Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2008[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 18:57, 29 February 2008.

Carlson's patrol[edit]

Respectfully submit this article about a World War II Pacific campaign event for featured article consideration. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination with thanks to Nick Dowling, among others, for significant contributions and assistance. Cla68 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Another fantastic article well deserving of a gold star. My only question is who is Ghormley? He's mentioned in passing by surname and not seen again. Heis identity should be clarified (or at least linked by his full name).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the comments. When I shortened the background, I forgot to re-explain who Ghormley was. He was Robert L. Ghormley, commander of Allied forces in the South Pacific. I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a reason "patrol" is not capitalized in the article title, but is in one of the alternate names given in the lead? I think subjects like these are usually considered proper nouns, so Carlson's Patrol would be better. At least, the alternate names should use the same capitalization unless there's a good reason not to. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been discussion on doing it either way, either capitalizing only the first word in the title, or treating the entire title as a proper noun. I'm willing to do it either way. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as it's consistent, I'm not worried either way. But put me down for a weak vote in favor of capitalizing. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a great article which meets all the criteria. I only added a para, so don't deserve any of the credit for this article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, meets all the criteria, etc. etc. Carom (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very informative article, appears to meet all the criteria. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I think the article is pretty good, but I think there are some prose issues that, if taken care of, would make it much better.
    • This sentence is very long and unwieldy. I would separate it into two sentences and better incorporate the information about taking the Japanese by surprise. "Taking the Japanese by surprise, by nightfall on August 8 the 11,000 Allied troops, under the command of Lieutenant General Alexander Vandegrift and mainly consisting of United States Marine Corps units, had secured Tulagi and nearby small islands as well as an airfield under construction at Lunga Point on Guadalcanal."
    • There are other sentences that are very long and could confuse the reader. In many cases, a long sentence describing a particular action is broken up by a long phrase describing the unit undertaking the action. I wonder if it would be better to split these up or rephrase them in many cases.
    • There are a lot of instances of passive voice that could be improved to active voice (ex. "The airfield was later named..." could become "Allied forces later renamed the airfield...")
    • "Additional reinforcements later increased the number of US troops on Guadalcanal to more than 20,000." - were these reinforcements there to keep the perimeter defense around Lunga Point or for other purposes?
    • Watch for areas to streamline text - "being defeated " should probably just be "defeated", "completely unaware " -> "unaware, etc
    • Why is Battle for Henderson Field a further information rather than a main article template?
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations should not be broken out from the paragraph unless they are over four lines. The ending quotation should not be offset.
    • I'd like to see the quotation moved up to the beginning of the paragraph about the casualties. I think it would be a good intro to the paragraph, and it seems an odd way to end the article, to me.
    • Do you have any other information about the "high morale" from the quote?

Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for the delayed response. I've tried to address some of your concerns. I'm a fan of long sentences, as long as the grammar is correct. But, I'll look at splitting some of them. I removed the passive voice that you mentioned, and will look at correcting other instances if I find them. I clarified the 20,000 troops sentence. I don't understand what you mean by "main article template". I removed the block quote. I like finishing articles with pithy quotes as a graceful ending, which is why I placed the sentence at the end, but I understand that the "high morale" phrase probably needs some explanation and will put in some explanation for it. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karanacs is referring to the difference between, for example, {{main}}, {{seealso}} and {{further}}. If an article uses summary style of a main daughter article, the {{main}} template can be used; if not, another template is used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I replaced the "further information" template with the "main article" template. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Sandy for clarifying for me. I like the sentence you added on morale, but now I wonder if it would be best to get rid of the example of attrition and go straight to the quote. The current flow has: a) high list of casualties, b) morale is good, c) casualties high in Companies C and F, d) Company E guy talks about high casualties and morale. Removing the info about Companies C and F would still leave an example of the casualties (Company E), but would streamline a bit (and then I wouldn't wonder how A, B, and D fared). Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some copyediting to try to reduce some of the redundancies and tighten the prose a bit. Please let me know what you think. I didn't want to make the following changes because they used different sources:
  • First paragraph of Guadalcanal campaign mentions that the troops were mainly US. The really long sentence that starts the next paragraph also says that the troops were mainly American and specifies that they were primarily Marines. Could we take that mention of out the second paragraph and put it in the first instead? (Allied forces (primarily US Marine Corps units).... and then 11,000 Allied troops under the comamnd of ...)

Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your helpful edits and agree that they improved the article. I removed the Company C & F casualty example and combined the two paragraphs. I also made the changes to the 1st and 2nd paragraphs that you suggested. The sources are still ok. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:25, 29 February 2008.

ANAK Society[edit]

Self-nomination. This article began its life as a deleted, non-notable AfD in 2006. It was re-created with sources in late December 2007 and was quickly promoted to GA status. It recently went through the PR process but did not get much attention. I'm excited to see how the community responds to a FA candidate of this type; the fact that it is a modern secret society with mostly local influence meant that we resorted to an unorthodox form of sourcing. MaxVeers (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, although I am a significant contributor to the article; so it's more of a co-nom, I suppose. This is an amazing article, with an incredible number of sources for a topic that was previously deleted as unverifiable. I'd also like to point out to reviewers that some of our sources rely on The Technique, which has been moving to new servers as of late; therefore, their web archives have been down and some of those links may be temporarily broken. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Oppose. Support. This is a well-written article, and it appears to meet all FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article comes across as very pro-ANAK. Other issues below.
      • Comment. I would argue that the Controversy section does a good job of covering criticisms of ANAK. I include all the skeptical sources I could find. The positive aspects of the organization are carefully sourced. As it is ostensibly a philanthropic organization, it may follow that criticisms are fewer than other types of organizations. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not wikilink to other parts of this article from the lead (oldest, name, influential, etc) or body of the article (Transition section)
    • This needs a citation in the lead, even if it is sourced in the article "Today, membership in ANAK is considered the highest honor a Georgia Tech student can receive; "
      • Done. Reorganized lede to indicate prestige of membership has changed in recent years. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you need to wikilink president, vicepresident, treasurer and secretaty
    • There should not be external links in the main body of the article (see Tranisition to a secret society section)
      • Done. Moved the external link to a reference. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for this sentence, even if it is cited in a different section "In contrast, critics of the society suggest that the society acts in secret to shirk accountability for any negative consequences of its activities"
    • It is not necessary to include (see Controversy) when it's in the same article
    • There are a lot of duplicated wikilinks. Blue Print, The Technique, yearbook, student newspaper, student organization, etc, really only need to be wikilinked once in the lead and once in the body of the article (and again in an image caption if necessary
      • Done. Removed all of these plus any others I noticed. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Following the establishment of the Blue Print, ANAK and three Georgia Tech faculty members appointed the first staff of the Technique, Georgia Tech's student newspaper" - the previous paragraph makes it sound like ANAK was formed after the yearbook, but this sentence implies the opposite
      • Done. Removed the confusing clause. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of random words that don't need to be wikilinked in this article (philanthropic, scholarship, plaque (and this is going to dental plaque, by the way), bust, coach, portrait, etc)
      • Done. Removed all of these plus any others I noticed. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is true "lost the election, a result widely attributed to her purported ANAK affiliation", then how can this be true "membership in ANAK is considered the highest honor a Georgia Tech student can receive"?
      • Done. Clarified in the lede that prestige of membership has changed in recent years. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd more the Name and symbology section to the very top or at least second
      • Done. Moved it to the first section. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was D.V.S. Senior Honor Society chosen out of all other secret societies to appear in the See Also list?
      • Done. It was there because it's another Atlanta university-based secret society founded around the same time as ANAK. I removed the link; it's not necessary. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need additional citation for "was made public only upon a student's graduation". The existin citation shows that this does happen, but doesn't specify that this is the only was it happens.
      • Done. Added a quoted citation to ANAK's website explicitly stating this. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A great deal of this article is sourced to the ANAK society, with more sourced directly to Georgia Tech and its varied institutions. Has the organization been mentioned anywhere else?
      • Comment. Although ANAK has been influential, its influence is mostly confined to Georgia Tech and Atlanta. As such, it is generally only mentioned in literature about the region. Within this body of literature, however, ANAK is mentioned in a variety of types of published sources, including academic and popular books, newspaper articles, student publications, online sources, etc. Please also keep in mind that because ANAK is a secret society, sources will necessarily be harder to come by. MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your extremely helpful comments! MaxVeers (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great job in making changes :) Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I could make some deep comment about this article and phoenixes, but that somehow feels unnecessary. Any issues that I think I might have found have already been mentioned and addressed. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:25, 29 February 2008.

