on the quality of the article? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- + The article is very well written and meets the required criteria for Featured Article. --Saud Iqbal (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support: long, complete and informative article filled with plenty of references. Purgossu (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support: Excellent article covering the browser accurately and completely. Well written. Dsergeant (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support: I think a lot of work has gone into that article to make it of a high quality. It's filled with plenty of information and is accurate, it gets my support. --85.211.64.151 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Although it is overall good, the article has a few issues of content balance and PoV in placesCirceus 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Original concerns
- I don't see why "internet suite" is used as the disambiguation: it is only really discused a a browser, with a very brief mention of Opera Mail the same issue could be leveled against the subarticles' title). Opera Mail needs at least a section dedicated to it before "internet suite" can be used accurately as a disambiguation parenthesis.
- The IRC client, BitTorrent client, and web feed reader are also discussed, and they are other reasons that Opera is an "Internet suite". I don't see Opera Mail as a major feature or selling point of Opera, so it doesn't have its own section in the main article. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that a "suite" implies several software. However this article isn't about anything that can be called a software suite: it's about a browser. It's as if Microsoft Word was called "Microsoft word (suite)". Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Opera is an Internet suite in the same way the Mozilla Application Suite is an Internet suite. "Internet suite" means a single application that combines the functions of a variety of Internet applications. I admit that the the term is a bit misleading, but it certainly appears to be the term that is used in the real world. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that seems inaccurate unless I'm reading software suite all wrong. The non-navigation functions are still only discussed in passing (almost accidentally). I'll also note that two other "Internet suites" are listed at "(web browser)" (Netscape (web browser) and Arachne (web browser)). Circeus (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do think that, misleading though the term may be, "Internet suite" accurately describes Opera. But, I see your point about disambiguation, and think it would be fine if you wanted to change the article's title to Opera (web browser). Even so, please do not remove the term "Internet suite" from the content of the article, because the term, though misleading, is used in the real world.
I've gone ahead and moved History of the Opera Internet suite and Features of the Opera Internet suite, so only the main article is left. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do think that, misleading though the term may be, "Internet suite" accurately describes Opera. But, I see your point about disambiguation, and think it would be fine if you wanted to change the article's title to Opera (web browser). Even so, please do not remove the term "Internet suite" from the content of the article, because the term, though misleading, is used in the real world.
- Actually, that seems inaccurate unless I'm reading software suite all wrong. The non-navigation functions are still only discussed in passing (almost accidentally). I'll also note that two other "Internet suites" are listed at "(web browser)" (Netscape (web browser) and Arachne (web browser)). Circeus (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Opera is an Internet suite in the same way the Mozilla Application Suite is an Internet suite. "Internet suite" means a single application that combines the functions of a variety of Internet applications. I admit that the the term is a bit misleading, but it certainly appears to be the term that is used in the real world. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that a "suite" implies several software. However this article isn't about anything that can be called a software suite: it's about a browser. It's as if Microsoft Word was called "Microsoft word (suite)". Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The IRC client, BitTorrent client, and web feed reader are also discussed, and they are other reasons that Opera is an "Internet suite". I don't see Opera Mail as a major feature or selling point of Opera, so it doesn't have its own section in the main article. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Keeping tabs across session is not really "unique" to Opera, as it is part of the capabilities in Firefox from 2.0 onward. I do not know whether the option is activated by default though (I had been using an extension to do it before it was introduced).
- The difference is that Opera does this by default, something that no other major browser does. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did specify I wasn't sure whether firefox did it by default (I just checked, for the record; it doesn't). However, I'm seriously doubting the appropriateness of calling a mere default setting of a feature available elsewhere a "unique feature". Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- All right. I've removed the offending sentence from the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did specify I wasn't sure whether firefox did it by default (I just checked, for the record; it doesn't). However, I'm seriously doubting the appropriateness of calling a mere default setting of a feature available elsewhere a "unique feature". Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that Opera does this by default, something that no other major browser does. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"The differences in security flaws are even more apparent when comparing older versions of these browsers"
- This is rather misleading given that all the numbers bar the Opera (which has unchanged number of unpatched) are better in relative importance: 1 in 11 vs. 1 in 3 (Firefox), 1 in 5 vs. 1 in 3 (IE), 1 in 15 vs. 1 in 2 (Safari).
- Thinking about it, I agree with you that this is an unfair comparison. The numbers only tell us how Opera 8 looks security-wise today, and don't tell us anything about how long those flaws remained unpatched. It might have been that the flaws were patched shortly before Opera 9 was released, so people just migrated to Opera 9 and the entire time they used Opera 8 it was insecure. In any case, I've removed that paragraph. Now the gist of the "Security" section is more "if you were to choose a browser today, how does Opera's security compare to other browsers?" —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, it probably has more to do with Opera having received overall less attention to discovering new security issues. Firefox had a very comparable track records when its market was around 1%. The paragraph should at the very least specify that Opera has no unpatched known vulnerabilities. Not to mention that the other browsers' obviously include unpatched vulnerabilities in older versions that are not listed for Opera (as briefly mentioned at the end of "Others' responses")
- Security through obscurity is still security. If Opera becomes more popular in the future then it will probably become less secure and we'll update the article accordingly. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is rather misleading given that all the numbers bar the Opera (which has unchanged number of unpatched) are better in relative importance: 1 in 11 vs. 1 in 3 (Firefox), 1 in 5 vs. 1 in 3 (IE), 1 in 15 vs. 1 in 2 (Safari).
Are there any specific explanations for the unusually high market shares of Opera in some countries? Are there market share stats for non-computer use? (the Opera Mini stats given are apparently for total cross-platform use)
- I do not know of any specific explanation for Opera's higher market share in Europe. It could be because the Opera Software company is based in Norway, but I can't say for sure. As far as mobile browsing statistics, this quote sums it up nicely: "Finding data on mobile web traffic and mobile browser share is like pulling teeth." [18] —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
the MSN.com spat is neither really "reception" nor "criticism"- You've already renamed the section to "MSN.com controversy", so that should resolve the problem. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That was a quick-n-dirty fix. I'm still dubious that the section should be where it is. Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've reorganized the sections. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That was a quick-n-dirty fix. I'm still dubious that the section should be where it is. Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- You've already renamed the section to "MSN.com controversy", so that should resolve the problem. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Opera has also been criticized for website compatibility issues, partly because many web sites do not adhere to web standards as diligently as Opera. Because of this issue, recent versions of Opera include workarounds to help specific web sites display properly."
- This sentence is entirely sourced to Opera website material. It is also positively spun: the problem as perceived by users is more accurately that Opera could not display websites with non-standard code as intended by the designers where other browsers' quirks modes managed better.
- I have not found any good data on whether website compatibility issues are mainly web designers' fault or Opera's fault. The sentence that is in the article leaves open both possibilities. I do not think that we should slant the sentence towards it being Opera's fault because there have definitely been cases of poorly coded web pages causing problems, as with the MSN.com controversy. Also, Opera 9 does pass the Acid2 test, which uses invalid CSS to test for proper error handling. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't makes my remark about independant sourcing any less relevant. Circeus (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- All right, I've added some references to back this up. I did not explicitly discuss or add explicit references for the MSN.com example or the fact that Opera passes Acid2's CSS error handling test, since that is discussed in other parts of the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't makes my remark about independant sourcing any less relevant. Circeus (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have not found any good data on whether website compatibility issues are mainly web designers' fault or Opera's fault. The sentence that is in the article leaves open both possibilities. I do not think that we should slant the sentence towards it being Opera's fault because there have definitely been cases of poorly coded web pages causing problems, as with the MSN.com controversy. Also, Opera 9 does pass the Acid2 test, which uses invalid CSS to test for proper error handling. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- This sentence is entirely sourced to Opera website material. It is also positively spun: the problem as perceived by users is more accurately that Opera could not display websites with non-standard code as intended by the designers where other browsers' quirks modes managed better.
That section is weaker than it looks, and include no details about specifically recent versions (e.g. comparison between new and older versions). Such material could be included in the "Future development" which is otherwise mostly repeating Opera company statements.
- I'm not sure what you're getting at here. When I researched the topic, I found that criticism of Opera has consistently been largely positive, and it improved a bit when the ads were removed from Opera. Older versions of Opera did have some problems with handling web sites. But the later versions of Opera have been better, with more correct standards support and JavaScript workarounds for problematic sites. All this is discussed in the "Critical reception" section. What more would you like to see? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
statements about versions 9.5 and 10 look mildly outdated, and might need to be somewhat rephrased: if the schedule proceed as suggested, then 9.5 and 10 will be released within on month of each others!
- No, you misunderstand a bit. A final release of 9.5 is expected later this year. A preview release of 10 is expected at the end of the year. As I understand it, some development of 10 is happening at the same time as the 9.5 development, so it is entirely possible to have an early preview version of 10 shortly after the final release of 9.5. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why "internet suite" is used as the disambiguation: it is only really discused a a browser, with a very brief mention of Opera Mail the same issue could be leveled against the subarticles' title). Opera Mail needs at least a section dedicated to it before "internet suite" can be used accurately as a disambiguation parenthesis.
- Thank you for supporting! However, I'm not so sure that we should drop the references' links to Opera Software. Opera Software is mentioned so that the reader understands that the reference may be biased (though I believe I have avoided bias in the Wikipedia article itself). The name "Opera Software" is then wikilinked for clarity and so that the user can learn more about the company. It helps clarify because without linking, the casual reader might think that the source is a piece of software, and not realize that "Opera Software" is the name of a company. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Article is severely lacking in several areas:
- Lede mentions interactive televisions, but article has no details.
Fixed. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed? You added a reference, but as of two minutes ago, there was no new information about these in the article; your edit summary says "forthcoming". "Forthcoming" is not "fixed". [19]. Try not to bullshit your reviewers if you can help it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. I was going to make that change to the article, but apparently I failed to actually save the edit instead of just previewing it. This is the first time I've made that mistake. In any case, now it is actually Fixed. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. I was going to make that change to the article, but apparently I failed to actually save the edit instead of just previewing it. This is the first time I've made that mistake. In any case, now it is actually
- Fixed? You added a reference, but as of two minutes ago, there was no new information about these in the article; your edit summary says "forthcoming". "Forthcoming" is not "fixed". [19]. Try not to bullshit your reviewers if you can help it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lede could make a stronger case for notability (I seem to recall that Opera had several other "firsts" besides the phishing protection)
- Opera's "firsts" are not so important to establish notability. Opera's small but significant market share and its ability to run on devices that no other browser can on is the manifestation of its notability, and that is what is discussed. But what ultimately makes it notable is the existance of 3rd-party reviews and sources. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Photographs of games consoles add nothing to the article (yes, that's what the games console looks like, now what about the browser?)
- Including another non-free screenshot for each edition of Opera is shaky because of WP:NFC. It's better to leave the non-free screenshots for each edition's main article (Opera Mobile, Opera Mini, etc.). —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- The screenshots of the devices themselves are the next best thing. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't include them just because they're "the next best thing". If that's all they are, dump them! Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- So, if something isn't the best in terms of quality alone, it is worthless? I thought it's been made very clear that we seek a balance between free content and high-quality content. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about quality, it's about relevance. The images are not relevant to the scope of the article. Knowing what a Wii looks like is not relevant to any part of the article. If Opera could be shown running on the device, it would be relevant (but then the device shown would be a television rather than a Wii). The decision not to include fair use images should be based purely on legal issues, not on their quality. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The images illustrate the variety of devices that Opera is available for. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like a case for one image, showing several devices. For instance, you haven't shown a PDA at all. The three images you have included are all licensed GFDL, so there's no excuse. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nokia6630.jpg is of a smartphone, which is essentially a cell phone and a PDA combined. I do not think that combining the images together into a collage would increase the reader's understading of Opera by any appreciable amount. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would increase the readability of the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. Having one large image in the middle of the page, interrupting the text, is hardly better than having 3 or 4 smaller images unobtrusively to the right of the text. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you do realise that your style of argument just there is analogous with saying something like, "Trabant cars often fail, so all cars are unreliable". I'm challenging you to think harder. Can you? Keep in mind that featured articles are "the best of Wikipedia". Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I said at all. I said that splitting up the images is better because it doesn't interrupt the text. Also, I do not think that a collage of images would look as good as displaying the images separately. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You've got to fix your layout. I'm not going to do it for you, given your general attitude towards my edits. I have better things to spend my time on. Your layout needs help, though. Choppy, non-standard size images all the way down the right hand side of that section. Horrible. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it really looks all that bad. The images in the "Other editions" sections are different sizes to help give a sense of scale without being too big or too small. If you'd like to suggest a different way of doing this, I'd be happy to look at it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You mean you'll revert it right away? I think you need to revisit WP:OWN. It's not for you alone to decide what this article looks like. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I mean that we need to have consensus to make whatever changes you suggest. In this case, it would probably mean that we would both have to agree on your proposed changes. So, were you to suggest a change, we could discuss it and decide what should be done. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You mean you'll revert it right away? I think you need to revisit WP:OWN. It's not for you alone to decide what this article looks like. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it really looks all that bad. The images in the "Other editions" sections are different sizes to help give a sense of scale without being too big or too small. If you'd like to suggest a different way of doing this, I'd be happy to look at it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You've got to fix your layout. I'm not going to do it for you, given your general attitude towards my edits. I have better things to spend my time on. Your layout needs help, though. Choppy, non-standard size images all the way down the right hand side of that section. Horrible. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I said at all. I said that splitting up the images is better because it doesn't interrupt the text. Also, I do not think that a collage of images would look as good as displaying the images separately. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you do realise that your style of argument just there is analogous with saying something like, "Trabant cars often fail, so all cars are unreliable". I'm challenging you to think harder. Can you? Keep in mind that featured articles are "the best of Wikipedia". Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. Having one large image in the middle of the page, interrupting the text, is hardly better than having 3 or 4 smaller images unobtrusively to the right of the text. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It would increase the readability of the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Nokia6630.jpg is of a smartphone, which is essentially a cell phone and a PDA combined. I do not think that combining the images together into a collage would increase the reader's understading of Opera by any appreciable amount. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like a case for one image, showing several devices. For instance, you haven't shown a PDA at all. The three images you have included are all licensed GFDL, so there's no excuse. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The images illustrate the variety of devices that Opera is available for. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about quality, it's about relevance. The images are not relevant to the scope of the article. Knowing what a Wii looks like is not relevant to any part of the article. If Opera could be shown running on the device, it would be relevant (but then the device shown would be a television rather than a Wii). The decision not to include fair use images should be based purely on legal issues, not on their quality. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- So, if something isn't the best in terms of quality alone, it is worthless? I thought it's been made very clear that we seek a balance between free content and high-quality content. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't include them just because they're "the next best thing". If that's all they are, dump them! Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Opera masquerading as other browsers for website compatibility is important to mention, as this affects estimates of market share.
- Done. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's worrying that the cited market share figures come from only one source. More than one source is publicly available.
- Fixed. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lede mentions interactive televisions, but article has no details.
- I may come up with more once you fix these. Finally:
- Stability: Large parts of the article will have to be revised when Opera 9.5 comes out. Who will be around to do this?
- I ought to be around to do that. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stability: Large parts of the article will have to be revised when Opera 9.5 comes out. Who will be around to do this?
- Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Addition I think it would be good to show marketshare by platform, and say something about the rate at which the different platforms are growing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are simply no good statistics available to make that kind of comparison, sorry. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll comment on this later. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, so what are the browsers available for mobile phones/PDAs? I can see Internet Explorer Pocket Edition, Safari (presumably strings 31 and 41 refer to the iPhone edition?), and Opera Mini/Mobile in [20]. Surely, that can be compiled such as to show market share in the mobile market? Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- How do you know that the 31 and 41 refer to the iPhone edition? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, they don't: [21]. Build 41x refers to Safari 2.0. I'm sure it made sense to someone at the time. However, the iPhone builds are 41x builds, just look at [22]. However, this may be the data you're looking for: [23] The take-home message here is, it can be found if you're willing to look for it, and that's what's implied by the comprehensiveness requirement. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea to look at the statistics by operating system to differentiate the iPhone edition from the Mac edition! When I combined the statistics, here is what I got:
- Safari for iPhones: 0.09%
- Internet Explorer Mobile: 0.03%
- Opera Mini/Mobile: 0.02%
- Blazer: 0.02%
- Danger web browser: 0.02%
- Total mobile browser use: 0.18%
- Dividing by the total:
- Safari for iPhones 50%
- Internet Explorer Mobile: 17%
- Opera: 11%
- Blazer: 11%
- Danger web browser: 11%
- I've added this information to the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea to look at the statistics by operating system to differentiate the iPhone edition from the Mac edition! When I combined the statistics, here is what I got:
- Apparently, they don't: [21]. Build 41x refers to Safari 2.0. I'm sure it made sense to someone at the time. However, the iPhone builds are 41x builds, just look at [22]. However, this may be the data you're looking for: [23] The take-home message here is, it can be found if you're willing to look for it, and that's what's implied by the comprehensiveness requirement. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- How do you know that the 31 and 41 refer to the iPhone edition? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are simply no good statistics available to make that kind of comparison, sorry. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Carrying on with further severe complaints...
- I didn't complain about the lede earlier because I was going to give you a hand with that.[24] Clearly, you've chosen to simply revert[25] to your flawed version with the edit summary, "cutting lead section back down to 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD [...]", which is not what you've done. You simply reverted to your own favoured version. I am absolutely sick of your unprofessional behaviour in this FAC. My opinion remains that you need to seriously rethink the flow of those last two paragraphs of the lede because to me, they seem to be jumping back and forth. Furthermore, I question the decision to emphasise the desktop version when the mobile platform is where Opera is actually seeing growth. It's also clear that there needs to be an article Opera (desktop version) to give that version equal coverage as the various "embedded" variants. The Opera (web browser) article should then focus more strongly on the shared elements of the various versions, rather than treating the embedded versions as unusual aberrants (even though obviously, they are historically branches of the previous, desktop codebase).
- Your lead section had rather severe factual errors. You claimed that Opera has less of a market share than Konqueror, which is not true.
You claimed that Opera has a strong market share on mobile device platforms when we have no sources to back this up.You carelessly reverted the changes I made in response to a discussion concerning the lead section (Talk:Opera (web browser)#Features). You claimed that the Nintendo DS and Wii ship with Opera, which is not true. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)- Well, I don't know where you've put that "discussion", but it's clear that the article fails to state how Opera finds its way onto these various devices. Some kind of browser has to be there in the first place in order to download anything (if in the form of a package management software). That failing, the browser has to already be there. So which is it? Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- The discussion is at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Features. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- How does Opera get onto devices? Well, it depends:
- Opera for personal computers is unlikely to come pre-installed on computers due to its small market share, but there may be some computers that do come pre-installed with it. Users typically use the browser that comes with their computer (Internet Explorer, Safari, or Firefox) to download Opera, just like with other pieces of software. "Also, a number of Linux distributions have made Opera available through their package management systems. Ubuntu and Gentoo, for example, allow users to easily download and install Opera through their respective package managers."
- "Devices that use the UIQ 3 operating system, such as the Sony Ericsson P990 and Motorola RIZR Z8, come pre-installed with Opera Mobile, the price of Opera Mobile being included in the price of the phone."
- On other devices, Opera is installed just like installing any other program, whether by downloading the program from a personal computer and then transferring it to the device or by downloading it directly to the device.
- "The Nintendo DS Browser is likewise not free; it is sold as a physical DS game cartridge."
- "Opera for the Wii, called the Internet Channel, was free to download from its release on April 12, 2007 until June 30, 2007. After June 30, Wii users had to pay 500 Wii Points to download it."
- So you see, how Opera is distributed depends on the device. But in short, you would install Opera just like any other piece of software. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No use stating that here, is it? That kind of stuff needs to be in the article, preferably briefly in the lede. You seem to be concerned that your lede might get too long. I don't think that's the case. And just to give another example that I just noticed, the article says Opera now costs 500 Wii points. I had to go to and read half the Wii Points article to find out that that's 5 USD. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's really rather pointless to say "Opera is installed just like any other piece of software." That fact is implied by just knowing that Opera is a piece of software. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No Sir, it is not. A lot of mobile devices come with a browser pre-installed. A large number of users never bother to change what was pre-installed. The crucial question here is, is Opera that pre-installed browser? On any device? Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Opera is now free for the desktop, but clearly not for various other platforms. This is a crucial distinction in Opera's business model, and for how consumers think about Opera. Please familiarise yourself with the fact that a large number of browsers now exist that are open source and free of charge. They may or may not be available for particular devices that Opera supports, but the point has been made that you can't assume that people expect to pay for their browser and therefore not mention it, because those days are in the past. An encyclopaedic article is for giving an overview, the bigger picture, and "your" article is failing in this respect. You may want to take a look at some other FACs for reference, such as enzyme inhibitor and influenza, both by an editor who is known for having his FACs go smoothly. In essence, an FAC is not about defending your article. It's about applying those changes that remain in order to get the article ready for prime time. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't understand where you're coming from. The article already states "Devices that use the UIQ 3 operating system, such as the Sony Ericsson P990 and Motorola RIZR Z8, come pre-installed with Opera Mobile, the price of Opera Mobile being included in the price of the phone." The lead clearly states "Opera is offered free of charge for personal computers and mobile phones, but for other devices it must be purchased." —Remember the dot (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- And in that, the lede contradicts the article. If there are devices that have the device pre-installed, that should be stated accurately in the lede. "purchase" to me implies a separate transaction. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I've rephrased the lead and noted the number of mobile phones that come pre-installed with Opera. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- And in that, the lede contradicts the article. If there are devices that have the device pre-installed, that should be stated accurately in the lede. "purchase" to me implies a separate transaction. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just don't understand where you're coming from. The article already states "Devices that use the UIQ 3 operating system, such as the Sony Ericsson P990 and Motorola RIZR Z8, come pre-installed with Opera Mobile, the price of Opera Mobile being included in the price of the phone." The lead clearly states "Opera is offered free of charge for personal computers and mobile phones, but for other devices it must be purchased." —Remember the dot (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the price in USD of the Internet Channel to the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's really rather pointless to say "Opera is installed just like any other piece of software." That fact is implied by just knowing that Opera is a piece of software. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No use stating that here, is it? That kind of stuff needs to be in the article, preferably briefly in the lede. You seem to be concerned that your lede might get too long. I don't think that's the case. And just to give another example that I just noticed, the article says Opera now costs 500 Wii points. I had to go to and read half the Wii Points article to find out that that's 5 USD. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know where you've put that "discussion", but it's clear that the article fails to state how Opera finds its way onto these various devices. Some kind of browser has to be there in the first place in order to download anything (if in the form of a package management software). That failing, the browser has to already be there. So which is it? Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, I've reincorporated some of your changes, and the last two paragraphs should flow better now. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to make an article on Opera (web browser) and separate out Opera (desktop edition). The desktop edition is the flagship product. The other editions follow after it. And since the features offered vary from edition to edition, especially in the very small Opera Mini application, there's not enough common ground to devote a whole new article to similarities between the editions. It's better to discuss each edition's similarities and differences to the flagship edition of Opera, and that discussion would go in each edition's main article. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your lead section had rather severe factual errors. You claimed that Opera has less of a market share than Konqueror, which is not true.