Amanita ocreata[edit]

previous FAC

Since its last nomination, it has been reviewed and subsequently listed at WP:GAN, requiring a copyedit there. Since then, a range map has been added, and a relevant external link which is not in the inline references. Otherwise, I feel this article is as comprehensive as possible, and has appropriately licenced images and a hierarchy of headings. At 26.8kb, it is somewhat shorter than other biological FAs, though plenty longer than some other FAs. Feedback encouraged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: My problem with this article is the section on toxicity, most of which really belongs in another article. Quite simply, none of this information about poisoning is specific to A. ocreata and applies equally well as a description to amatoxin poisoning from any mushroom containing these compounds. In my opinion, most of this section should be moved to a new article, Amatoxin poisoning (or maybe the Amatoxin article), and a shorter section, with a redirect, should be left in the Amanita ocreata article. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note here what I said last time about Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, or more specifically this essay. If this were a paper book, We'd have a poisoning section, with details under A. phalloides, or general, and then under A. bisporiga, A. ocreata etc. we'd have poisoning section - see A. phalloides or as for A. phalloides. One could also argue that the fungus has these poisons so this is what would happen if you eat it. In terms of coverage, then the most exact way to cover it would be to make a Amanita sect. phalloideae page and reserve all the detailed stuff on amatoxins for that page given that is the group of fungi which has all the toxic members (not the genus Amanita. However, one does not ingest or is poisoned by a taxonomic group of fungi.
How wikipedia (and guidebooks for mushrooms, frogs, plants, birds) have developed is with the species as the unit of division. The fact is if you eat this mushroom then the toxins contained within are likely to do these things and there is a summary of the treatment you may receive. I'd argue that laypeople are unlikely to be looking up toxins but more mushrooms in the first instance. Nevertheless I can see some stuff to prune that is less relevant. Some consensus would be good here.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your reasoning here. Yes, Wikipedia isn't a paper, hence, "space limitations" aren't an issue, but the way I see it, this is just a recipe for having content forks all over the place. And, in fact, that's the situation we have now – no detailed discussion of amatoxin poisoning in the Amatoxin article, and two detailed but entirely separate discussions under Amanita phalloides and Amanita ocreata. Is that a logical arrangement of subject matter to you? It sure isn't to me. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the size of the article and where you're coming from. OK, I agree amatoxin should probably have the most detail, and it could get quite a bit more detailed than what is on the Amanita phalloides page, which is where there is most detail currently. However, the development or lack thereof of the amatoxin page is somewhat independent of what is being discussed here. Essentially I think it is worthwhile discussing in some detail (a) what happens when you eat it and (b) how it is treated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity is the sine qua non of the "death angel" being a featured article candidate in the first place. Throwing it out is a pretty senseless argument; do so, and there's no reason to feature this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about "throwing it out"? I'm talking about condensing it down to a summary, with redirect to a longer article specifically on the topic of amatoxin poisoning, which is standard procedure for specialized article sections, especially sections describing something that is shared by the subject of one or more other articles. And as for FA, I thought it was about having the most exemplary writing and organization of an article, not necessarily about "padding" it with the most content to make sure the article is a certain length. I'll also note – A. ocreata is actually a relatively rare cause of poisonings, and by that I mean within the native range of A. ocreata (California, basically), poisoning by this species is far rarer than poisoning by Amanita phalloides. Its not because it isn't a highly toxic mushroom, but because people, for whatever reason, rarely consume it by mistake compared to mistaken consumption of A. phalloides. Hence, if the "amatoxin poisoning" literature describes poisoning by any one organism in particular, that would be A. phalloides. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken on board comments and removed experimental material, to leave the essential symptoms/toxicity/treatment. This is now 668 words vs. 1097 words in Amanita phalloides (not including notable victims or Similarity to edible species so as to compare the above only). The article is still over 20kb in size and as comprehensive as I can make it. Do you feel this is enough of a cut-down. If not, which particular bits do you feel are still extraneous? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: FWIW, I envisage a amatoxin poisoning section on the amatoxin page which would be longer than that on A. phalloides, just haven't done that yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
Its definite better in this article (still a bit long in the A. phalloides article), so coverage of different topics is now more balanced. I think a "poisoning" section of in Amatoxin could be put together by synthesizing the section in the A. phalloides article with the older, longer section of the A. ocreata article. I'll try putting it together tonight. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments --Laser brain (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 22 is broken - it refers to a Reference (Vetter) that is never defined.