- Which brings me to my final point, which is that the "History" section says nothing about the origins of the various mobile and mini versions. Yet another serious shortcoming in light of the comprehensiveness criterion.
- That's not really true. The article states "In an attempt to capitalize on the emerging market for Internet-connected handheld devices, a project to port Opera to mobile device platforms was started in 1998." Do you have any more information than this that we could include? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Availability of information is not a constraint on the comprehensiveness criterion. Just because we can't find any information about X, doesn't mean an empty article about X can be an FA. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Information about the launch of Opera Mobile is now available at Opera Mobile#History, and information about Opera Mini's launch is available at Opera Mini#History. Both of these sections are now linked to at the top of Opera (web browser)#History. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's just not enough. To count towards the comprehensiveness criterion, it has to be in the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. The article now does a better job of summarizing the articles on the four other editions of Opera, including their origins and release dates. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, no, actually. Not in the history section, it doesn't. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The history section, like almost all of the article, is focused on the desktop edition. There are "See also" links for more information, plus a discussion of history in each of the sections on the four "branched off" editions. I disagree that all the history on all the editions should be combined into a single, massive history section. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, no, actually. Not in the history section, it doesn't. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. The article now does a better job of summarizing the articles on the four other editions of Opera, including their origins and release dates. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's just not enough. To count towards the comprehensiveness criterion, it has to be in the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Information about the launch of Opera Mobile is now available at Opera Mobile#History, and information about Opera Mini's launch is available at Opera Mini#History. Both of these sections are now linked to at the top of Opera (web browser)#History. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Availability of information is not a constraint on the comprehensiveness criterion. Just because we can't find any information about X, doesn't mean an empty article about X can be an FA. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's not really true. The article states "In an attempt to capitalize on the emerging market for Internet-connected handheld devices, a project to port Opera to mobile device platforms was started in 1998." Do you have any more information than this that we could include? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't complain about the lede earlier because I was going to give you a hand with that.[24] Clearly, you've chosen to simply revert[25] to your flawed version with the edit summary, "cutting lead section back down to 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD [...]", which is not what you've done. You simply reverted to your own favoured version. I am absolutely sick of your unprofessional behaviour in this FAC. My opinion remains that you need to seriously rethink the flow of those last two paragraphs of the lede because to me, they seem to be jumping back and forth. Furthermore, I question the decision to emphasise the desktop version when the mobile platform is where Opera is actually seeing growth. It's also clear that there needs to be an article Opera (desktop version) to give that version equal coverage as the various "embedded" variants. The Opera (web browser) article should then focus more strongly on the shared elements of the various versions, rather than treating the embedded versions as unusual aberrants (even though obviously, they are historically branches of the previous, desktop codebase).
Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I think when you say interactive television, you mean set-top box. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, interactive televisions use set-top boxes, that is correct. Set-top boxes are used for a variety of purposes, not just for interactive televisions. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interactive television as defined in the article about the subject has features that many of the set-top boxes that run Opera don't have. Having internet access apparently doesn't make a set-top box into "interactive television". We can't have one article contradicting another. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I see your point. I've changed the article to use the more general term "set-top box", since the set-top boxes do not necessarily have to provide interactive television services. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interactive television as defined in the article about the subject has features that many of the set-top boxes that run Opera don't have. Having internet access apparently doesn't make a set-top box into "interactive television". We can't have one article contradicting another. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, interactive televisions use set-top boxes, that is correct. Set-top boxes are used for a variety of purposes, not just for interactive televisions. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- We don't seem to be able to get into clear waters with this article. I disagree with the wholesale deletion of the statistics that we worked on. If you were unsure of the accuracy of the figures, it would have been better to put in the little phrase "According to [...]" rather than disregard the evidence entirely. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the current "about 1%" is better than the 0.61% to 1.41%. It's actually serves as decent summary statistics of the situation that even a reader without rigorous knowledge of statistics can verify. The phrase "about 1%" gives both a central tendency and dispersion that better describes the data than giving the entire range of measured values. The only thing I would add at this point is more information on the mobile usage share, which is about 0.02% compared to about 0.09% for the iPhone. With references to the NetApplications data and a source verifying that Safari is the only browser on the iPhone, it would serve as comparison of Opera's usage share to the most current popular mobile browser. I would also use the article I link to as a source, to show the same kind of analysis of mobile usage share from a reliable source (ComputerWorld). -- Schapel (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right: The article is not complete without a quantitative statement about the share within the mobile segment. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- All the 11% figure is is a comparison of Opera's usage share on mobile devices versus the market share of competing mobile web browsers. Net Applications tells us that only five mobile browsers have a significant usage share: Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera Mini, Blazer, and Danger. So, all you have to do is add up all of their usage shares and divide Opera Mini's share from the total, and you have the approximate usage share of Opera Mini compared to other mobile browsers. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis, assuming you have accurately determined which browsers are running on mobile devices and which are not. On the other hand, it is an original analysis, and original analysis is disallowed on Wikipedia. Also, the statement "Opera has an 11% usage share on mobile browsers" is not a proper use of the term usage share. In addition, you do not give enough information for any reader to verify your analysis (for example, how can the reader verify which numbers from NetApplications apply to mobile devices and which do not). -- Schapel (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. I've removed the 11% statistic until someone publishes this outside Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, this is ridiculous. Simply presenting the data in a more convenient form for readers' benefit does not constitute original research. It's a trivial piece of arithmetic. And if you object to it, you can always present the data as originally given, i.e. "overall market share of mobile browsers is ..., of which Opera Mobile+Mini contribute ..." Just make it unambiguous. You're really making this more difficult than it really is. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- To find the 11% statistic, I had to make 3 assumptions: that Net Applications collects its operating system statistics the same way that it collects web browser statistics, that an insignificant number of iPhone users use a browser other than Safari, and that an insignificant number of users use Opera Mobile. I'm very confident on the first two, but the third I'm not so sure on. [26] says that Opera Mobile, or at least old versions of it, self-identify as Internet Explorer. Thus, the third assumption is far too shaky to enable us to use these statistics. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stating a lower bound is better than not saying anything. Comprehensiveness, please. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Even so, because of the other two assumptions it just looks too much like original research. If someone outside Wikipedia who is qualified to make such an analysis made the analysis, we would have a stronger case for including it. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stating a lower bound is better than not saying anything. Comprehensiveness, please. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To find the 11% statistic, I had to make 3 assumptions: that Net Applications collects its operating system statistics the same way that it collects web browser statistics, that an insignificant number of iPhone users use a browser other than Safari, and that an insignificant number of users use Opera Mobile. I'm very confident on the first two, but the third I'm not so sure on. [26] says that Opera Mobile, or at least old versions of it, self-identify as Internet Explorer. Thus, the third assumption is far too shaky to enable us to use these statistics. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Guys, this is ridiculous. Simply presenting the data in a more convenient form for readers' benefit does not constitute original research. It's a trivial piece of arithmetic. And if you object to it, you can always present the data as originally given, i.e. "overall market share of mobile browsers is ..., of which Opera Mobile+Mini contribute ..." Just make it unambiguous. You're really making this more difficult than it really is. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. I've removed the 11% statistic until someone publishes this outside Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis, assuming you have accurately determined which browsers are running on mobile devices and which are not. On the other hand, it is an original analysis, and original analysis is disallowed on Wikipedia. Also, the statement "Opera has an 11% usage share on mobile browsers" is not a proper use of the term usage share. In addition, you do not give enough information for any reader to verify your analysis (for example, how can the reader verify which numbers from NetApplications apply to mobile devices and which do not). -- Schapel (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the current "about 1%" is better than the 0.61% to 1.41%. It's actually serves as decent summary statistics of the situation that even a reader without rigorous knowledge of statistics can verify. The phrase "about 1%" gives both a central tendency and dispersion that better describes the data than giving the entire range of measured values. The only thing I would add at this point is more information on the mobile usage share, which is about 0.02% compared to about 0.09% for the iPhone. With references to the NetApplications data and a source verifying that Safari is the only browser on the iPhone, it would serve as comparison of Opera's usage share to the most current popular mobile browser. I would also use the article I link to as a source, to show the same kind of analysis of mobile usage share from a reliable source (ComputerWorld). -- Schapel (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support In reviewing the article, I've found several instances where the article said something considerably different from the source cited. If the article and sources are thoroughly compared and we've ensured that the sources properly verify the information in the article, you have my support for featured status. It's an excellent article overall. -- Schapel 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reference issue that you pointed out at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Market adoption has been fixed. I didn't notice any other inconsistencies. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have since pointed out more. I would ask that all sources be checked carefully that they actually verify the content of the article. I'll do what I can, but I'm sure others can point out inaccuracies as well. -- Schapel 16:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the statement that you tagged with {{vague}}. I'm looking forward to seeing the result of the discussion at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Opera security about how to change how the article treats Opera's security, if any changes really need to be made at all. I think it's fine the way it is, but I am monitoring the discussion and I'm open to suggestions. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at it again it looks like the discussion has died down, so people must be happy with the current revision of the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have since pointed out more. I would ask that all sources be checked carefully that they actually verify the content of the article. I'll do what I can, but I'm sure others can point out inaccuracies as well. -- Schapel 16:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reference issue that you pointed out at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Market adoption has been fixed. I didn't notice any other inconsistencies. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Adam78 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. One thing though: the tool has trouble with Software Review: Opera browser for Windows v3.62. The tool and the site do not get along well - whenever the tool is used the site gives a 404. But when you visit the web site yourself (try clicking refresh), the request goes through properly. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support wow! - definitely and unquestionably FA quality.
--Keerllston 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
PS:minor question: do you know what kind of sites would have a lot of javascript/would run faster on Opera?- I think (but can't say for sure) that pretty much every site that uses JavaScript will benefit from Opera's optimizations. But on a fast system, the optimizations might not make much difference anyway. Anyway, thanks for evaluating this article! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reminder to closing editor: Some of the discussion relating to this FAC is taking place on the talk page of the article. Some issues are discussed there that aren't being discussed here, and their progress should be taken into account when closing this FAC. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? The only active complaint I'm seeing is your desire to include the 11% statistic for Opera's presence on mobile devices, despite both Schapel and I's uneasiness about including it. If we had a better source for that claim then it would be fine, but considering the sources we have we'd better just leave it out for now. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but can you fix the US$ issue? And I see "5-6%"—Read MOS on en dashes. And I don't know how to get around this, but surely we don't have to have "Response to Opera has been largely positive,[77][78][79][80][81]", and other huge lines of superscripts (they're very ungainly and intrusive). "there are editions of Opera available for" --> "editions of Opera are available for". "full-fledged"—no, "fully fledged", no hyphen, of course, after -LY. Tony (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've Fixed all of those issues except for "full-fledged". I honestly think that "full-fledged" sounds better, but you can change the wording if you really want to. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.
United Nations Parliamentary Assembly[edit]
Self-nom. After years of edits, this article looks about ready for featured status. Captain Zyrain 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Feature this. --Mac 09:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very substantial improvements needed - I just glanced at a couple things: The references need to be formatted with authors, publishers, dates, and access dates. The graph collides with the chart next to it. And woah! Image:Possibleunpalogo.jpg is pure original research. Please see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I am reluctant to delve further after that affront to policy. Publicola 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The references have mostly been fixed; however, are access dates mandatory? I don't know of another place in the article for the chart; where it is now seems to be a logical location. As for the logo, that originally came from http://en.unpacampaign.org/about/unpa/index.php?PHPSESSID=d0ef973fbc1e5ad12d5ad39aed656bd1 , and they released it into the GFDL so that we could use it. Captain Zyrain 07:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The flag needs a source cite in the caption, then. Publicola 03:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I was going to ask for User:Publicola to review his decision in light of the revisions, but he's under an indefinite block. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The flag needs a source cite in the caption, then. Publicola 03:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The references have mostly been fixed; however, are access dates mandatory? I don't know of another place in the article for the chart; where it is now seems to be a logical location. As for the logo, that originally came from http://en.unpacampaign.org/about/unpa/index.php?PHPSESSID=d0ef973fbc1e5ad12d5ad39aed656bd1 , and they released it into the GFDL so that we could use it. Captain Zyrain 07:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it meet #1e Stable, and the low standards that it sets. Learnedo 01:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support featured article status. Tfleming 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Image:UNPA voting chart.JPG needs references on the image page to show that the data is verifiable and from reliable sources. gren グレン 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done The new image is at Image:UNPA Allocation.png Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Request for review of oppose vote left 12-10-07. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—Change to neutral. 2 (MOS breaches).
- Stubby paragraphing makes an awful, disjointed read. Look at the History section, for example. You can probably remove the bullets and make normal paras in "Apportionment of votes".
- Done Bullets have been removed and now all paras have at least three sentences. Sarsaparilla 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The" is missing before "direct election" in the lead, BTW.
- Done Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't MOS insist on reference numbers after the final punctuation? It's very ungainly at the moment.
- Done Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- "We the peoples . . ." I think MOS says to use just three normal periods rather than this space-filled thing.
- Done Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Graph: why the .00 on all of the y-axis values? One man would be better as person, if you made the graph yourself.
- Done Is there any way to upload Excel or OpenOffice files to Wikipedia so that it will be easier for future users to redo/update as the data changes? Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sentence, not title case in titles.
- Done Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- MOS says not to italicise a quote just because it's a quote. Tony (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Sarsaparilla 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not that I'm rushing anyone but for the record, I left a request on 12/4/07 for review of these comments. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note:
This article still has numerous MOS issues and lists that could be converted to prose. The External links farm needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT, the citations are not fully and correctly completed and formatted (see WP:CITE/ES), See also is lengthy and many of those articles should be worked into the text or eliminated (see WP:GTL), there is incorrect bolding in the text (WP:MOSBOLD), the Support section could be converted to compelling prose, dates are not correctly formatted (see WP:MOSDATE, for example, UNA-USA members also criticized the idea at their June 26-28, 2003 national forum ...), footnote placement is not correct (see WP:FN but I will fix those this time), the Opposition and Support section headings don't conform to WP:MSH, and there are external jumps to websites imbedded in the text (external websites belong in External links or references). Please find someone you can work with to bring these issues to standard.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)- Done (I think.) The EL's have been completely eliminated (all were either redundant or in violation of WP:EL); See also has been pared down; bolding has been corrected; support and opposition sections have been fixed and combined into one; dates have been fixed; and the embedded external link has been fixed. I added the retrieved on dates and attempted to follow examples from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style and Template:Cite web Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There are still significant problems here. I struck some items; there was some dramatic misunderstanding on WP:MOSDATE, so I reformatted all of your dates. Please be sure to have a look at WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSNUM and WP:CITE/ES. The citations are still off; several are missing publishers, there is an uncited direct quote, one BBC citation I clicked on didn't lead to the sourse specified (BBC Poll: Why Democracy?, BBC, August 2007. led to a different October 2007 article), and some of the titles specified in the citations aren't to the correct article title. This article is much improved over what first appeared here; if you get the sourcing cleaned up perhaps others will more closely examine the text for content issues.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)- If you're talking about Schwartzberg's quote, I went ahead and put the source. With some of those items that have now been tagged "citation needed," I had put the citation at the end of the para because there were several facts in that para derived from the same source. I fixed the BBC poll cite. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking closer now at the content, this article has serious 1c issues; unattributed opinion, weasle words, uncited direct quotes, and an important lack of citation and attribution throughout.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, serious 1c and 2 issues,will leave this one to Raul's decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)- Done (with everything tagged). I'm having a bit of trouble getting the refs the way you want them. Feel free to tag more stuff if you want. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dramatically improved.
A few things: can you recast this sentence to avoid starting the sentence with a number (19.1% responded "Very unlikely – it is a bad idea ... ) The lead makes no mention of opposition, while it does mention support. Please summarize opposing viewpoint to the lead, for balance. And, I think the lead is an appropriate size now, but it could use some paragraphs, instead of being one big chunk of text. Is is possible to re-locate that graph somewhere else, because the layout is jarring having the graph right above the table. If not, relocate the table?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- Done I moved the table to the right, which looks okay on my 22" WSXGA+. Let me know if that's unacceptable. Sarsaparilla (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, one more problem; see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD, the bolded words in the title line shouldn't be linked; you have to find a way to link those later.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- Done Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You got the bolded words in the lead, but it looks like you missed my comment right above that.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- Improving! One last issue. This sentence in the lead is what Tony1 (talk · contribs) calls a snake that needs chopping, by the time I get to the end of the sentence, I forget where it started :-)) "Cold War tensions limited international cooperation in UN reform among other areas, but during that period and the subsequent years, a great number of changes took place that affected the environment for UN Parliamentary Assembly proposals in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse." Perhaps it's time to ask Tony to revisit his Oppose and look at the prose? I'm afraid he may find similar issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Let me know if you find similar issues elsewhere. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still finding prose, attribution and possible POV issues; rather than fill up the FAC page, I've continued examples on Sarsaparilla's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I rewrote the lead and fixed all attribution issues (I think). Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved the comments to Talk:United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still finding prose, attribution and possible POV issues; rather than fill up the FAC page, I've continued examples on Sarsaparilla's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Improving! One last issue. This sentence in the lead is what Tony1 (talk · contribs) calls a snake that needs chopping, by the time I get to the end of the sentence, I forget where it started :-)) "Cold War tensions limited international cooperation in UN reform among other areas, but during that period and the subsequent years, a great number of changes took place that affected the environment for UN Parliamentary Assembly proposals in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse." Perhaps it's time to ask Tony to revisit his Oppose and look at the prose? I'm afraid he may find similar issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dramatically improved.
- (outdent) continued review: Why are solo years linked in the lead? (See WP:MOSDATE.) Per WP:OVERLINKing, does a common term known to most English speakers like World War II need to be linked? I've struck my oppose, since my more serious concerns about attribution and POV have been addressed, but since this is a completely rewritten article from what appeared here months ago, I hope it will receive additional content review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Hmm, where will I find more editors to review this article? Wait, I notice there are still some wikiprojects I haven't contacted... Anyway, I fixed those dates and wikilinks. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature it . Thought It was very well done. Sarsaparilla hasdone a great job editing and correcting all the differences of opinions. Callelinea (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, very well done article after much hard editing. Feature it. (♠Taifarious1♠) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose awarding it feature status. The introduction has way too much information. Style suggests that an international parliament is a lot more closer to implementation than what it really is. Kransky (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Wikipedia:Lead section requires a certain amount of info, but I suppose some content would be better moved to the History section.... so I have done so. I think I have addressed your latter concern as well by changes. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Request for review of oppose vote made 12-10-07. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature it . Excellent . A M M A R 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose unless all the tags are dealt with and there is something negative: I can't find criticism of the idea in this article, if it was perfect it would have been done already. Must be some government complaining about cost, competition with other organs, problem of dictatorships or concerns about sovereignty. There also seems little on background, such as the dictator club talked about on the talk page- could do more with that kind of politics. - J Logan t: 09:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)- Done Tags have been dealt with. Sources for some content could not be found and that content was accordingly removed. Citations for various "weasel" or "fact"-tagged stuff were added. As for the dictator club stuff, those same potential arguments against a UN Parliamentary Assembly could be used against the UN in general, which includes China and other undemocratic states on the UN Security Council and used to include them on human rights councils. I don't see those being raised too much about the UNPA but if you can find them, please include them. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I still find it biased in favour of the idea, there is no critique or opposing argument or even a mention of any problems like gaining turnout, financing or how can it be democratic when not all members are democracies? - J Logan t: 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)- Done I added a section dealing with the latter two issues. Part of the problem with finding info on those other subjects may be that the UNPA proposal is basically in the same stage of development as the International Criminal Court prior to promulgation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998, when it began appearing on conservatives' radar screen. The opposition just hasn't organized in earnest yet. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, so while I still think there is more to be said the lack of material makes it difficult to write about. Regardless, writing does sound very pro but its not big deal, I'm striking my oppose. Support.