(fixed).
    • You don't appear to have a consistent method for providing foreign-language and English translations of journal articles. Note 25 has the German title followed by the English translation in single brackets. Note 27 has just the English title in single brackets. Note 29 also has just the English title, but this time in double brackets. All of those have the language in parens at the beginning of the citation, but note 38 has the phrase "in German" in parens after the article title.
(There are only 2 left and both have icons. I removed the german title to streamline with the Italian one so both are formatted the same way) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • "...it is one of the most poisonous of all known toadstools..." Something can't be "one of the most", it can only be the most.
(There are several highly lethal species which it would be hard to conculsively determine which is the most poisonous. It isn't conclusively known which is the most poisonous. I have reworded to "it is a potentially deadly fungus")
    • "The spore print is white, and the ovate to subelliptic amyloid spores are 9–14 x 7–10 μm viewed under a microscope." This sentence lost me. What does "the ovate to subelliptic amyloid spores" mean?
(changed to "oval-shaped" and linked amyloid. Could explain here I guess or leave as bluelink. I am open to suggestions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, I think it should go back to something close to the language you originally used – "ovoid to subellipsoid" is the proper terminology, and in Wikipedia, terms not easily understandable to a general audience are linked rather than "dumbed down". In this case, the link would probably be to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. I'd be happy to write these entries in Wiktionary if they're not there already. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have reinserted ovate to subelliptic and left oval-shaped in momentarily until a wiktionary bit is wirtten. I am more than happy if you tweak to link at that stage. That'd be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • Some statements, like "It also stimulates DNA-dependent RNA polymerases, leading to an increase in RNA synthesis." seem to be over-cited. Does that statement really need three sources? Is it a point of contention in this particular discourse community?
(I've removed that one. I'll check for others)
    • In the description section, why do you introduce the term "toadstool" when mushroom has been used? It is already hard to follow the fungus terms (for a layperson) without mix and match. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I missed this, but the term "toadstool" is a very archaic and unscientific term. It definitely needs to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(agreed. 2 toadstools removed from article)
  • support, with a few questions:
    • Could you please confirm that this is correct, "first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1909" which is referenced to Peck, Charles Horton (1909). "New species of fungi.". A search shows that this may have been written earlier [1]
(Peck seemed periodically published articles with the same title as he described fungi, so it was like a series as far as I can tell. I have a peer reviewed journal article by mycologists Ammirati and Thiers which dates and references the particular instalment where A. ocreata appears as a publication in 1909, but I have found the same title used when other species are described over time. confusing I know....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this be clarified, "It belongs to the section Phalloideae within the genus Amanita, which contains several deadly poisonous fungi including the death cap (A. phalloides) and several all-white species of Amanita also known as "destroying angels": Amanita bisporiga of eastern North America, and the European A. virosa." Specifically, are these examples part of the same section or just the genus? If I am interpreting it correctly, how about: "The mushroom belongs to the same section (Phalloideae) and genus (Amanita) as several deadly poisonous fungi including the death cap (A. phalloides) and several all-white species of Amanita known as "destroying angels": Amanita bisporiga of eastern North America, and the European A. virosa."
(sounds good. done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blue is an unfortunate colour for the distribution map when the species is along the coastline like this.
(gah! shoulda thought of that one! left a note with the map maker. I have no experience with these type of maps...) done
    • In "Distribution and habitat", honestly I don't know much about mushrooms (yet) but...is their distrubution limited by their relationship with the specific tree types? Are there other factors (climatic? humidity of west coast?) that are required to grow?
(probably more vegetation than anything else, however all the material I have is descriptive, so I can't speculate if there isn't already speculation published. The old OR issue..)
    • In "Toxicity" is there a measurement of how toxic one mushroom is? an LD50 maybe? Would it be the same as Alpha-amanitin's 0.1 mg/kg?
(The nearest I could get (that wasn't OR) was reporting its relative A phalloides, where half a cap may be lethal, near the section where it says it may be more toxic, as that species has been studied in much greater detail)
That's fine. Original Research on the toxicity isn't a wise idea. --maclean 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I'm following the above conversation correctly, and the toxicity is same as Amatoxin, would a {{See also|Amatoxin}} be appropriate? --maclean 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(we're working on it - see above)

Comment: I'm taking a close look at Image:Amanita_ocreata_map.png, the distribution map, and see some definite problems with it. First, based on descriptions by Tulloss, etc, which only name what states the mushroom occurs in, any map that attempts to show a more exact range than that is bound to fall back on original research. Second, the range of occurrence shown is clearly not accurate. It only shows it as a coastal species, yet its definitely known from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (the map doesn't quite seem to go that far east, or follow the natural geography of California at all, as best I can tell). Also, it shows the distribution in the PNW to be primarily coastal, which is not the pattern that oak woodlands follow there. If it is possible to make up a distribution map of this kind for Wikipedia, knowing that there's a degree of original research involved, I would use the distribution maps of Oregon/California oak woodland dominant species, as well as western hazel:

Other dominant species of oak fall within at least one of the geographic ranges shown in the above maps. A map incorporating the ranges of all of the above species would be the most likely distribution map for A. ocreata. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll ask and see if the maker (or someone else) can tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
I'd have them go with a different color scheme as well. As somebody else mentioned, the use of blue on a coastal area might be confusing. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have already done so. The person I have asked may or may not be a little busy off WP so have a 'reserve' to ask if he is too busy. The map has now been changed from blue to green and enlarged as per the other maps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map is way better, and I don't want to run the point into the ground, but the map now shows the distribution as going into BC, which has not in fact been reported. That should be changed. I'm thinking a good place to show the northern end of distribution would be at the same place whether the continuous mainland distribution of Quercus garryana ends, in Whatcom County, Washington, just south of the Canadian border, as per this map:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/quercus/garryana.jpg
There's actually a real possibility that this species occurs in BC, of course, but its never been reported as of yet. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OH no, article instability I read that...be interesting if/when someone finds it up there and we can add it. Lemme know if it turns up...I'll let the mapmaker know to 'shrink' the map at the north end a bit. Map has been duly shrunk Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting and well-written. I think it provides just enough information about the toxins and treatment without going into extra detail. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Tropical cyclone[edit]

previous FAC

This article is being resubmitted to FAC because it appears many of the previous issues that came up in last year's FAC have been resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose First of all, the first sentence seems awkward. Second, the "Observations" section is under referenced. Third, the section "Interaction Between Typhoons" does not have any references. Also, does that section refer only to typhoons? Surely there is interaction between hurricanes and cyclones. not just typhoons. When these issues are addressed, I will support. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed first sentence and typhoon interaction notes. I'll look at the observations section. What references look missing to you within that section? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it looks better already. Although, in my eyes, every paragraph should be sourced to get to FA status. I could be wrong, though. It is getting there, though. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple more references to the observations section, bringing the number of references to at least one per paragraph. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the check external links link. So far, one link (Atlantic tropical systems of 1993) does exist, though the checker says it does not. All previously dead links now work. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a bug, there are two citations named MWR Avila 1995. The first has a working link, the other doesn't. — Dispenser 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same reference, so I used to ref name to merge them. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the issues have been addressed. Great article. Weak Oppose The article's prose is great and most of the presentational style is good, but there are quite a few citation issues that should be addressed. When they are completed, I will gladly change my vote to Support.