Objection I don't like it, it's got numerous style issues - a total of two pictures - really extremely lacking context in terms of what the UN has been- and seems POV'ed towards "global democracy activism"..."They have recently gained traction amidst increasing globalization, as national parliamentarians and citizens' groups use the Internet to organize activists and seek to counter the growing influence of unelected international bureaucracies." sounds heavily POV, it is unreferenced, it seems OR, -
--Keerllston 13:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)- Done Added a pic, and some more context about UN history. Got rid of that sentence you objected to. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Objection Sufficiently Adressed--Keerllston 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature it. While it might not be outstanding among featured articles on other subjects, it is one of the best among UN-related articles, which are often of somewhat embarrassing quality. That makes the bar a little lower, in my opinion. Anything to draw attention into this area is good, if only to start setting standards. The subject itself is also very important and timely.Goatchurch (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature it - I think Goatchurch makes a good comment on how we should approach this. I think a photograph of the Assembly in session would be a very good improvement, but I'm aware of how difficult that would be to source (imagery cannot be taken by members of the public, IIRC), so it shouldn't be used as an unreasonable stopper. James F. (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- 50 editors and counting contacted on talk pages, [27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, I figured someone would eventually notice that. For awhile there I was having difficulty getting ppl to review the article so I started contacting people on the United Nations, International relations, and International law wikiprojects. It wasn't intended necessarily to influence the result in favor of FA status, though; invariably there is also a possibility that it will draw more Oppose votes, but those provide useful suggestions too so in the end I think it was helpful. Thank you in particular, SandyGeorgia, for taking the time to look at the article, tag those issues and provide tips. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like it noted here that I 110% do not approve of contacting over 50 editors - in my opinion, that's shamelessly trying to obtain support votes. Not commendable in any way. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I deeply regret this grave offense to your sensibilities. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd just like it noted here that I 110% do not approve of contacting over 50 editors - in my opinion, that's shamelessly trying to obtain support votes. Not commendable in any way. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just commenting, since the article sat here neglected for two months with no one addressing the issues, and suddenly is getting support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very commendable Friendly Notice-work! (to Sarsa parilla) nicely done Sarsaparilla.--Keerllston 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature this article - I highly support this one...A very intriguing topic, good work - keep chillin'n (Tparker393 (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
- The above is the user's first edit since August 24, 2006, what would make the first thing he does in 16 months support this :\ M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to my instant message to him the other day saying "Hey, can you review this article," his passion for UN- and parliamentary assembly-related topics may also have contributed to the impetus by which he sprang into action. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I feel that this article is remiscient in lacking the context or "background" or "big picture"
-in terms of democracy- democracy has basically existed in Norsemandy and Greece- not really a global thing... not really a real thing... how many countries are truly democracies nowadays anyway and not "hybrid systems" or similar?
- in terms of UN / UN efficiency-... Whileit would take 1/3 of the votesin the current UN [populous countries] are not very well represented in the general assemblythey generally are[there is a compensations] in terms of veto power - China, India (i believe), USA (among others) have veto over resolutions... -and any parliamentary democratic organization would fall prey to the same/similar obstacles
--Keerllston 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- In reference to your first question, see http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2007 As for the second question, I'm not sure what obstacle the permanent five would pose to a UNPA, other than that they could veto a UN Charter amendment if that were the route proponents tried to take to implement the UNPA. I need more clarification as to what exactly you are objecting to and want changed. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature it a very well-done article --dotDarkCloud (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OpposeI like it and I want to support it
Idealistic tone rather than encyclopedic register. Uncomprehensive in terms of democracy within UN and similar multinational diplomatic organizations. Organization leaves to be desired in such as "objections" and "support and opposition" being unconnected headings within the article.
--Keerllston 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- Done I merged the "objections" and "support and opposition" into new sections in accordance with Talk:United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Pro_.26_Con. I need some examples of what you mean by idealistic tone. I also don't understand what you mean by "Uncomprehensive in terms of democracy within UN and similar multinational diplomatic organizations." Are you talking about the democratic nature of the governments of member states, or of the international organizations themselves? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Although I personally strongly support the UNPA creation, I'm not sure it is a FA standard or could be for the near future. The guidelines state:
A featured article ... has the following attributes:
It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- Comprehensive? Very little has been published analysing the pros, cons, or implications of having a UNPA. Major issues - big vs. small countries, rich vs. poor, democratic vs autocratic, powers, relationship with other UN agencies etc. have not even been touched on.
- Done Enough has been published to write a sufficiently sourced article covering the major points. I will keep adding stuff as deficiencies are pointed out. But I thought the big vs. small issue was touched on in United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Apportionment_of_votes? And democratic vs. autocratic touched on in United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Legitimacy and accountability? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources
- Many of the value statements are unsourced.
- Done I added sources to pretty much everything and removed statements that could not be sourced. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
- Not very concise at the moment.
- Done Rewritten. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
- Not much of a structure at the moment.
- Done I restructured it. Do you have any specific recommendations. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
- Could do with mroe diagrams, photographs etc.
- Done I added a few pics. More have been requested from CEUNPA. I am waiting to hear back. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is FA really the way to go with this? Why not have a peer review or go for GA instead? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- It can get to FA; just keep the comments coming and I will keep improving it. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Request for review of this comment left 12-13-07. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Feature it - It's a pretty good article. Keep working on it and it will get even better. Nice job indeed.--Andronicus92 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, this page has a strange feel to it. All of these unusually worded declarations "Feature it", etc, appear to have been posted by people suddenly dropping in for the first time. The article is quite well-written. Tony (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's probably a result of people coming directly here through talk page wikilinks as opposed to the main Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page, and then following the example of editors before them. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good Article- Nice article, but something is still missing, dunno what? Probably more photos and charts. But I vote for it!--Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Sarsaparilla (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, much improved- I am amazed at the speed of your editing.
ObjectOrganization problems remain... no sub-headings. I feel it now has within reached compherensibility within the context of UN but not in the context of "democracy" or global centralized legislation. It would definitely be a huge step in both and it is would be a huge development of both. oh - "Basic implementation options" could be better named"implementation" or"ratification" or ...(IPU not IPA)-
--Keerllston 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- Done I was having trouble figuring out what headings to group sub-headings under. I had thought of grouping them under Controversial issues and Implementation details, but most subjects (e.g. Powers) fall under both. See Talk:United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly#Structure.2C_cont.27d. However, subheadings might not be necessary; see, for instance, Senate of Canada, which is a featured article with a mostly "flat" hierarchy. If you want a different hierarchy, please provide some suggestions because I'm at a loss. In reference to the global legislating thing, I guess I could compare it to failed proposals such as the binding triad. I have done so. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- D - let me see - let me provide suggestions for better organization: "Implementation rename to "Possible ratification" or similar - history to "history of proposals" - Group under "Possible Implementation" the different versions it could be, the different ways it could be implemented, funding, etc...
while subheadings might not be necessary - they are definitely good if done well.
I hope I have not been frustratingly unclear - I often am, and if I have been I am sorry - it has not been my intention.
--Keerllston 13:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the organization is OK as is but feel free to be bold if you want to try something else. Sarsaparilla (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- D - let me see - let me provide suggestions for better organization: "Implementation rename to "Possible ratification" or similar - history to "history of proposals" - Group under "Possible Implementation" the different versions it could be, the different ways it could be implemented, funding, etc...
- Clarification of Objection: I think I finally know what I meant - I meant that the UNPA is a government - the UN today is a diplomatic organization. This is not substantially in the article - a comprehensive version would.--Keerllston 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. NATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe have parliamentary assemblies, but they are not governments. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- D ahh... so instead of UNPA is a parliamenobably would be called tary assembly - not a government - (are there governments whose legislative branches are parliamentary assemblies?) - I think we understand each other... there's a history here that is not in the article that is necessary for comprehensiveness. This would be the biggest - in fact would be a global - parliamentary assembly. Some note of the history of parliamentary assemblies is necessary therefore in order to achieve comprehensiveness. (completely separate point from that of article organization)--Keerllston 13:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I agree that more coverage of other parliamentary assemblies was needed, so I added some info on them and a sidebar. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. NATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe have parliamentary assemblies, but they are not governments. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose UNPA or IPU or UNGA or ... - bizzare concentration on hypothetical existence general global parliamentary assembly which is not UNPA (necessarily) despite it's title of debatable likeliness!--Keerllston 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's a misunderstanding here. UNGA is the UN General Assembly. IPU is the Inter-Parliamentary Union which is, perhaps, the closest thing we have now to a UNPA, but its membership is smaller than the UN's and apparently "IPU conducts almost all of its meetings behind closed doors" (see http://tonyfleming.org/index.php?paged=2 ); as a public body, the UNPA would presumably be more open. A UNPA probably would be called "UN Parliamentary Assembly" or something similar, as that would follow the precedent of other international organizations' parliamentary assemblies, and that is the terminology used by the CEUNPA and many other sources, so it seems like a pretty reasonable article title. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.
Loveless (album)[edit]
- check links LuciferMorgan 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination This article (about a very influential and critically-acclaimed album by alt-rock band My Bloody Valentine) has been part of a months-long collaboration between me and fellow WikiProject Alternative music members Ceoil and Brandt Luke Zorn. It was one of the project's Collaborations of the Week back in August, and the page has been recently promoted as a Good Article. We've worked hard on the article, and now feel it's ready for FA status. Any concerns should be addressed promptly. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments I'll make comments here as I find things to comment on;
- "Shields wavers his guitar's tremolo bar as he strums, which contributes, in part, to the band's unique sound.[26]" - The fact this contributes to the band's alleged (alleged since I'm unfamiliar with the group) unique sound is the opinion of Jim DeRogatis. The statement should reflect this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's the defining trait of My Bloody Valentine as described by a number of critics. It's been ripped off a lot since then, so maybe it should be rephrased to "distinctive". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- LuciferMorgan's suggestion is best in this situation, especially with an easily-misleading statement. Find several sources that agree for the sentence to remain the same. NSR77 TC 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's generally pointed out by sources as the band's definiing trait (for example, the McGonigal book spends a chapter on it, and guitar magazines always describe it). As there is a consensus of sources, I'll just change it to "distinctive". WesleyDodds (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- LuciferMorgan's suggestion is best in this situation, especially with an easily-misleading statement. Find several sources that agree for the sentence to remain the same. NSR77 TC 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Despite a severe shortage of money, Creation funded a short tour of the north of England late in 1991." - Do your sources support using the word "severe"? LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to ask Ceoil about that, but it is established by a number of sources that Creation was in dire financial straits at this time. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lucifer, I'll have to check tonight if the word severe is used on the cited page, but the preceeding chapters detail Creation's near bankrupt situation in fine detail. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning the accuracy, but am merely wondering if the word "severe" is warranted. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lucifer, I'll have to check tonight if the word severe is used on the cited page, but the preceeding chapters detail Creation's near bankrupt situation in fine detail. Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Per my GA based review, I have no issues. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- There is inconsistency when introducing direct quotes. Some sentences introduce a quote with a colon, others with a comma.
- I'll fix this soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done WesleyDodds (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The commentary for the "Only Shallow" sound sample needs to be attributed to a source (I believe that is ref #32) in order to qualify as fair use. Just need to add that source to the sample box is all, so that someone, such as I, won't have to search within the body for verification. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need for a reference because the information listed in infobox comments is right next to it in the paragraph about the drums on the album. As the body of the article discusses this, it qualifies under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know it qualifies under fair use and I see the ref, I found it in the text. My point is that I had to look for it. It's just a minor thing. Simply add the ref (32) to the sample box as well, which would make it easier for any reviewer to navigate to it, rather than having to search for it in the text.
- There's no need for a reference because the information listed in infobox comments is right next to it in the paragraph about the drums on the album. As the body of the article discusses this, it qualifies under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support
with comments- I gave the article a light copyedit (that was all that was needed), but a small issue remains:
The beginning of the second paragraph of the "reception" section states: "reviews of Loveless praised the album for its groundbreaking nature." That's a little POV ("groundbreaking" is a peacock word), and should probably be truncated to read "reviews of Loveless praised the album." Edit it how you see fit.- Reworded with reference. With "groundbreaking" I was trying to sum up what reviewers generally said about the album, but no big deal. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Done
- Reworded with reference. With "groundbreaking" I was trying to sum up what reviewers generally said about the album, but no big deal. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article is comprehensive, informative and engaging. I'm sure the above-mentioned issue will be dealt with swiftly, so I'm giving this article my full endorsement. Grim (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments/questions: these are really requests for clarifications, since I'm not sure if they're mistakes or not. As such, they may all be non-actionable:
First, I take it that the use of "nineteen" in the Lead ("between 1989 and 1991 in nineteen recording studios") is just aesthetics, to avoid "1989...1991...19". Right?- In Recording and production, the name "The Elephant and Wapping"; is/was that the actual name of the studio? It's just that it looks like the name of a pup, and I was wondering if the basement studio was in the basement of a pub of that name, rather than that being the name of the studio.
Same section, "Dutt admits being desperate 'to leave'" – why is "to leave" in quotes generally, and why in single quotes specifically?Lastly, same section "to Creation's dismay, he needed 13 days; rather than the usual one." – don't think the semi-colon is needed or adds anything.- That's it. As I say, these are requests for clarifications more than anything else. Ta. Carre (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I've made a few (light) copyedits throughout the past few days, and really I can't find anything that strikes me as incoherent or inconsistent. NSR77 TC 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why is there no credits/personnel section? "160 thousand pounds was the most" - why not £160,000? I think the lead could use another paragraph (its a huge article), with more about the production and the music. Also, the "make tea" quote seems out of place in the lead. Why is the bit about their live shows in the reception section, if it can be expanded it could have a section of its own. Tommy Stardust (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- MoS says spell numbers greater than 9. Actually, I agree about the lead. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The credits listed in the album sleeve have been proven to be largely arbitrary, and in some instances it's unknown who actually contributed what. As for the pound amount, that's a direct quote, so it won't be changed. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just two short comments:
- In the third paragraph of the "Recording and production" section Anjali Dutt is quoted as calling Bilinda Butcher, Belinda. Is this misspelling really used in the original? If so, wouldn't adding a [sic] be appropriate?
- Same thing goes for the "whats" in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section.--
Carabinieri (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another typo. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Further comments
- The tour saw My Bloody Valentine accused of criminal negligence by the music press, who took exception to the long period of extreme noise played during You Made Me Realise, referring to it as "the holocaust". - needs a reference. Link you made me realise.
- Same ref as the sentence below it. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That para also uses a couple of unnecessary "the"s - the american flautist, the critic mark kemp.
- Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- MOS fixes - "with 'Loveless' you..." and "'Loveless' ups the ante," "'Loveless' is the outermost", "Collapsed Lung's 1996 single Board Game", Audio samples of 'Loveless'
- Fixed. In the case of the reviews quoted, the reviewers put Loveless in quotation marks, per British grammar conventions. Thus when quoted, this article accurately uses quotation marks in those instances. And with the sample box, that seems to be some sort of flaw in the script, because it's definitely formatted to render the album name in italics. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- What the hell is "The Scene That's Delighted To Eat Quiche"?
- It's a dismissive comment about The Scene That Celebrates Itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Rolling Stone gave the album four out of five stars. In a review that also covered Creation labelmates Chapterhouse and Velvet Crush, reviewer Ira Robbins" - i needed to read that twice to figure that Ira robbins was the rolling stone reviewer... the two sentences need to be clubbed better.
- I think it's pretty apparent. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "a hard sell" - seemes colloquial - could you rephrase it? or maybe link it.
- Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Loveless's influence" - extra "s"
- I believe British grammar uses the extra "s", but I'd appreciate clarification on that by someone who uses British English. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Shields wavers his guitar's tremolo bar" - why the sudden change to present tense?
- Because it's referring to the music on the album, which exists in the here and now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't mention the word "shoegaze" in any form - that seems odd. the lead can be expanded into 3 paras - 1st one for production, second for music and the third for reception, legacy and influence.
- There's really no good place to list shoegaze in the lead, and it is largely incidental to the rest of the article, so it's not imperative. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- consistency - 8 out of 10 score, four out of five stars, peaked at number twenty-four. - Tommy Stardust (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support with pleasure. I gave this article a thorough once-over and found it very readable and very well flowing. I also found it a very well-sourced article and that they're quite reliable. Given that it is one of my favorite albums and a shoegazing masterpiece, I would be pleased to no extent to see it pass as an FA. (SUDUSER)85 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 15:57, 18 December 2007.
Battle of Albuera[edit]
Self nom. Another Peninsular War article, this one on probably the bloodiest battle of the whole war. I'm a little less confident on this one passing, but let's see what people think. Current GA, been copy-edited, MilHist peer-reviewed, and all the other usual stuff. Carre (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I passed this for GA and did some minor copyediting and peripheral work, but I think this is an excellent piece which fully qualifies as an FA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: very good! --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. A well written and intresting battle. Kyriakos (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a well-written, well-referenced quality article. Some comments though:
- The captions for the pictures for "Nicolas Soult" and "William Carr Beresford" do not mention their ranks but "Captain-General Joaquín Blake" does. Is this intentional ?
- For the reference for "Weller, Jac (1962), Wellington in the Peninsula, Nicholas Vane." - consider adding the ISBN for the 2006 reprint (1853673811)
- I don't think I can do this. The volume I used was the '62 edition (printed before ISBNs were invented), and I have no way of knowing if the pagination in later reprints is the same. Therefore to give the 2006 ISBN wouldn't necessarily be accurate.
- Per the notes in "Aftermath" section I think that the the French casualties in the infobox should read "5,936–7,900 dead or wounded" rather than 5,3936-7,000
- - Peripitus (Talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:41, 17 December 2007.
Mysore[edit]
Mysore is the second largest city in the state of Karnataka, India. It has been the capital of the Kingdom of Mysore for centuries and the city has a rich culture and heritage. I have been working on this article for quite some time now and the article has also undergone a peer-review. I have ensured that the article is informative, well-sourced and has a good set of images. I feel that the article is good enough to be a featured article and hence I have nominated it. Please review the article and provide your comments on the same. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- Please note something about the difference between the common name (Mysore) and the "official" name (Mysuru). Is this along the same lines as Calcutta being renamed Kolkata? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere, with a link to the article about Indian city name changes. Also, the recording sounds like it's saying "Mysore" and not "Mysuru", yet it is within the parentheses for the Kannada version of the name; is this a recording of the original Kannada (which I would guess would sound more like "Mysuru"), or of the name Mysore? --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your comments. The name change to Mysuru has been ratified by the Government of India but the formalities are yet to be completed. I have made the necessary changes to reflect this in the article, and have also provided a citation. The audio pronunciation is Mysore which is in English. I have moved the link to the audio file to outside the parenthesis. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:
- A paragraph (no more than a few lines) describing the history of Mysore prior to Mysore Kingdom would be useful. We know that Mysore came under successive imperial dynasties that ruled from Karnataka and for a while under the Cholas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dinesh, from what I have read about the history of Mysore city, the city came into a prominent existence only after the Mahishuru Fort was constructed in 1524 by Chamaraja Wodeyar III. Before this event, the region was known as Puragere. Though the region in general was ruled by different dynasties prior to 16th century, we cannot assume that in the context of the Mysore city. History related to Cholas and others are more relevant in an article like Mysore kingdom since there we are talking of a bigger region. Since this article is on a city, I have included only that part of history, that is clearly linked to Mysore city. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Dk Reply fair enough.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is this line really needed in the History section?
- The city has remained largely peaceful, except for occasional riots related to the Kaveri river water dispute. Mysore has been in the news in recent history for reasons like the fire at Premier Studios that claimed the lives of many people, the sudden deaths of many animals at the Mysore Zoo and the National Anthem controversy that happened on the campus at Infosys. Fires, deaths of animals are all to common, the anthem issue is a political issue. Perhaps no need to mention at all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: That line was added as a result of a "peer review" comment which indicated to add some important notable events that happened in Mysore post-independence. All the events mentioned got extensive coverage in national media because of which they have been added with appropriate citations as well. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply Okay. Thats fine then. Will look into the article again later.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can you give reference of the following line The city has had an underground drainage system since 1904. in the geography section. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. The citation has been added. Page 56 of the pdf citation talks of this.
- For the pdf files, page number need to be shown along with the citation, you can use {{rp|p.56}} tag along with the citation. U can take rererence of Kaziranga National Park for exact usage. Amartyabag TALK2ME 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done. All pdf citations have now been appended with page numbers -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well referenced meets criteria, in my opinion. Just as well I read the rest of the candidacy, otherwise I would have thought it was an article about the amalgamation of MySpace and "bore". :) — Rudget Contributions 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. I think I'll support even if you don't fix the below issues, but it would, of course, be nice if...
- Mysore Pak - our article is Mysore pak - are you sure the P, or even the M, need(s) to be capitalized?
- Reply: Mysore Pak in totality is a noun and hence deserves the capitalisation on the individual words.
- Mysore silk saree - we don't really have an article on that. Should we? In other words, if it's important enough to be in the lead of an article about a major city with hundreds of years of history, it seems like it should be an important item, no? I notice the current Maharajah of Mysore is a noted designer of them...
- Reply: I have been thinking of writing an article on that and will do so in the near future. But I presume that the non-existence of an article on Mysore silk saree has no bearing on the quality of the Mysore article. :)
- The Mysore palace, Mahisha demon, Karanji lake, Infosys building and possibly other images don't have a description on their pages on Commons. That's not really a fault of this article per se, but since we have a description here, can we at least copy it there? That will make these images more usable in other Wikipedias.
- Done. I have checked all the images in the article and have added description where-ever it was missing.
- The Government of Karnataka has submitted a proposal to change the English name of the city to Mysuru. - when submitted?
- Done. Modified the sentence to incorporate the date.
- region where the Mysore city stands ; demolished much of the Mysore town; In recent years, the information technology companies - I'd remove "the" in these cases. But it's a minor point.
- Done. Have removed the "the" :) -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The administration was looked after by Diwan Purnaiah - disambiguate the link from Diwan, and could we use an article on Purnaiah?
- Done. Diwan Purnaiah certainly deserves his own article, which should hopefully be up in due course.
- As of 2001, 39.9% of the total land area in the city was occupied by residences... - that list only adds up to 70% or so. What's the other 30%?
- Done. I have expanded the sentence to include the rest.
- The industrial sector in the city experienced some setbacks... - is unemployment high, low, average for Karnataka, for India? Have a % number?
- Reply - As per the data collected by the Indian census of 2001, employment is measured in terms of percentage of working class amongst the population. The article mentions the percentage of population in Mysore who belong to the working class and now I have added a comparison of that data with other urban areas in Karnataka -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, your responsiveness is appreciated! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support- Meets the criteria. Surely my last edit on Wikipedia.KnowledgeHegemony 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note:
Several sentences in the "Demographics" section begin with numbers; can those sentences be recast to avoid starting sentences with a number (see WP:MOSNUM)? I saw at least one instance of the use of "current" terminology: "Today, the major industries ... " Things like "today", "currently" "recently" should be avoided, as they become dated. If redundant, they can be dropped, or if clarification is needed, "as of date" can be added.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Still throughout; when using words like "Recently" "in recent years", the time frame should be defined.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Per WP:MOSNUM#Precise language, can all occurrences of words like recent, recently and currently be dealt with? Example: While tourism is the major industry in Mysore, the growth of information technology related industry in recent years has resulted in the city emerging as the second largest software exporter in the state of Karnataka, next to Bangalore.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- Done. I have appropriately dealt with words like current or recent. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Well written, though there is room for more copy edits. An interesting article and perhaps one of the few related to "cultural" cities from India. Can be a good example to more such articles on India's ancient historical cities.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if there really is room for more copy edits, please either make them or point them out so others can. Featured Articles are supposed to be as good as we can make them. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply There is always some room for copy edits in every FA. I will continue to cpedit in the coming days. Also, every reviewer has his own style.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Well written, well sourced, and comprehensive. Seems to be organized in the way most other Indian city FAs, and is equipped with very good and appropriate images. Meets FA criteria. Good job! - KNM Talk 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.
Cortana[edit]
Arguably the second most important character in Halo... David Fuchs (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: is there policy on citing dialogue from video games, and is the boldface truly necessary (as opposed to italic or underline). JFW | T@lk 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The boldface has consensus as the way to cite dialogue. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose:Neutral: This article needs some serious copyediting, some general cleanup (especially in the dialogue citations), and probably some reorganization. I don't have time to write specific issues right now, but I'll take a crack at performing some of this cleanup when I have more time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)- I've trimmed some of the unnecessary parts of the dialogue citations, and have copyedited the article (though I have particular writing style, so people are by all means encouraged to point out parts that sound a bit stilted to them). After having read the article top to bottom (which I hadn't done previously) I'm not seeing where reorganization is needed; can you perhaps suggest something, or point out where information doesn't flow for you? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Opinion changed to neutral because I haven't had time to review the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've trimmed some of the unnecessary parts of the dialogue citations, and have copyedited the article (though I have particular writing style, so people are by all means encouraged to point out parts that sound a bit stilted to them). After having read the article top to bottom (which I hadn't done previously) I'm not seeing where reorganization is needed; can you perhaps suggest something, or point out where information doesn't flow for you? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Object for now:1a (prose). I've started to copyedit, but this could use a little more work.1b (comprehensiveness). I have an essay anthology, Halo Effect, published by BenBella Books. I believe that there is some analysis in there about the derivation of Cortana's name from Curtana, and how that relates to Durandal (cf. the sword Durendal), an AI in Bungie's previous Marathon series. I will see whether I can incorporate this information over the weekend.
- — TKD::Talk 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I won't have time to do justice to a major addition until at least tomorrow night, but, if anyone else happens to have Halo Effect, the relevant information appears on pages 91–93. — TKD::Talk 08:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reading more, that same essay goes on to tie the Cortana Letters (the first advertisement of Halo, back in 1999) to the first Halo 3 trailer. The current article doesn't mention the letters at all, when in fact they were the very first public release of anything directly Halo-related. — TKD::Talk 08:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- On that same line why do the letters have a article on their own? shouldn't we merge the content into this and other relevant articles? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be in favor of putting the relevant material in Cortana and, to the extent that it began the public's exposure to Halo, Halo (series). Connections with the Halo 3 E3 2006 trailer can be mentioned in marketing for Halo 3. There's not going to be enough verifiable material to sustain a full article. — TKD::Talk 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've added material about the Cortana Letters and, seeing as that should really provide enough context, have redirected the perpetual stub at Cortana Letters to Cortana#Promotion. — TKD::Talk 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be in favor of putting the relevant material in Cortana and, to the extent that it began the public's exposure to Halo, Halo (series). Connections with the Halo 3 E3 2006 trailer can be mentioned in marketing for Halo 3. There's not going to be enough verifiable material to sustain a full article. — TKD::Talk 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- On that same line why do the letters have a article on their own? shouldn't we merge the content into this and other relevant articles? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reading more, that same essay goes on to tie the Cortana Letters (the first advertisement of Halo, back in 1999) to the first Halo 3 trailer. The current article doesn't mention the letters at all, when in fact they were the very first public release of anything directly Halo-related. — TKD::Talk 08:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I won't have time to do justice to a major addition until at least tomorrow night, but, if anyone else happens to have Halo Effect, the relevant information appears on pages 91–93. — TKD::Talk 08:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If there is something besides copyedit that needs some work I will be available to do it, so if everybody is busy just drop me a line. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I still plan on working on my own objections (hopefully some time tonight), and I believe that they are fixable, so please don't close this nomination yet. (Side note: It's amazing how much better one feels after sleeping 28 hours out of 32. :)) If I don't get to this by tomorrow, ping me. — TKD::Talk 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who'd going to get beyond the first half of the first sentence, and still think this is featured article quality: She is an "artificial intelligence"? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well she is a AI and is always refered to as such in both the games and novels, what do you suggest we use instead? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that Gene is objecting to the use of "artificial intelligence" as a noun to refer to a specific AI construct. This is a common usage of term, though, and, in fact, the corresponding category was renamed by consensus to its current location at Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. — TKD::Talk 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Something like that. That "intelligence" is a noun; but a noun referring to an abstraction, not to a tangible object. We should stick to the way it is used in the artificial intelligence article; if it is true that some people colloquially abuse the languagein this way, that doesn't mean we need to accept that use under Wikipedia standards. Call her an agent (the "intelligent agent" of the artificial intelligence article, or some other term appropriately identifying an individual, fictional or not) with artificial intelligence or something like that. Note also that there are possible variants that could still result in an "AI" abbreviation. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that Gene is objecting to the use of "artificial intelligence" as a noun to refer to a specific AI construct. This is a common usage of term, though, and, in fact, the corresponding category was renamed by consensus to its current location at Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. — TKD::Talk 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well she is a AI and is always refered to as such in both the games and novels, what do you suggest we use instead? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this is ready for the little bronze star, I have looked at it in depth and I think it has everything it needs. Well done on another fine article. James086Talk | Email 10:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Um. and has a slight smugness about her abilities isn't cited. Does a third party think that she is smug about her abilities? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support This article is very well written. I have seen many articles about real-life people in places like World Book that are not written as well as this one.J.delanoy (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the reference list. Some notes say 'in English', some don't (English or not). Are there any references not in English? In that I case I advise you to refrain from saying 'in English' all together. Baldrick90 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 23:59, 14 December 2007.
City & South London Railway[edit]
Self nomination. This article details the history of the first deep level tube railway and major electric railway - an important stage in the development of the London Underground and rail transport generally. It's already achieved Good Article status and I would like to hear others' thoughts on how it might be improved further.DavidCane 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I promoted the article to GA status, but it still needs some work. Firstly, the footnotes are poorly formatted. There only needs to be the author's last name, a year, a page number and a period at the end. Footnote number five needs a retrieval date. The other online footnotes are formatted correctly, it is only the print ones that are not.
There are also some inconsistencies in imperial and metric usage in the article. I would simply get rid of all the imperial (which I loathe) and use metric, however, I acknowledge wikipedia has a policy that does not discriminate as long as there is consistency. Unfortunately, in this article distance is in metric with imperial in parentheses, whereas the tunnels have the metric in parentheses. Please be consistent and choose on system as the preferred one (hopefully metric), or get rid one system entirely.
I also still think you have too many footnotes. I really don't see why you need multiple footnotes in one sentence, and I don't think that having footnotes where the stations names have been changed is important. I would also recommend consolidating some footnotes. You don't really need to have the same footnote in two consecutive sentences. If one sentence does not have a footnote, they can assume that the next footnote will refer to everything that has been written in the space between the prior footnote.
FA has a higher standard for writing than GA, and I find a lot of sentences to be short and choppy. Perhaps the best example of this is the sentence that goes 'This time the bill was rejected.' This is boring writing. Most of the article is very well written, with nice sentences, but if you get rid of some of the short the writing will be much improved and it won't feel choppy when read. Zeus1234 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK:
- Footnote 5 fixed (now renumbered as 20) - retrieval date added.
- The Rest of the footnotes fixed as per WP:CITE. There is no page number for the Douglas Rose publication because it is a map in booklet form rather than a book.
- The reason for distances being given in kilometres and the tunnel diameters being given in feet and inches is that these are the "native" formats. London Underground measures distances on its lines in kilometres and the tunnels were originally excavated to imperial dimensions. I have changed it to put metric first.
- I have gone through the footnotes list again and removed a few where the same source is cited twice in a row. I have also removed a few from the lead where these also appear in the body of the article.
- The reason for providing references for dates when stations' names changed or stations opened and closed is that dates seem to be one of the facts that regularly get challenged with a {{fact}} tagged. Unfortunately, an article on an historical subject needs these to provide credibility and not to tag them would, I think, go against the recommendations of WP:WHEN. I have removed the details of the name changes with their references and will rely on the linked station articles to give detail on the changes.
- Stylistically, I personally find the occasional short sentence helps modulate the pace and flow of the text and is particularly good for emphasis. Your previous GA review included a comment that some sentences were too long, so I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. I have altered the specific sentence mentioned.
- --DavidCane 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the issue I had in the Ga review was that some of the sentences were run-ons. Now there is nothing grammatically wrong with any of the sentences, but that having a combination of long sentences and very short ones breaks the flow. But, I may be nitpicking here. Once you add periods to the end of all the footnotes, I'll change my vote. Zeus1234 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now revised to add full stops to the ends of all short references - incidentally, I was previously following the style shown at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations where full stops are not included at the end. --DavidCane 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me where you found your reference template. It is incorrect and I am working on getting the periods added to avoid further confusion. Zeus1234 10:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now revised to add full stops to the ends of all short references - incidentally, I was previously following the style shown at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short footnotes with alphabetized full citations where full stops are not included at the end. --DavidCane 10:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the issue I had in the Ga review was that some of the sentences were run-ons. Now there is nothing grammatically wrong with any of the sentences, but that having a combination of long sentences and very short ones breaks the flow. But, I may be nitpicking here. Once you add periods to the end of all the footnotes, I'll change my vote. Zeus1234 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Support All of my concerns have been addressed. I am now supporting the ariticle for FA status. Zeus1234 10:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Any other suggestions anybody?--DavidCane 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, excellent article, although I'm not sure that the legacy section should not mention that it along with the Central Line bear responsibility for inflicting a tunnel radius that while relatively economic to build has created continuing problems with cooling and forces people standing at the sides of carriages to stoop, unlike other more modern railways, such as the Paris metro.--Grahamec 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a comment in the legacy section. The tunnel diameter of 11 ft 6 ins used by the CLR was actually set by the 1892 Joint Select Committee as a minimum. Greathead, recognising that his original choice of 10 ft 2 ins for the diameter of the C&SLR was too small, recommended that 12 ft should be the minimum diameter for tube tunnels. The extra 1 ft diameter of the CLR tunnel involved removing 20% more spoil from deep underground compared with the C&SLR. Greathead's recommendation would have increased the spoil to be removed by a further 11% over the C&SLR's quantities (Badsey-Ellis, Antony. London's Lost Tube Schemes. Capital Transport. ISBN 185414-293-3. p. 71) If the diameter of the tunnels of the later tube lines had been increased to Greathead's 12 ft, the additional costs to dig the tunnels would have made it even more difficult for the companies to raise the construction funds and we may not have the lines we have today. The original sections of the Paris Metro were constructed using the cut and cover method pioneered by the Metropolitan Railway so the size of the tunnels there was not constrained in the same way.--DavidCane (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well sourced, but the Lead/Intro is a bit short, with some awkward one sentence paragraphs. Might want to have someone go through and make sure cites use WP:CIT for uniformity, and do some minor copyediting. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- I have expanded the lead section and changed the breaks around to avoid the one sentence paragraph and have formatted the references to web sites to use {{cite web}} formatting. Other linked references use {{cite book}} or {{LondonGazette}}.
Oppose—1a, 1c. I'm sorry to be a pest, but the opening paragraph made me look as though I'd sucked on a lemon.
The City & South London Railway (C&SLR) is considered to be the first deep-level underground "tube" railway in the world,[1] and also the first major railway in the world to use electric traction. Originally intended to be operated with cable-hauled trains, the collapse of the cable contractor whilst the railway was under construction forced a change to electric traction before the line opened - a still experimental technology at the time.
- Who's doing the considering? Remove, since you provide a reference. BUT, who is Wolmar: ref 1 is simply "Wolmar 2004, p. 4.". Please do an audit on the referencing—we need the standard details (title, publisher, etc.) for each entry, so that our readers can follow the trail.
- Remove "also", for heaven's sake. Replace "to be operated with" --> "for".
- "While" is modern; "whilst" is rather old-fashioned. Plain English, please.
- Read MOS on em and en dashes; the hyphen is wrong as an interruptor.
- "an experimental technology at the time" is better.
Then: "through", not "in". "high-backed seating"—hyphen please. MOS.
I won't go on. Here's a good opportunity to recruit a good copy-editor to WP from one of the countless railway-enthusiast clubs—surely there are such people. Try messaging online. If that's more a medium-term goal, try researching edit-summaries on the edit-history pages of other good railway articles. See who's good. Ask them nicely. Tony (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done It is something called short citations, which is an acceptable form of referencing. I've linked all of them. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tony for your comments and Mailer Diablo for wiki-linking the references. Ironically, each reference was originally presented in the full style Tony prefers but this was changed during the GA review to the short style now seen which does have the utility of avoiding duplication of information.
- Hopefully, opposition on 1c is now resolved.
- I have been more emphatic with the opening sentence as suggested. I have used "for" in the second sentence as suggested for brevity but will be leaving the longer form in the haulage and infrastructure section as I feel this cannot be shortened without losing explanation.
- I have checked through the hyphens, em and en dashes and fixed, I think, these. I will read through again for any pesky missing hyphens.
- I wasn't happy with "a still experimental technology at the time." myself and have replaced it with your suggestion.
- The jury seems to be out on whilst v while. Although whilst is seen as archaic in some quarters (America for example) it's still fairly broadly used in Britain. To make the article seem less archaic to those who aren't used to seeing whilst, I have changed the four instances in the article.
- I feel that "ran ... in a pair of tunnels..." is preferable to "ran ... through a pair of tunnels..." as the latter suggests (to me at least) that the tunnel was open at each end, which was not the case.
- I'll do a thorough copy-edit tomorrow. --DavidCane 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. May be worth adding a few high-value wikilinks to the article. Perhpas link electric traction to Railway electrification in Great Britain or Railway electric traction? By the way, isn't Parliament a proper noun in this context? (That's the way I've always seen it written.) CloudNine (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good idea to link to Railway electrification in Great Britain - done (may add some additional info to that article as well). You're correct with regard to Parliament and I've corrected that as well. --DavidCane (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn oppose, but please fix the ellipsis dots, which need to be space per MOS. And:
- "at opening, a single flat fare of two pence, collected at a turnstile, was charged for all passengers". First two words are unclear: do you mean "in the first year of operation", or what? "A single flat fare of two pence was collected from all passengers as they passed through a turnstile."? So if it were my nomination, I'd get someone to pass over it with a tooth-comb again, whether on this page or after it leaves. Tony (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thanks Tony and also Epbr123 and SandyGeorgia for their assistance - I had never realised the number of times I use "number of times" :). This copy editing process is proving an educational experience and will help improve the other articles I've worked on. I'm going to print this out and read through on paper next - I find that often helps identify shortcomings. --DavidCane (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- No need to thank for me for fixing italcs and boldface; minor tweaks as I read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 23:59, 14 December 2007.
Press Gang[edit]
Self-nomination. The article appears to satisfy the criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well referenced, neutral, etc. I'd expect any 'fixes needed' to be minor. It has been a GA for nearly a year. The JPStalk to me 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article is indeed comprehensive, well referenced and further it is well written. I wonder if some structural changes might be appropriate to improve the flow and there are a couple of other issues:
- The short section on the opening titles would work as a subsection of production. Done The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The see also section seems superfluous when there is a link to the list of episodes in the storyline section Done The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the cite episode template used to reference instances where specific episodes are mentioned to improve the article verifiability
- How would you feel about a piped link to the relevant part of the 'List of episodes'? I'm worried that increased use of the template would look a little messy? The JPStalk to me 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to that. Internal links are not a substitute for references. Putting the template in a reference leaves only a superscripted link to the footnote in the article; personally I can't see that as messy in fact articles look tidier with citations to me!--Opark 77 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll enact that when I have more time. The JPStalk to me 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Great, drop me a line on my talkpage when this has been addressed and I'll be happy to give my support.--Opark 77 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done The JPStalk to me 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Great, drop me a line on my talkpage when this has been addressed and I'll be happy to give my support.--Opark 77 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll enact that when I have more time. The JPStalk to me 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to that. Internal links are not a substitute for references. Putting the template in a reference leaves only a superscripted link to the footnote in the article; personally I can't see that as messy in fact articles look tidier with citations to me!--Opark 77 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- How would you feel about a piped link to the relevant part of the 'List of episodes'? I'm worried that increased use of the template would look a little messy? The JPStalk to me 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merchandise and reaction could be merged under a header of "impact"
- Mmm, not sure about this one: do you mean 'Impact' as a L2 header, with the existing subheadings as L3? They seem large and distinct enough for their own standalone sections? The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The two very short subsections in merchandise probably do not warrant their own heading Done The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aspects of the character section appear to be unreferenced and might constitute original research. Again episodes can be cited as a primary source if there is no third aprty coverage of some of the minor characters. Some of the non-speaking / background recurring parts might not be notable enough for wikipedia and should be considered for removal to reduce the length of the characters section.
- Yes, another editor introduced some OR after it GA status. I've removed what I think is the bulk of it, using the version that passed GA.
I'll mainly defend the 'Other recurring characters' (though I've just removed a couple of background characters, and moved a couple of minor ones to a more logical place). The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, another editor introduced some OR after it GA status. I've removed what I think is the bulk of it, using the version that passed GA.
--Opark 77 (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your constructive comments so far. The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for your work on improving the article.
- Strong support The article is comprehensive, well referenced and further it is well written. All of the points raised in my comments have been addressed.--Opark 77 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just a couple of stylistic matters.
- In some places, especially under Reaction, there are paragraphs of only one or two sentences. Could you merge some of these?
- I've merged 'critical reception' with the single-paragraph 'Awards'. There are a couple of other instances, I see, but I don't want to merge distinct or signposting sentences. The JPStalk to me 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- <blockquote> creates unnecessary white space. It might be beneficial to merge the Hari and Cornell quotes into the main text. The Lynda quote looks fine as blockquote however.
- Both quotations are over 40 words. It is certainly academic convention to have quotations of such length indented. This white space is not excessive: in fact, it's often necessary when reading from monitors. The JPStalk to me 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Linda Day.gif is a .gif. Yuck! Could you replace it with a .jpg? Or better, replace the image with one of the "typewriter style typeface"?
- Done Good point, and the inclusion of the caption aids fair use. The JPStalk to me 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I think a balance has been achieved with regards to the paragraphs and your reasons for keeping the blockquote are fine -- as I said it's just a stylistic matter. Image:Press Gang - Juila Sawalha caption.jpg looks a lot better! Brad (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak SupportI have been unableto find errors oromissions.--Keerllston 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I can find errors. Needs cleaning up before promotion.
- Please use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. See MOS on Quotations.
- Could you please identify the specific problem(s) so that it can be addressed. The JPStalk to me 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ellipsis dots: MOS says to space (in most contexts, including here).
- WP:MOS#Ellipses says that spaced periods are "Strongly deprecated" and that "three unspaced periods" are "Recommended." The JPStalk to me 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- If memory serves, what's meant is that, for example, "tons of stuff... We" should become "tons of stuff ... We", not "tons of stuff. . . We"; it's the spacing between the periods that's deprecated, not the spaces either side of the ellipsis – see the Function subsection of that MOS entry. There are a few places where you have the spaces, and others where you only have the trailing space, so consistency is needed anyway. Hope that helps. Carre (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- [edit] although there remains the exception for when the ellipsis is used to indicate a pause or interruption of speech. Just to clarify (or maybe muddy ;) ) a bit more. Carre (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that friendly explanation, Carre. I think I've fixed that now. The JPStalk to me 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Jeff Evans ..." para—odd quote that crosses over two part-sentences—check that this is correct. Also check the hyphens as interruptors within these quotes. Were they in the original? Otherwise, should follow MOS. What kind of quote is this: "1989's "Monday - Tuesday"?
- "Monday-Tuesday" is an episode title. The JPStalk to me 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see the problem. I'd missed out a closing quotation mark. Done The JPStalk to me 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see the problem. I'd missed out a closing quotation mark.
- Read MOS on the final period in captions.
- Done The JPStalk to me 09:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "He was also "extremely angry" that Drop the Dead Donkey had adopted the style. They were dropped after the second series.[26] The cast were also "grumpy" with having to turn up to a recording studio to record them." Both "alsos" are idle. "with having to turn up" is pretty clumsy.
- Done The JPStalk to me 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Sunday tea-time" could mean different things in different countries.
- Done The JPStalk to me 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some choppy paras.
- Too vague to be addressed. If I found the paras 'choppy', I would have already have fixed them! The JPStalk to me 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ref 35: what is it? A TV doco? Link to transcript?
- Online transcript, as far as I know, does not exist. The article explains that it is a documentary on first mention. The JPStalk to me 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- MOS issue about logical punctuation: for example: The issue led episodes served to develop the main characters, so that "Something Terrible" is more "about Colin's redemption [from selfish capitalist], rather than Cindy's abuse."[13] Read MOS.
- Not quite sure what the problem is here? I wonder if you you could possibly correct the few glitches? The JPStalk to me 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Choppy paragraphing: take "Other recurring characters", for example. And please remove the bolding, which adds to the choppiness. Choppy "Repeat showings" and ff.
- I've removed some bolding, but I'm looking for consistency with the previous section. The JPStalk to me 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Has the rest of the prose been massaged since my comments, which were only samples? My eyes strayed onto "There have been several products released"—no, "Several products have been released". That's a whole para, that sentence, too. I do concede that it's harder to find glitches, but they're there. Tony (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, though two minor points: Are all the redlinks really necessary? And also, <ref name=""></ref> should be used to consolidate a few of the duplicate citations in the References section. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Removed redlinks that are unlikely to be created. I can't see duplicate links? The JPStalk to me 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 02:34, 13 December 2007.
Lisa the Skeptic[edit]
Self-nomination. Lisa the Skeptic was passed as a Good Article a month ago, and had a Peer Review where some minor corrections were made. I will do my best to address points that come up in the FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a chance to look at the article. Cirt 17:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
- See WP:ALSO regarding portal placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Moved the portal to the see also section, thanks for this point. Cirt 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
- Support. Good, concise, well-sourced and well-written. Seems a little short for an FA but, after all, we're dealing with a television series episode and we can't expect to have some sort of dissertation-level piece on it. Anyway, that's what happens when you keep all the trivia out of it (speaking of which, I had added that connection to the Garcia Marquez story and while I can understand keeping it out, I can't believe someone besides me hasn't noticed. It's just too much of a coincidence). Daniel Case 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments about the article. I had moved that info about Gabriel García Márquez's short story "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" to the talk page, because it was unsourced. But if you find any sources that discuss it in relation to the episode, please don't hesitate to add it back. I agree that it is interesting, but certainly in a WP:FA the best place for it is on the talk page as a note to other editors until sources can be found. Cirt 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Added this entry to the See also section at Lisa the Skeptic. I see a similar entry exists the other-way-around at A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings, and I think this is a reasonable solution until more sources are found, to put this into the main article text somewhere. Cirt 17:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Even better, found a source, added it to the article text, and removed it from the See also section. Cirt 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC).
- Support I made a few minor edits for things like spelling, but otherwise very well written, well referenced and informative. I love how concise articles about TV episodes are. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your minor edits and corrections, much appreciated. Cirt 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:32, 7 December 2007.
Knut (polar bear)[edit]
(self-nomination) This article has been a Good Article since August and I believe it fulfills the FA criteria. Despite it being a shorter article than some, it is exhaustively sourced and, I believe at least, the first of its kind to be nominated for FA (correct me if I'm wrong). I've largely been working on this article by myself since the summer, so I am very willing to take any concerns/ideas/questions from reviewers!
Thanks for the consideration. María (críticame) 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - (please note: this is not an objection)
- Are there any non-news sources available? (I mean other encyclopedias, academic papers, etc.)
- "
While visitor numbers have reportedly dwindled from extreme highs" why reportedly here and not elsewhere? - "[...] recorded in August of 2007, which was an all time high"
(not reportedly?)is "all time high" equal to "a record"? - --Keerllston 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- For your first comment, other than the websites that are already referenced to, I'm fairly positive that there are not encyclopedias (other than Wikis) or papers available for use. There was such a news media circus concerning Knut, news sources are what are immediately available and his popularity has yet to become a subject of academic research. As for the second, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for; are you suggesting I rephrase it? María (críticame) 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm saying remove the word "reportedly".
- I'm asking whether the "all time high" was a "record for number of visitors in a month".
- I tried searching for books, ["berlin zoo" knut] [knut polar bear] found 3, two for children(Juvenile Nonfiction), a translation of one of the two children books, and a 2008 travel book. I found slightly more useful "scholarly" articles searching on google scholar. I am dissapointed.
- Bear Life -look at page labelled "74" - Found through google scholar.
- Celebrity meets science: Hollywood's environmentalism and its effect Political.
- --Keerllston 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cont/
- Thomas Dörflein doesn't have an article, is his only claim to fame Knut?
- Lead
There shouldn't be a parenthesis in the lead, please rephrase, removing the parenthesis. His birthdate and location are significant enough to stand outside of parenthesis.- Although I disagree because this article is, in essence, a biography, and there is no article template for animals, so I just based it (complete with celebrity infobox) on a person's biography, I'll clean up the lead. The sentences seem a little too short for me, but tell me what you think. María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The first polar bear cub to survive past infancy at the Berlin Zoo in over thirty years, he became a popular tourist attraction and commercial success after being the subject of international controversy." Split into two sentences. Two separate issues should be treated as two separate issues.
- If it is as important as to be in the lead the fact that he is the first polar bear cub to survive past infancy at the Berlin Zoo in over thirty years, then why isn't it noted in the body
?how many polar bears had been born since the beginning of the zoo? how many survived?- It is noted in the body. The first paragraph, in fact: "Knut was the first polar bear to have been born and survive in the Berlin Zoo in over thirty years." I don't believe that records are available to provide the info you ask for as to how many polar bears have been born since the beginning of the zoo, but it's obvious that none of them have survived in thirty years. That's the important point. María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- did not see that... oops. But some information about mortality rates for bears without their parents should be included. As I understand [from Bear Life] polar bears are remarkably unadaptable to zoo's due to their normal range being comparably large.--Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I'll do a little extra reading and see if I can add something. Knut's situation isn't necessarily a special case, since animals in zoos do sometimes abandon their young and are therefore raised by a surrogate parent, but adult polar bears' survival rate in zoos (as opposed to in the wild) would be irrelevant here, I feel. Knut's survival was only remarkable because he lived past infancy, so I don't want to run the risk of getting too off topic. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- --Keerllston 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- There really isn't that much information available regarding his living spaces. He has his newest enclosure all to himself (the first one was shared with some kind of Asian black bear), but details, other than what it looks like, are too spare for a section all its own. María (críticame) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- cont.
Currently structured "Early Life, Fame, Controversy, Commercial Success, -Environmental Causes-" Environmental causes doesn't look seem like it fits into commercial success, but Controversy, commercial success, and environmental causes fit into fame.- I agree it doesn't seem to fit, and I was never too sure about its placement. The trouble with creating a section entitled "Fame" would be that the entire article deals with Knut's fame, and because he's still a cub, all of it is his "Early life," as well, which is why I titled the first section "Biography." I've played around with it a little bit, putting "Infancy," "Controversy," and "In the spotlight" (not sure about that one) under "Biography" and "Commercial success" and "Environmental causes" under "In the media." Tell me what you think. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did he receive 100 journalists that first day? Was he already famous?- --Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- There were 400 journalists present on his public unveiling (March 23), so yes, he was already famous at that point. The controversy came to a head earlier in that same month. Like I said above, I've played with the headers to make the timeline a little clearer, so tell me what you think. I think I like it better this way. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. An interesting little test case, as María suggested in the nomination. It's short, but I believe it's comprehensively researched. I went through and made a number of edits for consistency and MOS stuff. If it's not fully MOS compliant it's close. It's a brisk, fun, and well-written article. Images are quite nice, and I believe the two fair-use images are encyclopedic and have valid rationales. --JayHenry 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your copy-editing, as well as your support; I appreciate your added input and agree with the changes. :) María (críticame) 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I might be wrong but isn't the word "Biography" used for people? Isn't there an equivalent for animals? -- CG (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea if there is an animal equivalent, but if there is, I will gladly change it. I wrote this article with the Biography MOS in mind since it technically is biographical, although Knut is obviously not a person. There is no template regarding individual animals, so I pretty much had to wing it! María (críticame) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: According to our own Biography article it is a piece of writing about an individual. No mention if that individual should be human. I think calling it a biography is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment re. in the lead. When I first read this I saw "fans rallied in support of his being hand, raised by humans", wondered if something was lost in the translation and had to start the sentence again. Suggest "fans rallied in support of his being hand-raised by humans." Just passing through. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: FA are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, and they also represent our standards of genuine open source content. Therefore – according to WP:FACR and WP:NFCC – the two copyrighted/fair use images should be removed from the article as there are enough free images available (including 2 videos), cf. the Comons gallery (which was actually started by me, but that's not the point). Additionally I would suggest to place at least one good 'non cute' image on the page. At the moment there are 4 images on the page that represent the sheer cuteness of Knut, and only 1 that shows how the animal currently really looks, but unfortunately it's only a pretty small shot of the bear himself – I already tried to add such a better image (this one preferred), but it has been reverted repeatedly. I note this so explicitly here because I believe that an encyclopedia should – optically – not only reflect the commercial 'tourist and media attraction' status, but also the actual appearance of an article's subject in a sufficient way. Well, and up to now I miss at least some facts about the pretty important weekly TV coverage (rbb Abendschau, broadcasted nationwide in Germany every saturday on ARD, cf. de.wikipedia). --Ü 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree about your incorrect assessment of the article's images. The images currently in the article are not there because they are "cute," as you put it, but because they represent, specifically, points that are brought up on the article; Knut's public unveiling, his new enclosure, his relationship with Thomas Dörflein, etc. An image from Knut's highly publicized public outing, at a time in which his popularity reached its zenith, is iconic. It is common sense that the photo would have a prominent place in the article (i.e. the infobox). Also, as I've explained on your talk page, nowhere does it say that a current picture of an individual should be placed in the article, since that would be close to impossible for most subjects. The two images that are copyrighted are present to illustrate two highly important aspects as a direct result of the controversy of his upbringing and resultant popularity. Although they are not free, they are correctly tagged and given fair use rationales; therefore, they do not need to be removed or even replaced. Multiple, similar images from the same time period in this article serves no purpose and makes the article appear cluttered. As far your issue with the article's missing content, this is the first I've heard of it. RBB is already mentioned in the article, but I'll add the television program specifically to the list of commercial successes. María (habla conmigo) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- … hmm, "RBB was also responsible for ..." -> RBB still is and will be, as long as the 'show goes on'. (could you correct this, or is it just some strange gramm. case?) Done
- regarding the images: I won't start editwaring here, don't worry. But if you really want to keep the copyrighted ones (which only show similar motifs compared to the free ones, and which are definitely not imperative for the article) … well, I don't want to repeat myself. But what is your reason, to not allow one more image (e.g. the one I mentioned above)? It does not need to be placed in the infobox, of course, but there's enough space for another image. jm2c --Ü 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not against adding additional images at some point in the future. As it stands now, however, the two collections of photos on the commons page show Knut at stages in his life that are already adequately depicted. I feel that to add more from the same time period, taken seconds apart, would be repetitive and defeat the purpose of images supporting the prose rather than the other way around. I also do not want to begin a precedence in which there is a picture or two of Knut in every section that reads simply "Knut on such and such date." The images that are placed on the article now are imperative to the article because, again, they support aspects already discussed, including two important commercial aspects of Knut's popularity: his being on the cover of a national magazine and an internationally selling book. I'm not saying that more photos cannot be added in the future, but for now there is no need. A photo from Knut's first birthday celebration, for example, would coincide with the text that will most assuredly be added to the article in a couple weeks' time. I hope this answers your questions. María (habla conmigo) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the concerns raised by U-with-two-dots are valid
- an encyclopedic treatment means a bit more than just cuteness - and most of the pictures are of cuteness - treating it as less as a human being and more as an animal would also be more encyclopedic- cue Animal Planet "Zoo Polar bears, also known as Knuts, eat grass and live in the zoo, they sometimes move from rock too rock, most of the time they just sleep, sleeping up to twenty hours per day. Because Polar Bear's natural habitats are so large and their daily average movement is also vast, Knuts develop paranoid schitzophenia in the their zoo small enclosure".
Also, Non-Free content should be used minimally, not that non-free content shouldn't be used but rather that free content should be strongly preferred.
--Keerllston 13:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)- I don't know how many times I can reiterate this, but the images on the article as of now are not there because they are cute. They directly correlate to the article's prose. Knut on the cover of the second ever German Vanity Fair is extremely notable. An internationally sold book that was sanctioned by the Zoo itself is extremely notable and encyclopedic. That is why they are there and correct rationales are given on the description pages. There are only two non-free images as compared to three free images, so the majority is free content; would you rather I add three more free ones, crowding the page and making it appear cluttered so the scale can tip even more? Furthermore, this article is not about polar bears in captivity -- it is about Knut, who was born into captivity less than a year ago (he's still a cub), has known nothing else, and who just so happens to be cute, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not reiterate, I read your comments the first time around. It seems the the only image of him as the rather big zoo animal he is becoming, has him almost undefinable due to it's focus on his environment - this is one right beside the allegations that said he was becoming "uncute" - I believe this is a perfect spot for a picture of him in the "uncute" version.--Keerllston 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've traded out the offending image
and added a second one that I've had my eye on for a while; the sign at the zoo that points to the bear's enclosure.[31]Let me know if that one is too cute, as well. ;) The ratio is now 4:2 (free vs. fair use). I stand by my reason for keeping the fair use images, however; they are truly important to the article and I hope everyone can now agree. María (habla conmigo) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've traded out the offending image
- Please do not reiterate, I read your comments the first time around. It seems the the only image of him as the rather big zoo animal he is becoming, has him almost undefinable due to it's focus on his environment - this is one right beside the allegations that said he was becoming "uncute" - I believe this is a perfect spot for a picture of him in the "uncute" version.--Keerllston 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how many times I can reiterate this, but the images on the article as of now are not there because they are cute. They directly correlate to the article's prose. Knut on the cover of the second ever German Vanity Fair is extremely notable. An internationally sold book that was sanctioned by the Zoo itself is extremely notable and encyclopedic. That is why they are there and correct rationales are given on the description pages. There are only two non-free images as compared to three free images, so the majority is free content; would you rather I add three more free ones, crowding the page and making it appear cluttered so the scale can tip even more? Furthermore, this article is not about polar bears in captivity -- it is about Knut, who was born into captivity less than a year ago (he's still a cub), has known nothing else, and who just so happens to be cute, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the concerns raised by U-with-two-dots are valid
- I'm not against adding additional images at some point in the future. As it stands now, however, the two collections of photos on the commons page show Knut at stages in his life that are already adequately depicted. I feel that to add more from the same time period, taken seconds apart, would be repetitive and defeat the purpose of images supporting the prose rather than the other way around. I also do not want to begin a precedence in which there is a picture or two of Knut in every section that reads simply "Knut on such and such date." The images that are placed on the article now are imperative to the article because, again, they support aspects already discussed, including two important commercial aspects of Knut's popularity: his being on the cover of a national magazine and an internationally selling book. I'm not saying that more photos cannot be added in the future, but for now there is no need. A photo from Knut's first birthday celebration, for example, would coincide with the text that will most assuredly be added to the article in a couple weeks' time. I hope this answers your questions. María (habla conmigo) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(←) Maria asked me to comment regarding the images. I don't really have very strong feelings on the topic, but the rationales are valid per WP:NFCC and WP:WIAFA doesn't require anything stronger than NFCC compliance. It seems to me that María makes a fair point that the Vanity Fair image is not "replaceable" by cute pictures of the bear. The encyclopedic value of the image is all about the media coverage of the bear, and that's not captured in other images. If it's worth discussing further I'd suggest doing so on the talk page, as it's not an issue that's really related to opposing or supporting the FAC. --JayHenry (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE: Discussion about image concerns have been moved to the article's talk page.
- Support This is a very good article. I was unfamiliar with Knut before I read it, but it did an excellent job of explaining Knut's significance and the various events in his (short) life. It is well-written and uses the best sources available at this time (obviously no great scholarship has been written on Knut yet - no Jürgen Habermas has theorized about his place in the public sphere).
- On images: It might be nice to have an image of the plush Knut or the candy, since more is said about those than the Vanity Fair cover, but I assume those are not permitted on wikipedia. The image with the Knut sign seems unnecessary to me, but I tend to go with the "less is more" theory.
- I agree about the plush toy or the candies, but I was afraid that it would be more difficult to explain away; a magazine cover is easier to give a suitable rationale for. I also agree about the picture of the sign, so Done. I wanted it to work, but now it just looks cluttered.
- I agree about the plush toy or the candies, but I was afraid that it would be more difficult to explain away; a magazine cover is easier to give a suitable rationale for. I also agree about the picture of the sign, so
- I would also delete the infobox. Infoboxes are optional and this one doesn't add much to the article, in my opinion. All of the information in the box is in the article and the box detracts from the image.
- Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Done
- Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.
- Comment/Request for Content: Is a map have a map of Berlin zoo and/or of his enclosure available?--Keerllston 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not aware of a map of Knut's enclosure. I'm not sure if a map of the Zoo itself would be necessary, though? María (habla conmigo) 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is the kind of thing would make the article more comprehensive and a much better article, but are often not available or agreeable or considered "necessary". It is the question of context, which means the same thing as comprehensibility, somehow.
- Is the Berlin Zoo in the middle of Berlin is it rather large? Is Knut's enclosure a significant part of it's size? What did the size of his enclosure mean in terms of investment?
- I was rather impressed by the account in "Bear Life" of the fact that Polar Bears that survive often have psychological/behavioral problems due to their natural habitat and natural range of travel being substantially larger in size contrasted to their zoo habitat - about a million times larger if I remember correctly. Is this information true? I tried looking in polar bears but it lacks any note of zoo habitats, and only talks of the natural habitat.
- from captivity (animal) "Captive animals, especially those which are not domesticated, sometimes develop repetitive, apparently purposeless motor behaviors called stereotypical behaviors. These behaviors are thought to be caused by the animals' abnormal environment. Many who keep animals in captivity, especially in zoos and related institutions and in research institutions, attempt to prevent or decrease stereotypical behavior by introducing novel stimuli, known as environmental enrichment."
- --Keerllston 13:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think your suggestions are appropriate in a biography about an individual polar bear; this is not the place to delve into the tangled web of animals living in captivity and the effects that it may have, since similar concerns are addressed by animal rights activists in the Controversy section. I have no idea if what you have cited is correct, but please remember that Knut was born in captivity and he's far too young (and he still has contact with humans) to determine what effect, if any, his upbringing will have on him as an adult bear. What is important is the overwhelming commercial and media success that stemmed from the controversy surrounding him, and that should therefore be the focus. Information about Knut's enclosures, as much as I've been able to source, is mentioned already. If people want information about the Berlin Zoo, or polar bears' habitat, whether it be in the wild or in a zoo, they can go to those articles, I feel. María (habla conmigo) 13:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I note it is in the category of "famous bears" -
my comment goes hand in hand with the general "movement" for treating Knut as, not only cute but also, uncute and a zoo animal.
--Keerllston 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- I understand, but there is really no material on this matter available that directly correlates to Knut. Perhaps something will be available in the future in the form of scholarly articles and research about the bear's experiences in captivity after his brush of fame, but for now I think the article is comprehensive. María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is important to keep in mind WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN in this discussion. Only information that has been published on Knut himself can be included in this article. We, as lowly Wikipedia editors, cannot find information on polar bears in zoos generally and then apply it to Knut. This excellent policy is to prevent us from including unverifiable and inaccurate claims. Awadewit | talk 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand, but there is really no material on this matter available that directly correlates to Knut. Perhaps something will be available in the future in the form of scholarly articles and research about the bear's experiences in captivity after his brush of fame, but for now I think the article is comprehensive. María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I note it is in the category of "famous bears" -
- I don't think your suggestions are appropriate in a biography about an individual polar bear; this is not the place to delve into the tangled web of animals living in captivity and the effects that it may have, since similar concerns are addressed by animal rights activists in the Controversy section. I have no idea if what you have cited is correct, but please remember that Knut was born in captivity and he's far too young (and he still has contact with humans) to determine what effect, if any, his upbringing will have on him as an adult bear. What is important is the overwhelming commercial and media success that stemmed from the controversy surrounding him, and that should therefore be the focus. Information about Knut's enclosures, as much as I've been able to source, is mentioned already. If people want information about the Berlin Zoo, or polar bears' habitat, whether it be in the wild or in a zoo, they can go to those articles, I feel. María (habla conmigo) 13:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keerlston, it might be best if you explained how this article deviates from the published material on Knut. The unfortunate fact remains that if the published material focuses on his "cuteness", as you say, the article will reflect that. However, I did not feel when I read the article that it was promoting Knut as a "cute" bear. I felt that it was reporting the fact that Knut had been considered a "cute" phenomenon. Awadewit | talk 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- As to allegations of OR and lack of sources: I quote "Bear Life" Kathryn Yussof, which I noted above. Should I perhaps note NPOV as an added incentive? I see that while the article notes the position of the animal activist and clears his name, it does not note any points of view as to the other side of his crusade.
"beyond the arguments to maintain or dispose of Knut, his appearance suggests that now more than ever these questions press upon us. Habitat is essential to the understanding and constitution of animal and plant species, including the polar bear. [...] Saving an orphaned polar bear from death may seem a heroic act, but it does little to adress the fact that zoos are less than optimal environment"
The article/paper "Bear Life" derives close to an entire page on Knut.
--Keerllston 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- As to allegations of OR and lack of sources: I quote "Bear Life" Kathryn Yussof, which I noted above. Should I perhaps note NPOV as an added incentive? I see that while the article notes the position of the animal activist and clears his name, it does not note any points of view as to the other side of his crusade.
(unindent) It seems to me that Knut is being used as an example (very briefly) of a larger phenomenon. It seems to me that the article is more appropriate for the polar bear article. Also, could you explain what this journal is in which "Bear Life" was published? I can't quite understand it. Is it an online compendium and, if so, where was "Bear Life" originally published? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's from the Forum On Contemporary Art and Society, which I'm not familiar with. I do think that insinuating that this article violates NPOV is a huge stretch and a weak one, at that. I think you mean to say that the paper you've cited "devotes" a couple paragraphs, which are not efficiently sourced and obviously rely on emotional and ethical fallacies rather than facts, to Knut, but what they're saying is that Knut is only as good as what he can be profited from -- of course there are sources that show the zoo, and the public, feel otherwise. They're making a statement about how we as humans (badly) perceive animal life; it is completely off topic. I would venture that "Bear Life" is not as NPOV as you may think because the authors obviously have an agenda: see their project website. Again, I don't think it belongs here. María (habla conmigo) 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Formally Object -:D I think if people make objections they should qualify them as such
I think noting a publicity stunt and not providing the side that the publicity stunt was aimed against is strongly POV.
Saying that "Knut will grow" is different from "Polar bears usually grow" and both are relevant. One is obviously specific the other is contextual. Using a source that notes the context of Knut is a very way of improving comprehensability from my perspective.
--Keerllston 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)- What "publicity stunt" are you referring to? Knut has been a media darling for the last eight months, but there has been no specific publicity stunt. The article does not say "Knut will grow" -- what are you referring to? I've previously stated that I do not believe your source is suitable. I also do not believe that the context you are suggesting pertains to Knut's unique situation, which is different than any run-of-the-mill polar bear. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- PETA#Animal_euthanasia_and_criminal_charges seems rather relevant to the "controversy" section.
Knut's unique situation means he will live forever - or can we say as part of the article "Polar Bears generally live until the age of __ (and then die a very ugly death and then spend their afterlife in eternal damnation)"
--Keerllston 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) - "Albrecht, who opposed that judgment, says he called for Knut's death not because he actually wanted to have the bear killed, but merely to call attention to the Leipzig decision, which would have granted the Berlin Zoo the right to kill the polar bear cub." is the publicity stunt I was referring to. I was probably unclear. On and - it's actually the section right above "Animal Euthenasia and [...]" that has the controversial stuff about PETA killing a lot of animals 'because of future environment would make their lifes less worthwhile than dying immediately' or similar...--Keerllston 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your suggestions continue to be irrelevant and off topic. A polar bear's lifespan is irrelevant; do we say that humans live an average lifespan of 75-90 years on the pope's article? Albrecht's position is explained fully and needs no other discussion; besides, that "publicity stunt" is not what 99% of the newssources reported. PETA is definitely off topic and certainly not NPOV. I'm sorry, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about in regard to this article and its purpose. It's a biography, not a soapbox. It is comprehensive as far as Knut goes. I do not plan to turn the article into a navel gazing exploration of polar bears in captivity getting the short stick, which is what it sounds like you want to do. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- -here we go! (awww... poor bears in captivity...)
- does the article show any reason why the bear he was ostensibly protesting was killed? It is perhaps not relevant specifically to Knut but it is extremely relevant to the controversy.
PETA definitely killed animals - and they are definitely POV - but NPOV means noting all significant points of views, not speaking in grays.
I think Knut is currently a soapbox for Albrecht - which is not encyclopedic.
--Keerllston 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)- Yes, it says why the sloth bear was killed. No, Albrecht was not protesting said sloth bear; the article clearly states what the issue was. Albrecht's opinion about the sloth bear's death is present because his claims about Knut were originally taken out of context; no further explanation is necessary. PETA killing animals has nothing to do with this article and/or subject matter; it provides no context; it is completely unconnected; in fact, it is ridiculous to even want to connect them. NPOV only refers to perspectives that have something in common; PETA has nothing in common with Knut's survival or the death of the sloth bear cub; these decisions were come to separately by two separate German zoos.
- This article is anything but a soapbox for Albrecht; again, his comments, taken out of context, were the reason for Knut's explosive international stardom. That is why he is even mentioned at all. The article does not side one way or another, but puts emphasis on the zoo's and fans' support of Knut being raised by handlers and his subsequent popularity. That is encyclopedic coverage. Furthermore, I'm not certain if you have an agenda or not (your "poor bears in captivity" and "die a very ugly death...eternal damnation" comments are completely lost on me -- sarcasm doesn't work well under such circumstances), but the fact that you're continuously harping on what is OR by synthesis or just plain off topic seriously makes me question what you're attempting to do here. Your initial questions were relatively helpful, but now I think you're grasping at straws. María (habla conmigo) 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would remind to be civil - suggesting I'm is "advancing an agenda" or "grasping at straws" is somewhat uncivil. - I understand that you have some reason to think those allegations are true - I assure you otherwise (you might find that my comments on this are biased)
His comments were the reason for Knut's stardom. We agree to some extent. The interpretation of his comments was the reason for Knut's stardom - I think we agree. This interpretation can be POV - Albrecht says that his comments were taken out of context, that is one POV. The other POV is that those comments are in the context of 'animals being killed because they don't have a proper environment'
To note only one side is not NPOV.
My "Original Research"/"Context in terms of polar bears" is a distinctly different objection altogether that I have in regards to the article.
I appreciate your effort and assertiveness in this last comment.
I might have a bit of sarcasm in me, I do not mean to mock, my sense of humor is a part of me, were I in any official position I would not exercise it, since I am not I do.
--Keerllston 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) - I said I would not but I am not sure this is true... I'd rather say that this is one reason I would not like to be in any official position. And that I would be even more careful than I already am in regards to foul interpretation of my sense of humor... but I'd rather not lose my sense of humor.--Keerllston 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The other POV is that those comments are in the context of 'animals being killed because they don't have a proper environment -- no it isn't. That POV isn't anywhere on the map. It is off topic. That is not why the sloth bear cub was killed and that is not why Albrecht said what he said. Albrecht's comments were depicted one way in the media, and a fervor was caused. He corrected the newssources and explained his views fully, but the damage was already done. That is what matters, that is what is in the article. Your points are irrelevant, as three separate users have pointed out to you. María (habla conmigo) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The interpretation was the reason for his fame. The interpretation has a context. That context should be in the article. Whether other's approve or not, whether other's disagree or not, will not change my disapproval or my point of view and are irrelevant to understanding my point of view.--Keerllston 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an interpretation, it's a misinterpretation, and it has been explained entirely sufficiently: sloth bear cub that was rejected by its mother is killed, activist objects, says that same principal should be applied to Knut who was born under similar circumstances in a different zoo, activist is misinterpreted by the press, fans and zoo rally in support of polar bear cub being raised by humans, polar bear becomes international star overnight. You are the only one who is having issues with this. Perhaps your point of view is a matter of reading comprehension or the lack thereof. María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's an interpretation. There was cause for this interpretation. Whether it was a misinterpretation depends on whether you believe the POV of Albrecht after he was blasted for 'making inhumane comments.' - Whether he is or is not reliable is another subject altogether. Is albretch blue-linked? is his only claim to fame Knut?--Keerllston 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an interpretation, it's a misinterpretation, and it has been explained entirely sufficiently: sloth bear cub that was rejected by its mother is killed, activist objects, says that same principal should be applied to Knut who was born under similar circumstances in a different zoo, activist is misinterpreted by the press, fans and zoo rally in support of polar bear cub being raised by humans, polar bear becomes international star overnight. You are the only one who is having issues with this. Perhaps your point of view is a matter of reading comprehension or the lack thereof. María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The interpretation was the reason for his fame. The interpretation has a context. That context should be in the article. Whether other's approve or not, whether other's disagree or not, will not change my disapproval or my point of view and are irrelevant to understanding my point of view.--Keerllston 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The other POV is that those comments are in the context of 'animals being killed because they don't have a proper environment -- no it isn't. That POV isn't anywhere on the map. It is off topic. That is not why the sloth bear cub was killed and that is not why Albrecht said what he said. Albrecht's comments were depicted one way in the media, and a fervor was caused. He corrected the newssources and explained his views fully, but the damage was already done. That is what matters, that is what is in the article. Your points are irrelevant, as three separate users have pointed out to you. María (habla conmigo) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would remind to be civil - suggesting I'm is "advancing an agenda" or "grasping at straws" is somewhat uncivil. - I understand that you have some reason to think those allegations are true - I assure you otherwise (you might find that my comments on this are biased)
- -here we go! (awww... poor bears in captivity...)
- Your suggestions continue to be irrelevant and off topic. A polar bear's lifespan is irrelevant; do we say that humans live an average lifespan of 75-90 years on the pope's article? Albrecht's position is explained fully and needs no other discussion; besides, that "publicity stunt" is not what 99% of the newssources reported. PETA is definitely off topic and certainly not NPOV. I'm sorry, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about in regard to this article and its purpose. It's a biography, not a soapbox. It is comprehensive as far as Knut goes. I do not plan to turn the article into a navel gazing exploration of polar bears in captivity getting the short stick, which is what it sounds like you want to do. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- PETA#Animal_euthanasia_and_criminal_charges seems rather relevant to the "controversy" section.
- What "publicity stunt" are you referring to? Knut has been a media darling for the last eight months, but there has been no specific publicity stunt. The article does not say "Knut will grow" -- what are you referring to? I've previously stated that I do not believe your source is suitable. I also do not believe that the context you are suggesting pertains to Knut's unique situation, which is different than any run-of-the-mill polar bear. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Formally Object -:D I think if people make objections they should qualify them as such
(←) Oh my this has veered off topic again. NPOV does indeed mean "NPOV means noting all significant points of views," but it doesn't mean noting all significant views to every semi-related topic which is dealt with extremely tangentially in an article. Just imagine:
- "Pope-mobile" is an informal name (though some priests propose making it formal) for the specially designed (though Honda designer Iko Morita stated in an Autoweek interview that the design is not that special [though autoweek is considered to have an anti-Ford bias]) automobile (which safety advocate Ralph Nader notes can be dangerous) that is used by the Pope (who Martin Luther said is not infallible) during public appearances (which are sometimes restricted to Catholics and not the entire public).
Sheesh, we can't even write a sentence if every single facet of every single article must contain every conceivable rebuttal. This unrelated PETA stuff doesn't belong here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I wouldn't be proper advancing an agenda - whichever one I'm currently on I guess. As to my comments as to Bear's eternal damnation (I found them humorous)
But of course, this is not a minor issue in Knut - as Maria said those comments "were the reason for Knut's explosive international stardom" - I think that's a rather huge significance.- as opposed to whatever Martin Luther said about the pope, when talking about the Pope-mobile.--Keerllston 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)- I am not even sure what you are referring to anymore, Dwarf. The Albrecht matter is sufficiently explained and there is no other side requiring undue weight. If you are confused by the controversy, read that section again. If you're still pushing PETA, go to that article's talk page and discuss there whatever issues you have with that corporation. For the last time, it has nothing to do with Knut. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course I wouldn't be proper advancing an agenda - whichever one I'm currently on I guess. As to my comments as to Bear's eternal damnation (I found them humorous)
- Strong Support. It's a great article, and even though being a good article isn't really criteria, it helps. I really think it should be featured. It's informative. Basketball110 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- First of all this is not meant as a personal comment on Basketball110
These type of comments which say this article should be featured because it's "good" and "it's informative" - better said would have been - "Well written, and comprehensive" -they really are criteria.
Support comments are not worth as much as Opposes (and Supports from better "reviewers" -better contributors look through each of the criteria and only if they are suficiently satisfied that all criteria are addressed do they support - if they don't they oppose) Opposes on the other hand have criteria in hand and can be ignored if disagreement is voiced and consensus is reached against the opposition.--Keerllston 10:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)- Your comment is unnecessary; you have no right to discount !votes. But if we're playing that game, I am sure the reviewer (Raul, I'm guessing) will be able to differentiate between a support !vote, a support with constructive comments, an oppose with valid points, and an oppose with no valid points whatsoever. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying that I have a right to discount votes. I don't believe FAC is a democracy either.--Keerllston 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- But you did discount it. You stated that Support !votes "are not worth as much as Opposes" in a direct response to someone who offered their Support for this article becoming an FA, therefore disregarding their opinion based solely on how you interpret the FAC process. It's unwarranted. María (habla conmigo) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying that I have a right to discount votes. I don't believe FAC is a democracy either.--Keerllston 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment is unnecessary; you have no right to discount !votes. But if we're playing that game, I am sure the reviewer (Raul, I'm guessing) will be able to differentiate between a support !vote, a support with constructive comments, an oppose with valid points, and an oppose with no valid points whatsoever. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- First of all this is not meant as a personal comment on Basketball110
- Support Despite living in Germany, I am pretty much unaware of the Knutmania but I watched the news today about his first birthday. I read the article and feel its pretty much comprehensive (for now) and satisfies the FA critera. Three suggestions for further improvement:
- As a result its shares at the Berlin Stock Exchange, which are normally worth around 2,000 euros, more than doubled in value closing at 4,820 euros just a week later. reads awkward because the main verb ("doubled") comes so late in the sentence.
- Changed to "As a result, its shares more than doubled at the Berlin Stock Exchange; previously worth around 2,000 euros, the value closed at 4,820 euros just a week later."
- The paragraphs starting with Knut has also been the subject of several popular songs in Germany has two also's in it, which is a little awkward once you have been wiki-trained to notice also-itis.
- Removed the first also... also.
- Written by Craig Hatkoff and his daughters Juliana and Isabella, the 44-page book entitled "Knut, der kleine Eisbaerenjunge" ("Little Polar Bear Knut") includes Knut's life story as well as previously unpublished photographs. I know the source says "Eisbaerenjunge", but the real German title would probably be "Eisbärenjunge". (Only use ae instead of ä if ä is not available, which is not the case on wikipedia.)
- – sgeureka t•c 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support The article is concise and well written. User:cwpreston (User talk:cwpreston —Preceding comment was added at 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- cwpreston (talk · contribs)'s second edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The current article does not explain how and when Knut was named after his birth, and what the name means in German. It is a small consideration, but if added then FA status seems likely. Zidel333 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Knut is actually a rather common name in German (from the Nordic word for "knot," apparently). Some zoo animals have raffles or a vote for the public to decide the name of the baby animal, but for Knut this was not the case. I've looked previously and just did a few more searches, but cannot find who named him or why. María (habla conmigo) 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking. If you cannot find the info, than disregard my comment. It just seems to me its a pretty basic feature of most FAs to have some etymology aspect, and considering the name is German, most English speakers would not know what it means. Perhaps our German colleagues know of a source, you may want to ask. Zidel333 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure; it is a common enough name (as the disambiguation page shows). Etymology would be interesting if it were significant in some way, but in Knut's case it's just a name. :) I'll keep searching for just who named him and when, however. María (habla conmigo) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I checked the available German sources for half an hour. There's nothing that would suggest that there is anything special about Knut's name. – sgeureka t•c 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:32, 7 December 2007.
Barn Swallow[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it already has GA status, and since then has been improved with additional material, including a map, and has been to Peer review. I've followed all the helpful suggestions made there. It's my first attempt at FA, so I'm sure there must be something I've missed, but I can't see it myself, so here goes! Jimfbleak (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Request/suggestion-kindly expand the habitat section. it seems to a stub section. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support professionally written, interesting subject matter, citations throughout and complemented with pictures. Great job --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Comment with response pendingI printed myself a copy of the article and began to give it a copydedit. I only got to Behavior before I had to stop, but other than some typos and grammer stuff it looks pretty good so far. I only had two suggestions. First, could you put some more citations in? Unless I'm missing something, each of the long paragraphs I read should of had more than one source and I did notice some facts are less obvious to the reader than others and therefore should be cited. Also, could you rewrite the first sentence in the fourth parapraph of the introduction? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- Reply. Thanks for the tweaks. I've rewritten the clunky para as you suggest. I'm not sure what you mean about the citations, a previous editor at GA said that if all the info in a para was from one source, a single ref at the end would do. Do I in fact need to reference each factual sentence? I've been through again, and I can't spot an obvious example where the source has changed in a para (other than in the intro) without referencing, so help would be welcome. The long descriptions of the bird and the eggs/incubation are single source. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm leaving for a trip this weekend in an hour, but I will finish reviewing when I get back. The main place that I would place cites would be in the description paragraphs, but if all the info did come from a single source then it is fine. Thanks for your quick response. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just finished reading through the rest of the article. Excellent job, this is most definately one of the best bird or even animal articles on Wikipedia. That said, I made a few changes to the text and have a few questions. However, they are not enough to prevent a support, but I still would like them adressed:
- I'm leaving for a trip this weekend in an hour, but I will finish reviewing when I get back. The main place that I would place cites would be in the description paragraphs, but if all the info did come from a single source then it is fine. Thanks for your quick response. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. Thanks for the tweaks. I've rewritten the clunky para as you suggest. I'm not sure what you mean about the citations, a previous editor at GA said that if all the info in a para was from one source, a single ref at the end would do. Do I in fact need to reference each factual sentence? I've been through again, and I can't spot an obvious example where the source has changed in a para (other than in the intro) without referencing, so help would be welcome. The long descriptions of the bird and the eggs/incubation are single source. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- In habitat and range, the information (specifically the elevations) seem to be centered on Europe. Could you find other data to expand this section to fully cover the entire range of the species?
- At the end of the fourth paragraph in Breeding, what is m2? Could you write this out better and give the English unit equivilant?
- In the first paragraph of Status, could you give the English units for the km2?
- What is the point of the first sentence of In culture? It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the section.
- With that said, great job on the article and good luck on obtaining FA status. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I think it is very well written. I like it. It tells everything. The pictures are great! :=) Basketball110 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have some doubt that a tattoo parlor can be treated as a reliable source. Circeus 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I realise that there is a problem there. The tattoo story is widespread on the web, but almost by definition, it's difficult to find a really sound source. I'll try again, if I can't find anything stronger, should I take it out? Seems a pity to do so. Jimfbleak 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done ref from the Maritime Museum of British Columbia Jimfbleak 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I realise that there is a problem there. The tattoo story is widespread on the web, but almost by definition, it's difficult to find a really sound source. I'll try again, if I can't find anything stronger, should I take it out? Seems a pity to do so. Jimfbleak 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Thorough and well-illustrated. MeegsC | Talk 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I tweaked a couple of things to remove a few commas but a sound FA I feel.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:48, 7 December 2007.
2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl[edit]
A renomination for a GA-passed American Football article. The previous FAC had no outstanding issues, and failed to pass only because an insufficient number of people supported it prior to the nomination's expiration. There may be a few minor issues left to consider, but virtually every problem with the article has already been addressed by previous reviews. I'd like to encourage all editors to take a look at this, and please give your support if you feel that it's worthy of becoming a featured Article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. But there are little glitches, such as:
- "$3.25 million USD"—See MOS on currencies. Three issues here.
- Done
- "No. 1-ranked defense"—Oh, we couldn't have "number-one-ranked", could we? Not hyphenating at all to avoid the ugliness would be preferable than what is there now.
- Done
- "No. 1 nationally-ranked defense"—No hyphen after "-ly".
- Done
- Do I see spaced em dashes? See MOS.
- Done
- "to prepare for these guys," Stafford said—See MOS on punctuation in quotations, here and elsewhere. Many of the whole-sentence quotes are fine with period before closing quotes, though.
- Done
- "Action in the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl."—This is not a proper sentence: see MOS on captions and final periods.
- Done
- "47 yard line"—all of the others are hyphenated ...
- Done
These are only samples, so please get someone else to check through it with a toothcomb. Tony (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and support, Tony! I've gone through and fixed the problems you mentioned. I've also asked a few other people to swing by and take a look as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support:The only issue I have is with "Peachbowl, pitted", not very encyclopedic. Clever, but not very encyclopedic. I'd love to see some references to Virginia Tech's contribution to attendence, a record for this bowl and about 4k above capacity for the Georgia Dome from what I'm reading. Hokies are well known for buying bowl tickets. I'll see if I can dig up some references. --Rtphokie (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Further comments, concerning 1c: Thanks for your response, JK. I've had a random look through the referencing, which needs work to ensure the verifiability, and thus authority, that WP's FA status requires. It's fussy, but complying with MOS requirements and just common practice is so important. For example:
- Ref 46: no author, so how can we judge the authority/status of the claims on that site. I see that other links to that site do provide the names of authors. Can you identify and specify the author, or reference the information elsewhere?
- Added an author name. That's the official Virginia Tech athletics site, so it's among the most reliable sources there.
- Why are the "accessed" dates so tiny. I squint. {{reflist}} smalls already, so have you done it twice?
- Since there's two dates in close proximity — the publishing date and the accessed date — I typically small the accessed date inside the citation. It allows the reader to distinguish the two dates more easily, and since the accessed date is the less important of the two, it gets smaller.
- In future, page numbers of articles in newspapers would be nice, but maybe don't worry this time.
- Yeah... I got most of the articles from the newspapers' web sites, so page numbers usually weren't available.
- Ref 1, no less, is a real problem. No publisher specified (1800-sports.com, which is riiiiight down the bottom, and needs to be checked for reliability). The title is not listed correctly, and the publication date should be included. Peach Bowl betting odds is the webpage title, not the title of the article; if the link ever goes dead and you're looking for it, you won't find it under that title. The correct missing information is:
Betting Odds on the Chick-fil-A Bowl—Georgia vs. Virginia Tech. 1800-sports.com, 30 December 2006. Accessed 30 October 2007.
Then go to the article at 1800-sports.com, click on their home page, and search about for an About us or Contact us link to see who the heck they are. I can't find anything that reveals the author(s) or speaks to their reputation for fact checking. What makes this a reliable source? Convince our readers, that's all that is required. Then Internet users will really respect your article.
- Okay. I've fixed that cite and backed it up with another citation from a betting site that I feel is a bit more reliable. It's also got quite a bit more information.
So a complete audit of the references would be great! Tony (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Let me know what you think now. JKBrooks85 18:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support.
CommentBe sure and use non-breaking spaces between numbers and the words that follow per WP:MOSNUM. Such asMy issues have been addressed.↔NMajdan•talk 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)14 yard rush.
- Where'd you see that one? I thought I got them all, but must've missed it. JKBrooks85 22:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't even check the source, I just saw a couple instances where it was wrapped. Such as "18,500 tickets", "19 seconds", "200 total yards", "20 short rushes". Again, this is just looking at the article itself, not the code. So I'm sure there are more. Also, please make sure all your citations are properly formatted using one of the cite template ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc).↔NMajdan•talk 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip! I went through the code and added a raft of non-breaking spaces and a few hyphens as well. I also rewrote a few awkward phrases. As to the citation templates... I really don't like them and it'd require quite a bit of effort to change all of them now. WP:CITE says that it's okay to not use them, and I'd prefer to not use them. If you or someone else want to change them, that's up to you. Either way, they display the same, and as long as a reader gets the needed information, I think it'll be okay. Again, thanks for spotting those broken spaces, and let me know if I missed any. JKBrooks85 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In a game that many expected to be a defensive struggle,"
- Typically, when you reference that many people thought something, I would like to see more than one reference. You can rephrase this In a game that was expected to be a defensive struggle or you can provide more references to validate your claim that many expected it.↔NMajdan•talk 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Good point. It's been fixed. JKBrooks85 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- "In a game that many expected to be a defensive struggle,"
- Thanks for the tip! I went through the code and added a raft of non-breaking spaces and a few hyphens as well. I also rewrote a few awkward phrases. As to the citation templates... I really don't like them and it'd require quite a bit of effort to change all of them now. WP:CITE says that it's okay to not use them, and I'd prefer to not use them. If you or someone else want to change them, that's up to you. Either way, they display the same, and as long as a reader gets the needed information, I think it'll be okay. Again, thanks for spotting those broken spaces, and let me know if I missed any. JKBrooks85 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't even check the source, I just saw a couple instances where it was wrapped. Such as "18,500 tickets", "19 seconds", "200 total yards", "20 short rushes". Again, this is just looking at the article itself, not the code. So I'm sure there are more. Also, please make sure all your citations are properly formatted using one of the cite template ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc).↔NMajdan•talk 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Note, please attend to the MOS and citation formatting issues. The citations are not fully and correctly formattted, many are missing publishers, there is non-standard markup used in the lastaccessdate (resulting in very small text which is hard on old eyes) and there is text sandwiched between infoboxes (see WP:MOS#Images). Also, please have a look at WP:GTL regarding see also; it's very strange to see a link to Chick-fil-A Bowl in see also rather than worked into the text here somewhere, since it seems relevant. Is there a way to work it in instead of having it in See also?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've made the changes you requested. All the cites have been standardized, I've worked the link to Chick-fil-A Bowl into the lede sentence, and cleaned up a few minor fixes. The two infoboxes you were talking about I couldn't fix (I tried, believe me), but if I stack them on one side or the other, they're far longer than the text. They then bump down the third infobox, and it gets really messy. Maybe shrinking them would work? I really don't know... I had to get help to create them as they exist now, so if they're a really big problem and need to be changed instead of staggered, I'd really appreciate some help in shrinking them down. I don't have a problem with it — I just don't know how to do it. Thanks for all your help, and I hope the article is worthy of your support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for those little fixes, Sandy. I'll keep 'em in mind for next time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent work. Hopefully you'll get enough supports before time runs out. Dincher (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the compliment, Dincher. I hope so, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:48, 7 December 2007.
Pauline Fowler[edit]
- previous FAC, June 2007
This article underwent an FA nom a few months ago. It was a close thing, but the nom finally failed, primarily because of concerns about the quantity of plot-related information. Since then the article has gone through an extensive rewrite to address concerns, and I think it's ready to consider again. :)
The subject is a longrunning character on the British soap opera EastEnders, who left the show after a 22-year run. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas we've been working hard to try and get a handle on the quantity of soap-related information that's flowing in to Wikipedia, and many editors have worked on this particular article, so that we could have a solid example of what a soap opera character article should look like. To my knowledge it's the first ever soap character article to reach Good status, and if this nomination succeeds, it will be the first to reach Featured status. Looking forward to comments, Elonka 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Q: Why is the article written in the present tense, when it's made clear that the character's been killed off? --Dweller 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good question, and we actually debated this quite a bit. The general rules on Wikipedia are that fictional subjects should be written about in present tense. We could probably switch to past tense easily enough (it's a controversial topic), but we're trying to stick with Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:WAF and WP:TENSE. --Elonka 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. The opening line is however misleading, as it makes it seem that Pauline is a character today. Perhaps the Lead could be reworked to avoid confusion? --Dweller 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Worse, para 2 is in past tense, so you have a mixed bag of tenses. --Dweller 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Any better now? Gungadin♦ 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry it's taken me so long to come back here and thanks for the nudge. Just took a very brief look. Parag 1 begins "Pauline... is" and parag 2 begins "Pauline was". Perhaps in the intervening month this been corrected and then "uncorrected"? ;-) If this can be sorted, I'll do a "proper" review with pleasure and drop it at the bottom of this FAC. --Dweller 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the lead so that the tenses are consistent within it. There are still a few other places in the article where it's more appropriate to use present tense (such as in the image captions), but I think it reads better now, please take a look? --Elonka 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it back. Per the MOS, fiction is timeless and she isn't real, so you write about her in present tense. Saying she "was a fictional character" means that she no longer is. Unless she jumped the 4th dimensional wall and came into reality, she will always be a fictional character. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- You need to sort this out, and I suggest you use the article talk page. The first parag alone is a tense mess. --Dweller 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this is fixed now. We've discussed it extensively at Talk:Pauline Fowler#Tense and appear to have a consensus. If there are any remaining concerns, please let us know. --Elonka 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- You need to sort this out, and I suggest you use the article talk page. The first parag alone is a tense mess. --Dweller 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it back. Per the MOS, fiction is timeless and she isn't real, so you write about her in present tense. Saying she "was a fictional character" means that she no longer is. Unless she jumped the 4th dimensional wall and came into reality, she will always be a fictional character. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the lead so that the tenses are consistent within it. There are still a few other places in the article where it's more appropriate to use present tense (such as in the image captions), but I think it reads better now, please take a look? --Elonka 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry it's taken me so long to come back here and thanks for the nudge. Just took a very brief look. Parag 1 begins "Pauline... is" and parag 2 begins "Pauline was". Perhaps in the intervening month this been corrected and then "uncorrected"? ;-) If this can be sorted, I'll do a "proper" review with pleasure and drop it at the bottom of this FAC. --Dweller 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Any better now? Gungadin♦ 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Worse, para 2 is in past tense, so you have a mixed bag of tenses. --Dweller 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. The opening line is however misleading, as it makes it seem that Pauline is a character today. Perhaps the Lead could be reworked to avoid confusion? --Dweller 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - You need to mention the creators in the lead, and you could probably put the second and third paragraphs together. I would change "praise and criticism" to "positive and negative criticism" as "criticism" doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I don't understand what ""Wicked Witch of Walford" means. Is it a negation of being a television icon? If not, then you need to change "but also" to "and", as "but also" insinuates a competing view. You can be an icon and be reviled. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- DoneGungadin♦ 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- You added exact quotes, so they need sources. I won't be able to review the article in its entirety for a few days, I have several school projects I have due for the next week. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- DoneNo worries, if this is anything like the last FAC then it will be open for a long time :) Gungadin♦ 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- "she has been described as.... a "sucking chest wound", with "not a single redeeming feature"" are pretty scathing criticisms. They are verifiable as is, however in my opinion you should make the sources clearer. e.g. described by Guardian columnist Lucy Mangan as.... etc.
- I dont think it's necessary to include that in the lead, because it's just a snippet of a quote that is taken from the Reception section. The reporter and the newspaper is mentioned there, where the quote is much bigger and readers only have to follow the ref number to get reference details. Gungadin♦ 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- The blockquote about "Pauline's original character outline": Quotations within the quote should not be italicised, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks.
- Overlinking. I suggest only linking relevant items, e.g. flu, whodunnit, linchpin, wikitionary link to cornerstone, wikitionary link to battle-axe, symbolised, matriarchal, amniocentesis, launderette and gossiping are all oblique links, not relevant in the way character links etc. are. Also some repeated links, e.g. brain haemorrhage, The Times - not an exhaustive list.
- I'm not saying this is definitely a problem - but "the serial" used to describe the show, just have a look and see if it is overused.
- "The HIV storyline came to an end on-screen in 2003, when the actor Todd Carty was written out of the serial after 13 years playing Mark. In the serial, Mark discovered that his HIV medication was failing and he decided to leave Walford to spend the remainder of his life traveling—refusing to let Pauline witness his deterioration." -- That could all be much tighter.
- added that it was a "delight" to "alight" on an episode that was "so satisfying."[59] is incredibly piecemeal. "it was a delight to finally alight on an episode...that was so satisfying." would be much better.
- "A promotional picture of Pauline and Joe was used on the official Torchwood website, in a fictional magazine article about aliens.[95]" -- Notable?
- "continued through 2007" -- American English?Mark83 10:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- "she has been described as.... a "sucking chest wound", with "not a single redeeming feature"" are pretty scathing criticisms. They are verifiable as is, however in my opinion you should make the sources clearer. e.g. described by Guardian columnist Lucy Mangan as.... etc.
- Comment I haven't had the opportunity to properly review, but I will note that my main reason for opposing on the previous FAC, the preponderance of in-universe plot exposition, has been fixed, and the article is all the better for it. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This article is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable and neutral. Passes WP:WAF and WP:FICT. So there. anemone
|projectors 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pass & support
- On the basis that it meets current criteria to a sufficient degree.
- Request: "stoicism—traits that consistently typified the character. She was most often portrayed as an opinionated, sombre, battle-axe—a family-oriented woman who often alienated her kin due" Too many hyphens in dense proximity. Please repair. Learnedo 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment lead
- Was it decided that she can never be viewed again on that show? If it has re-runs, then it means you really should write in present tense. Only if there is no possible way to view her again would you really write in past tense. You'd still have all that same info in the first sentence, you'd just change the tense. And the surrounding tenses.
- I dont agree with this. It confuses readers when we write as if she is a present character (See the first reviewers comment above).Gungadin♦ 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- To you it may confuse readers, but literary practice is that if it's fiction then it's present tense. The reason it is present tense is that when you view a rerun, she'll be doing whatever she's doing in the present time. I think it's outlined in WP:WAF, in the "Contextual presentation" section.
- I see no need to confuse readers based on tense. WP:WAF is not policy but a guideline, which states "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." If writing the lead in present tense is confusing people, then it's common sense to write the lead in past tense for this article.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but being a guideline doesn't mean we should ignore it. It's confusing to me that the page treats the character like she is real. Saying "Pauline was played by Richards" makes me think that she is no longer played by Richards. This is confusing, because if I watch the show, she appears to still be played by Richards. No one replaced her, she's still there. The character may no longer be on the show, but when episodes air with that character, she is still played by the same person. The same goes for all her actions in the show. They still happen. Part of FAC is that you need to meet the guidelines, and writing in present tense has generally always been followed. I cannot think of a time when it was not done simply because "it may confuse people". It may confuse them if the character is treated real, when they aren't. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- But this isnt just my opinion, people have complained that writing in present for a past character is misleading, hence the reviewers comment above. I dont understand why you think we are treating the character as if she is real because we say "was" not "is played by Wendy Richard". Also your stance on tense seems to go against what you have said on the matter in the past. You said here on Pauline's talk page, "It should all be written in past tense, not present tense. It happened, it isn't on going". We have discussed this at length anyway, and we sought the opinions of experienced fiction editors. We were told that past tense was used when writing about out of universe information, and present should be used for in universe plot summary. Saying an actress played a character is OOU information, it's highlighting that an actor played the role of a fictional character. Therefore we can use past over present. I cant see how anyone could think we were treating Pauline as if she is real by saying that Wendy Richard played her and that she no longer plays her. Are you suggesting that the entire thing is written in present? Gungadin♦ 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but being a guideline doesn't mean we should ignore it. It's confusing to me that the page treats the character like she is real. Saying "Pauline was played by Richards" makes me think that she is no longer played by Richards. This is confusing, because if I watch the show, she appears to still be played by Richards. No one replaced her, she's still there. The character may no longer be on the show, but when episodes air with that character, she is still played by the same person. The same goes for all her actions in the show. They still happen. Part of FAC is that you need to meet the guidelines, and writing in present tense has generally always been followed. I cannot think of a time when it was not done simply because "it may confuse people". It may confuse them if the character is treated real, when they aren't. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see no need to confuse readers based on tense. WP:WAF is not policy but a guideline, which states "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." If writing the lead in present tense is confusing people, then it's common sense to write the lead in past tense for this article.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- To you it may confuse readers, but literary practice is that if it's fiction then it's present tense. The reason it is present tense is that when you view a rerun, she'll be doing whatever she's doing in the present time. I think it's outlined in WP:WAF, in the "Contextual presentation" section.
- I dont agree with this. It confuses readers when we write as if she is a present character (See the first reviewers comment above).Gungadin♦ 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Was it decided that she can never be viewed again on that show? If it has re-runs, then it means you really should write in present tense. Only if there is no possible way to view her again would you really write in past tense. You'd still have all that same info in the first sentence, you'd just change the tense. And the surrounding tenses.
- In the past I was under the impression that it was "past", but I was incorrect. It isn't misleading to write in present tense, because it's a show and is viewable at any present time someone wishes to view it. That's the point behind present tense, is that being fiction, it will always be present tense when you are reading or watching it. Saying the character "did" something in the past is misleading, because it's attributing the idea that her actions were real because they have a past. They have a present, her actions are always in the present when reading or viewing them. If you wrote a plot summary for a film, you wouldn't write it in past tense simply because the film had already been released. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- But we havent got pure plot summary in this article. Any plot detail is mixed in with real world information and commentary. When we did have a "storylines" section of in-universe information, it was written in present tense. It no longer has that so present tense is not needed. Or are you suggesting that we word commentary in present tense too?Gungadin♦ 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like you changed the tense of the article based on the fact that an editor was unfamiliar with the guidelines that state it should be in present tense. Technically, Richards is Pauline today, because if I go watch a segment that she was in, she will be Pauline in that segment. Fiction doesn't have a lifespan. It's always present. You have the consensus of the editors at WP:WAF and WP:TENSE that state it should be in present tense. It gives an example of when you relate something in past tense, and that is when you are speaking about in a real world sense. The examples are at TENSE. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I dont agree with this at all, but im just going to do it so we can move on. You just want the lead chaged? I dont have to comb over the whole article?Gungadin♦ 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- All places where it applies. WP:TENSE provides an example of what it is appropriate to use past tense over present tense when writing on a fictional topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it says "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well", therefore the only thing that needs to be changed is She is played by Wendy Richard, everything else is discussion so can be in past.Gungadin♦ 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- All places where it applies. WP:TENSE provides an example of what it is appropriate to use past tense over present tense when writing on a fictional topic. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I dont agree with this at all, but im just going to do it so we can move on. You just want the lead chaged? I dont have to comb over the whole article?Gungadin♦ 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like you changed the tense of the article based on the fact that an editor was unfamiliar with the guidelines that state it should be in present tense. Technically, Richards is Pauline today, because if I go watch a segment that she was in, she will be Pauline in that segment. Fiction doesn't have a lifespan. It's always present. You have the consensus of the editors at WP:WAF and WP:TENSE that state it should be in present tense. It gives an example of when you relate something in past tense, and that is when you are speaking about in a real world sense. The examples are at TENSE. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can remove "continuously", when you do that, as it is unnecessary for the sentence.
- Remove "also" from--"Her narrative also include.."--it isn't necessary.
- I don't believe you would use a semi-colon with "...and Den Watts; a family friend...". The reason being is that the semi-colon turns the second part into its own sentence, and it's a sentence fragment on its own. I'd check the rest of the article for instances of that. I see another one in "Background" with the twins, and one all the way down in the first sentence of "Lineage". There are probably others. Rule of thumb, if you can read what comes after the semi-colon, and it is a complete sentence, then the colon was the right choice. If it is dependent on the previous sentence, then you need a comma. Then again, I don't know British rules, so maybe you do it opposite come to think of it. *scratches head* If not, please fix. If so, just say so and ignore this comment.
- But we havent got pure plot summary in this article. Any plot detail is mixed in with real world information and commentary. When we did have a "storylines" section of in-universe information, it was written in present tense. It no longer has that so present tense is not needed. Or are you suggesting that we word commentary in present tense too?Gungadin♦ 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment character creation
- This--"Holland had drawn on his own London background for inspiration, naming some of the characters after his cousins, the fraternal twins Pete and Pauline and their mother Lou; a family set-up recreated on-screen as the first family of EastEnders, the Beales and Fowlers."-- doesn't make sense. He named some characters after his cousins, but is it saying that Pete, Pauline and Lou are named after his cousins? I think it needs to be reworded for better understanding. It reads like characters were named after his cousins, some fraternal twins and their mother.
- I think Pete and Pauline were the names of his cousins, and Lou was Pete and Pauline's mother, but it needs clarifying. anemone
|projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - DoneGungadin♦ 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think Pete and Pauline were the names of his cousins, and Lou was Pete and Pauline's mother, but it needs clarifying. anemone
"In fact," -- remove. That statement is its own fact.- Done anemone
|projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Use of colons over commas. Again, I'm not up on British grammer, but you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting. For example, many places will state-- "Richard stated: '...'" -- It should be "Richard stated, '...'" instead. I also saw some "Richard has explained:..." The "has" is unnecessary. If British rule doesn't say to use colons over commas, then I'd switch those. The colon generally breaks up the flow.- Done anemone
|projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
" Richard has said “Having my hair cut was the most traumatic aspect of joining EastEnders. I'd worn it long for 19 years. I was hysterical when I came out of the hairdresser's. Then someone said I looked like Judith Chalmers!”[10]" -- should be a comma after "said".- Done anemone
|projectors 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - Going to take a break now. If British rule contradicts those grammar issues I pointed out, just say so. If it doesn't, then the article may need a third-party copyeditor to come in--preferably one who knows British rules, since they could inadvertantly change things that shouldn't be changed. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a styleguide issued by the BPS for publishing psychology studies in journals, so i'll give you the gist of what it says. There is no set rule apparently i.e you dont have to use a comma or colon just because you are quoting, you can use either, or neither (depending on the sentence). You should use punctuation where necessary for independent reasons, not merely because you're quoting. So commas are used if there is a pause in the sentence, and colons are used to introduce an explanation of what comes before the colon. I'm interpreting this to mean that colons should be used to introduce a quote following a sentence, and commas when there is just a break in the sentence? As far as copyediting goes, we've had no luck getting anyone to do it for us. Any idea on who we can ask? Maybe you can have a go for us.Gungadin♦ 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most psychological journals I've read for class use a comma after. You would only use "nothing" when you were quoting a partial statement. For instance, if I was quoting you and I said: To me the "styleguide issued by the BPS for..."-- In this instance, I'm taking your words and making them mine, but giving credit to you by quoting you (and sourcing obviously). As far as c/eing goes, I can only pick up on what I catch, and I'm certainly not the best at it. I tend to get c/e'd a lot because I get wordy when I write. As I go further through the article, I'll make note of anything that seems off to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- From what ive been reading, you base the use of punctuation on sentence requirements and it's just coincidence that punctuation follows a quotation. For instance you would use nothing if you were to say, The queen declared "I want cake". You use a colon if you are introducing an independent sentence or an explanation of the sentence that came before it i.e. Rufus explains the the historical development in cinematic genre: " historical and cultural influences blah blah blah!.... A comma would be used to indicate an interruption i.e According to Delia Smith, "fish is nicer than meat, but only when you catch it yourself". Therefore the commas or colons have nothing to do with the presence of quotation marks, they are being used because the sentence needs punctuation, just like a regular sentence does.Gungadin♦ 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most psychological journals I've read for class use a comma after. You would only use "nothing" when you were quoting a partial statement. For instance, if I was quoting you and I said: To me the "styleguide issued by the BPS for..."-- In this instance, I'm taking your words and making them mine, but giving credit to you by quoting you (and sourcing obviously). As far as c/eing goes, I can only pick up on what I catch, and I'm certainly not the best at it. I tend to get c/e'd a lot because I get wordy when I write. As I go further through the article, I'll make note of anything that seems off to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a styleguide issued by the BPS for publishing psychology studies in journals, so i'll give you the gist of what it says. There is no set rule apparently i.e you dont have to use a comma or colon just because you are quoting, you can use either, or neither (depending on the sentence). You should use punctuation where necessary for independent reasons, not merely because you're quoting. So commas are used if there is a pause in the sentence, and colons are used to introduce an explanation of what comes before the colon. I'm interpreting this to mean that colons should be used to introduce a quote following a sentence, and commas when there is just a break in the sentence? As far as copyediting goes, we've had no luck getting anyone to do it for us. Any idea on who we can ask? Maybe you can have a go for us.Gungadin♦ 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- This--"Holland had drawn on his own London background for inspiration, naming some of the characters after his cousins, the fraternal twins Pete and Pauline and their mother Lou; a family set-up recreated on-screen as the first family of EastEnders, the Beales and Fowlers."-- doesn't make sense. He named some characters after his cousins, but is it saying that Pete, Pauline and Lou are named after his cousins? I think it needs to be reworded for better understanding. It reads like characters were named after his cousins, some fraternal twins and their mother.
- Those exampels are my point. You are using the "According to.." in the article. Notice that the one using a colon is a complete sentence before it gets to the colon, whereas in the article it shows up with incomplete statements. You wouldn't write a sentence like "John explained." You could say "Rufus explain....:" because you've basically already described what he's going to explain, and the quotation is an elaboration on that explaination. Whereas saying "Rufus stated:..." -- we don't know what he stated prior to the quotation. Hence the comma would be used because you are going to say what he said, instead of elaborate on what you've already paraphrased. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, i'm aware of this, hence my explanation and examples above yours. I wasnt trying to defend anything in the article. I just read up on this today, im not trying to say I knew this all along. I realise there will be errors in the article as it is. Up until now you were suggesting that there was some kind of rule regarding commas and quotes. You said "you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting." I'm merely saying that there is no such rule, colons are acceptable in some cases, and i explained why. I was just clarifying this for both of us, not trying to outdo you or show off my great knowledge of punctuation, lolGungadin♦ 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say there was an actual rule. What I said was that the article incorrectly uses colons, as your own example shows how to appropriately use a colon in place of a comma. I don't believe the article actually uses any sentence structure that resemblence that in which the colon is being used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, but you did state "you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting". You did not mention that there are exceptions to the use of a comma, which is why I pointed it out, and I can see exceptions in the article.Gungadin♦ 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't/don't see any exceptions, that's why I said it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- well exceptions in my opinion include... John Yorke, has commented on the importance of the lineage between the two characters: "[Pauline] endures, stoically and heroically, whatever life may throw at hertoo..."and this....The inherent affiliation between Pauline and her family has been discussed by one journalist: "As the first episodes aired and the storylines unfolded, Pauline was there to bolster the family unit, and it was clear that she would be an important part of Albert Square..." and there are a few others. In these instances, the quotes are not surrounded by a dependent clause, so a comma isnt necessary and a colon would be more appropriate IMO. But what I will do is go through it all, and change those that I feel need changing, then you can scrutinize/change them afterwards. Gungadin♦ 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't/don't see any exceptions, that's why I said it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, but you did state "you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting". You did not mention that there are exceptions to the use of a comma, which is why I pointed it out, and I can see exceptions in the article.Gungadin♦ 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say there was an actual rule. What I said was that the article incorrectly uses colons, as your own example shows how to appropriately use a colon in place of a comma. I don't believe the article actually uses any sentence structure that resemblence that in which the colon is being used. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, i'm aware of this, hence my explanation and examples above yours. I wasnt trying to defend anything in the article. I just read up on this today, im not trying to say I knew this all along. I realise there will be errors in the article as it is. Up until now you were suggesting that there was some kind of rule regarding commas and quotes. You said "you should use a comma over a colon when you are quoting." I'm merely saying that there is no such rule, colons are acceptable in some cases, and i explained why. I was just clarifying this for both of us, not trying to outdo you or show off my great knowledge of punctuation, lolGungadin♦ 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't made it that far down the page, but there shouldn't be a comma after "John Yorke", but I would agree on the colon use in that sentence. As for the second, i would say no comma or colon would be used. You'd simply state: The inherent affiliation between Pauline and her family has been discussed by one journalist "as the first episodes aired and the storylines unfolded...". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support (as nominator). I believe all concerns raised on this page have been addressed. If I've missed any, could someone please point them out? Thanks, Elonka 01:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Read this on the first nom, and was impressed. Read it again last weekend; still impressed. I never liked Pauline, but this is a fine article. Ceoil 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Object pending resolution of tense issues discussed above. --Dweller 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This still doesn't make sense to me--"naming some of the characters after his family, his fraternal twin cousins, Pete and Pauline, and their mother Lou"--Is he naming the show's fraternal twin cousins Pete and Pauline, after his own fraternal twin cousins? Is he naming them after some random family members, or are Pete and Pauline not cousins, but are named after his cousins? The same goes for Lou. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- He named all three characters (Pete, Pauline, Lou) after his own biological family members, yes. Do you feel that another wording would be more clear? --Elonka 07:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- It needs to be clear who's who and where the names are coming from. If you don't know where "Pete","Pauline", "Lou" come from, then simply say he named Pete, Pauline, and Lou after his own family members. The way it is worded now, you cannot tell if if Pete and Pauline were his own cousins, and thus he named the two in the show the same thing because of their "blood ties", if if you were simply stating they were cousins in the show. "Some" is a weasel word anyway, and should not be used. List who they are, or say the exact number if it is too many to list. To clarify the naming: Are Pete and Pauline both names of Holland's own cousins, as well as the names of cousins on the show? Is Lou the name of Holland's aunt-the cousins mother? I cannot tell if he simply took specific family members names and gave them to random characters, or if those characters who received those names reflect the exact same roles that Holland's own family members were in. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- He named all three characters (Pete, Pauline, Lou) after his own biological family members, yes. Do you feel that another wording would be more clear? --Elonka 07:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment 2 - Book sources need more than just title and page number. It would be best if the first instance of book sources have the Cite book template filled out. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Which one? To my knowledge, all books are fully cited in the "References" section. --Elonka 07:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Notes should be "References", and those first instances that you cited each of those books should be where you fully put in the citation. There's no reason to have an extended section that lists the books in full citation when you can save space and just put it in the article where they are first used--then use the same format you already use for the subsequent usage of the books. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, with all due respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this, since I've done quite a lot of work on citations in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's guidelines on referencing are clear that there is not a consensus on the one "best" way to cite articles, but that there are multiple acceptable methods and hybrid versions. The most important thing about sourcing is simply that there be sufficient information provided, such that an outside reviewer can find the information to verify it. I've worked on several complex articles on Wikipedia which use this same "hybrid" or "short footnote" format. It's especially useful on long articles with multiple citations. I've found that a main advantage to this, is that when working on multiple articles, it makes it easier to copy/paste the references section en masse, rather than having to painstakingly track down the exact book citation from one of the embedded references. Don't get me wrong, the "reference the entire book in the first ref" is a valid method too, but it can cause problems when the one paragraph with the book citation gets moved or deleted, and then all of a sudden there will be dozens of other citations on the same article that aren't fully cited anymore. It's cumbersome to then have to manually check, "Okay, which one is the "first" cite again?" and re-copy the entire book citation, when there's really no need for that, since the information is already at the bottom of the article! --Elonka 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I never claimed you couldn't do it that way (though I see where it is implied through my wording), just that the second section is redundant, when, if you just put them in the first instances of the article you remove an extraneous section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, with all due respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this, since I've done quite a lot of work on citations in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's guidelines on referencing are clear that there is not a consensus on the one "best" way to cite articles, but that there are multiple acceptable methods and hybrid versions. The most important thing about sourcing is simply that there be sufficient information provided, such that an outside reviewer can find the information to verify it. I've worked on several complex articles on Wikipedia which use this same "hybrid" or "short footnote" format. It's especially useful on long articles with multiple citations. I've found that a main advantage to this, is that when working on multiple articles, it makes it easier to copy/paste the references section en masse, rather than having to painstakingly track down the exact book citation from one of the embedded references. Don't get me wrong, the "reference the entire book in the first ref" is a valid method too, but it can cause problems when the one paragraph with the book citation gets moved or deleted, and then all of a sudden there will be dozens of other citations on the same article that aren't fully cited anymore. It's cumbersome to then have to manually check, "Okay, which one is the "first" cite again?" and re-copy the entire book citation, when there's really no need for that, since the information is already at the bottom of the article! --Elonka 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Notes should be "References", and those first instances that you cited each of those books should be where you fully put in the citation. There's no reason to have an extended section that lists the books in full citation when you can save space and just put it in the article where they are first used--then use the same format you already use for the subsequent usage of the books. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Which one? To my knowledge, all books are fully cited in the "References" section. --Elonka 07:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I came across the previous FAC for Mrs Fowler and I was suitably impressed. Having read it again I find it even more impressive. Superb. Legalbeaver 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutral- Because of everything else I have to work on--Wiki related and real life projects--I don't have time to complete my review. I did notice that there are still tense issues. Basically, if there is anything that talks about her actions from the basis that they actually occurred--i.e. She literally did something in the show, or in one of the books about her--then it needs to be present tense. Someone needs to comb over the entire article. Also, references should go at the end of the sentence, or at the end of a punctuation like a comma or semi-colon. There are several that come in the middle of a sentence. It's ok if you are quoting two different sources in a sentence, just put the references in the correct order at the end. There are elipses (the "...") that are spaced out and some that are tight together in the same quotes. These need to be uniform. There needs to be some serious copy editing to this article to pick up the minor nitpicky things like that. The article is very good, it's just these minor things that add up in the long run. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)- Regarding tense issues, I agree that this is complex, and we unfortunately seem to have a situation where some FA reviewers want it one way, and others want it a different way. I personally think that the article strikes a good balance at the moment, though if there are specific concerns, feel free to bring them up.
- Regarding references: According to WP:CITE, it is perfectly acceptable for a footnote to appear in the middle of a sentence. Indeed, the example right at WP:CITE does exactly that.
- Regarding ellipses, I agree that these were inconsistent. I went ahead and fixed things to all use the same format. Thanks, --Elonka 16:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- It says:Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS).[3] Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature which place references before punctuation. Each article should be internally consistent. -- There isn't consistency. There's some before punctuation and some after punctuation. That means, either the ones mid-sentence need to be brought to the end of the punctuation, or the ones at the end of the punctuation need to be placed before it. The example they provide is the journal Nature. Notice how the references are all before the period. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, different example at WP:CITE. :) I was referring to the one at WP:CITE#Short footnote citations with full references, which shows that references can appear in mid-sentence. To my knowledge all of the references in Pauline Fowler occur after punctuation, except for something such as an endash. If there are any that appear before punctuation, please let me know the numbers, and I'll go in and fix. --Elonka 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think we have our "mid-sentence" definitions crossed. When I said "mid-sentence" I wasn't meaning after commas, which would be "mid-sentence". A more proper term would be "mid-thought", as in there are some references that appear like this: "...blah blah blah[3] blah blah blah." A quick scan only shows #67 to be "mid thought". I get the idea behind placing it there, because there is a direct quote, but there isn't a pause in place that the reference can sit behind. But, from looking at the paragraph, I cannot tell if the source is only for the quote, or for all the sentences that preceed it as well. The rest appear fine--I wasn't aware of the endash rule so the one I saw there is fine--but I'm in a rush to get to work so I could have missed something (don't think so, but you never know). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, different example at WP:CITE. :) I was referring to the one at WP:CITE#Short footnote citations with full references, which shows that references can appear in mid-sentence. To my knowledge all of the references in Pauline Fowler occur after punctuation, except for something such as an endash. If there are any that appear before punctuation, please let me know the numbers, and I'll go in and fix. --Elonka 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- It says:Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS).[3] Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature which place references before punctuation. Each article should be internally consistent. -- There isn't consistency. There's some before punctuation and some after punctuation. That means, either the ones mid-sentence need to be brought to the end of the punctuation, or the ones at the end of the punctuation need to be placed before it. The example they provide is the journal Nature. Notice how the references are all before the period. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't say put the citation directly beside the quoted information. It's usually placed after a pause. Given the fact that the info before #67 is an independent clause, I don't see why you couldn't place a semi-colon after the quoted part, then remove the "and" and you have two independent clauses separated by a semi-colon. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. :) I also went through and tweaked a lot of little tense issues. I hope you like it better now. :) --Elonka 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I was just combing through all your copyediting, and it looks much better from what I could see. I cannot vouch for being the best at grammar and general copyediting needs, but from what I saw it suits my needs well enough. Thanks for going through and correcting the tense issues where needed, I saw places where you kept a past tense and when reading the sentence I think it's clear that past tense would have been the appropriate tense (what immediately comes to mind was when it talks about the Richards playing the role from the 80s to 2006...or whatever the specific year was. In that instance you were speaking about Richards, and it should have been past tense). I think you guys/gals have done a great job with this article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. :) I also went through and tweaked a lot of little tense issues. I hope you like it better now. :) --Elonka 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry to chime in at the last minute, but hey, this is a serious encyclopedia. While this article is finally OK in the prose department, I do find serious problems in the referencing. For example:
- Ref 66: the author needs to be specified in your reference.
- Ref 67: this is SO trashy. How on earth can it be used in a serious article? I think these links to the gutter press are just unconscionable. Please remove them.
But now I see that it goes on and on, this list of trashy, journalistic, in-your-face linked pages. This is unacceptable as verification of what should be a reliable, factual account. The use of these references underlies, I think, the rather trivial nature of the article content.
I think it needs to be re-thought—vastly slashed back in size to a factual, non-POV, properly verifiable account. Tony (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is based on POV about tabloids. You havent even bothered to look at how the sources are being used. Some are being used to show that details in storylines happened, some are being used to give the article a real world perspective, some are being used for critical commentary, and some are being used for quotes from the actress based on interviews she gave. This is an article on a fictional character, and the sources are reporting on soap opera plots that happened. Can you prove they are inaccurate? I see no rule stating that tabloids can't be used as sources for fictional characters. Gungadin♦ 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with Tony that we should avoid the use of tabloids as sources. I was going to reply, but wanted to get my fixes in first. Basically though: Tabloids tend to report in a sensationalistic manner, and are not always reliable. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, and we should avoid some of the more "colorful" language that appears in tabloids, because our goal is to be a serious and neutral encyclopedia. See also WP:RS. I'll post more once the fixes are in, so that Tony can take another look. :) --Elonka 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the removal of anymore material, enough has been removed already. The remaining tabloid sources are not being used for "sensationalism" or their "colorful language", they are mostly being used as third party sources so that readers can verify that the storyline happened the way we said it did. Primary episode guide links can be used in their place from the official site if necessary, but content should not be removed (it will just be used as an excuse for censorship by some).Gungadin♦ 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement that occasional use of tabloids is acceptable as long as it's done in a judicious manner. The impact of the Pauline Fowler character on British culture was substantial, and it's useful to include a couple references to major tabloids such as The Sun (one of the most read English newspapers in the world) and Daily Mirror to indicate this impact. An occasional tabloid reference may also be appropriate as a source for a quote. I'll give a try at balancing things (and also checking for more high-quality references), and then we can take another look, how's that? :) --Elonka 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the removal of anymore material, enough has been removed already. The remaining tabloid sources are not being used for "sensationalism" or their "colorful language", they are mostly being used as third party sources so that readers can verify that the storyline happened the way we said it did. Primary episode guide links can be used in their place from the official site if necessary, but content should not be removed (it will just be used as an excuse for censorship by some).Gungadin♦ 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with Tony that we should avoid the use of tabloids as sources. I was going to reply, but wanted to get my fixes in first. Basically though: Tabloids tend to report in a sensationalistic manner, and are not always reliable. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, and we should avoid some of the more "colorful" language that appears in tabloids, because our goal is to be a serious and neutral encyclopedia. See also WP:RS. I'll post more once the fixes are in, so that Tony can take another look. :) --Elonka 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Outdent): Yes, it's a matter of balance. At the moment, there is a sea of tabloids in the reference list. I'd like to see that reduced to a minimum. The problem with tabloids is their reliability. They're chief agenda is to sell copy, and they lie, distort, exaggerate, stretch the truth to do that when there's an opportunity. Tony (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, we've gone through and thinned out many of the tabloid references, removing some, and upgrading others to more reliable sources. I do still think that some of the tabloid sources are worth keeping, such as where there's a statement like, "The British press labeled him 'Wicked Willy'" or for some viewership numbers (which to my knowledge the British tabloids report in an accurate manner). I've also added several other very reliable sources, such as New York Times and a couple others to show that the character was known internationally. Could you please take another look? --Elonka 08:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Meets criteria and has sufficient reliable sources, despite our own cultural prejudices. Like it or not, tabloids meet RS requirements. That the NYT, for example, is more reliable than The Sun is an unfounded sweeping assumption that, in real life, could be very dangerous. Tony's comments about tabloids can be extended to most newspapers. The JPStalk to me 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:37, 3 December 2007.
Riverina[edit]
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a comprehensive, factually accurate, well referenced article on an important agricultural region in Australia. The article reached GA status in March 2007 and was reviewed and confirmed as GA in September 2007. It is the key article of the Riverina WikiProject and as such has had a great deal of attention. The article is stable, neutral in tone and content and has a comprehensive set of freely licenced images. This is a self-nomination. Mattinbgn\talk 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Support. Superb article. Rebecca 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - sorry, just started reading when something cvame up but to work on - the lead should be 2-3 paras, should be easy to combine a couple. Also, the aboroginal mention is a little stubby and listy. Just a little more embellishing would be good - size of communities, notable individuals, extant status of languages or any other notable info. More later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It's a good article, and has good info, but it needs some more polish in some places. The pictures on the agriculture section are excessive. In one place, there is prose bordered by pictures on both sides. I think some of them need to be removed. Also in the notes section, the style is inconsistent. In some places you have "Charles Sturt University" go before the name of the page, while in other cases it is the other way around. Also a couple of them don't work or lead to a test page. Aside from that, this is in good shape generally speaking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Positive Comment - I haven't studied the article enough for critical comments but I must say that it was enjoyable reading! So work out the details for the FA but know that the editors have made it interesting. Mrs.EasterBunny 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Ref. 83 is a dead link, so consider fixing it. DSachan 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support good article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—Not well-written. Here are random examples, mostly from the lead, of why the whole article needs the attention of someone new.
- Why bother to abbreviate "New South Wales" only to spell it out again almost immediately?
- How could it border on a non-neighbouring state? And wouldn't it be more logical to describe the geographical regions that surround it (as you've partly done) rather than political units? We're told this yet again in the first section. Why the fixation with colonial states (bring it out under the federation section, but not everywhere)? Then we see a map that has the R substantially in Victoria, next to more obsession with states (lower-case s, please). States are not people ("who").
- "In the 20th century, development of major irrigation areas"—"the" is missing.
- "late 19th century push"—hyphens missing if it must be attributive.
- Third para in lead: every rag-tag statement is shoved into this para. No cohesion or logical flow.
- "15,000 - 30,000"—Read MOS on en dashes.
- So the Riverina is arid? That's implicit in the first para of "Geography".
- Aboriginal people 40,000 years: hotly contested figure.
- South western: formatted differently in the lead.
- Captions not whole sentences: no dot. Tony (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. While I understand that responding to the points above will not change your opinion on the whole article, I will respond for the benefit of other reviewers:
- New South Wales is no longer abbreviated at all in the body of the article. The abbreviation is shown in the lead as it is used in the references section. This is only in cases where the cited body uses the abbreviation (such as NSW Health) - see here
- Agreed, bordered and neighbouring state is tautological. Will be fixed. Surrounding regions in NSW are described where it is possible to describe them. Unlike Regions of Western Australia, regions in much of the nation are unofficial, not formalised and tend to "fuzziness" at the boundaries. I am not sure I understand what you mean by colonial states; pre-federation there were colonies, post-federation these colonies became states (using "states" in its sense as sub-national political units). The problem with trying to refer to regions in Victoria is that there is no commonly used term to describe the area of northern Victoria along the Murray. The Mallee is used to refer to the region extending upstream as far as Swan Hill, from then on a plethora of names are used such as "Murray Valley", "Northern Country", "Goulburn Valley" and "North East" amongst others. Rather than use names without any real currency in the area or explain in detail the area of Victoria in question, it is clearer (at least to me) to refer to the area as Victoria, a place whose name and boundaries are clear. I have removed other instances of "the state of" in the article and I think I have picked up your point about regions. I believe the section on the bioregion adequately describes the difference between the bioregion and the Riverina as it is commonly understood. I have removed the sentence relating to the proportion of New South Wales covered by the bioregion.
- Agreed, fixed
- This is perhaps my ignorance showing, but where is a hyphen required here? I have removed "19th century" from the lead so I am unsure if this comment still stands.
- Agree that the third para is choppy and will rewrite
- Modified to comply with WP:MOSDASH
- The Riverina is indeed arid in parts; "Rainfall levels in the Riverina are generally low with the median annual rainfall over most of the region between 250-500 millimetres (mm)" and "land described by Oxley 100 years earlier as "country which, for barrenness and desolation, can I think, have no equal."". Referring merely to the "arid Far West" implies that the Riverina is not arid, which is not correct. The Riverina's ample water comes not from rainfall but from the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers, fed by rain and snow upstream from the Riverina.
- This one is interesting. I am not aware of any major dispute about Aboriginal settlement in Australia taking place at least 40,000 years ago, except from biblically literal creationists. My reading is restricted to popular science rather than research papers, but my understanding that any dispute is based on competing hypotheses of how indigenous Australians arrived here and the level, if any, of gene flow between Homo sapiens arriving from Africa and the existing Homo erectus populations in South East Asia in the indigenous population. From the article on Indigenous Australians - T"he general consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans in Australia is placed at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago with a possible range of up to 70,000 years ago though not as widely supported." Given general consensus, using "over 40,000 years" would seem to follow consensus opinion without delving too deeply into areas outside the scope of the article.
- Agree with south western and captions and will fix. Thanks again for taking the time to have a look at the article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well-researched and informative article. Melburnian 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well-researched indeed. Someone might want to go back through and do some minor copyedits, and make sure all the references use WP:CIT, for uniformity. Also, a note, I love the beautiful pictures! Great work. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
Support; this is much better. Congrats. But please attend to these issues.
- Mid-19th century. Done
- "The Riverina has strong cultural ties to Victoria and the region was the source of much of the impetus behind the federation of Australian colonies." Use a comma as a mild boundary between these two ideas you've integrated into the one sentence. Done
- I see the edit link in the middle of a para in "Landform and hydrology". Maybe it's my browser or OS. Not done, I have the same problem. I have listed it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#edit links to see if a solution can be found. Done, solution found.
- "The closed Hampden Bridge over the Murrumbidgee River at Wagga Wagga - the new Wiradjuri Bridge is in the background." Can't use a hyphen as punctuation like that. Try a semicolon or even a period. Done
- Read MOS on en dashes. 500-800 mm. Done, I think I have them all
- "The Federal Hotel in Berrigan, one of a series of hotels built or renamed in the southern Riverina as a result of the Federation campaign." Not a full sentence, so no period. See MOS. Done
- "A 1916 map of the Riverina. Note that the area where Griffith and Leeton would later be built was largely uninhabited until the development of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area." MOS says not to use "note that". Just make the bold statement. Done
- Agriculture: truly awful squishing up of the text between the two images. Done, by removing an image
- You gonna use % or per cent? Not both. Done, I think I have them all
- It's quite heavily linked. Why link dictionary words such as "customs and "smuggling". We know what they mean. Done, removed wikilinks throughout the article.
- Thanks for your comments, I have addressed the ones that I could at this stage and I am seeking assistance on the last one. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note: it's probably an idea to update the politics section in the wake of the election result. Rebecca 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Done, thanks for the reminder. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support – comprehensive article, appears to comply fully with WP:MOS.Grahamec 11:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ University of Exeter Calendar, List of Honorary Graduates
- ^ Harry Potter’ author JK Rowling receives Honorary Degree. University of Aberdeen. 16 October 2007. Accessed 31 March 2007.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
citwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Kirby, p. 155; Story, p. 162.
- ^ Forsman.
- ^ Forsman; Higham, p. 149.
- ^ Swanton, pp. 58–59