  • This selection from "Eye and inner core" should probably be reworded because it currently has some sections that are verbatim or almost verbatim from the ref. "Associated with eyewalls are eyewall replacement cycles, which occur naturally in intense tropical cyclones. When cyclones reach peak intensity they usually have an eyewall and radius of maximum winds that contract to a very small size, around 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) to 25 kilometres (16 mi). At this point, outer rainbands may organize into an outer ring of thunderstorms that slowly moves inward and robs the inner eyewall of its needed moisture and angular momentum. During this phase, the tropical cyclone weakens (i.e., the maximum winds die off somewhat and the central pressure goes up), but eventually the outer eyewall replaces the inner one completely. The storm can be of the same intensity as it was previously or, in some cases, it can be even stronger after the eyewall replacement cycle. Even if the cyclone is weaker at the end of the cycle, the storm may strengthen again as it builds a new outer ring for the next eyewall replacement."
  • Suggestion: Would it be smarter to present the bulk of the info in "Size" as a table instead of prose? It was done that way in the ref, and I think it would be easier to read that way.
  • This sentence in "Size" needs a citation: "Other methods of determining a tropical cyclone's size include measuring the radius of gale force winds and measuring the radius of the central dense overcast."
    • The search for references led to a change in the passage. Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This selection from the first paragraph of "Mechanics" has no citation(s). "This provides the system with enough energy to be self-sustaining and causes a positive feedback loop that continues as long as the tropical cyclone can draw energy from its thermal reservoir, the warm water at the surface of the ocean. Factors such as a continued lack of equilibrium in air mass distribution would also give supporting energy to the cyclone. The rotation of the Earth causes the system to spin, an effect known as the Coriolis effect, giving it a cyclonic characteristic and affecting the trajectory of the storm."
    • The section has gained citations and been reworded. See if that satisfies your concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This selection from "Major basins and related warning centers" is not cited. "The RSMCs and TCWCs, however, are not the only organizations that provide information about tropical cyclones to the public. The Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issues informal advisories in all basins except the Northern Atlantic and Northeastern Pacific. The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) issues informal advisories and names for tropical cyclones that approach the Philippines in the Northwestern Pacific. The Canadian Hurricane Centre (CHC) issues advisories on hurricanes and their remnants when they affect Canada."
  • This sentence from "Formation --> Factors" should probably be cited. "The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood."
  • These sentences in "Locations" need to be cited. (1)"Most tropical cyclones form in a worldwide band of thunderstorm activity called by several names: the Intertropical Discontinuity (ITD), the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), or the monsoon trough." (2)"Tropical cyclones originate on the eastern side of oceans, but move west, intensifying as they move. Most of these systems form between 10 and 30 degrees away of the equator, and 87% form no farther away than 20 degrees of latitude, north or south." (3)"However, it is possible for tropical cyclones to form within this boundary as Tropical Storm Vamei did in 2001 and Cyclone Agni in 2004."
  • This selection from "Coriolis effect" needs citations. "The poleward portion of a tropical cyclone contains easterly winds, and the Coriolis effect pulls them slightly more poleward. The westerly winds on the equatorward portion of the cyclone pull slightly towards the equator, but, because the Coriolis effect weakens toward the equator, the net drag on the cyclone is poleward. Thus, tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere usually turn north (before being blown east), and tropical cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere usually turn south (before being blown east) when no other effects counteract the Coriolis effect."
  • Suggestion In "Landfall", instead of providing three inline citations to the same ref, put one at the end of the section and include a brief HTML comment explaining that the whole section is covered by the ref.
  • The first paragraph of "Dissapation --> Factors" needs to be cited better.
  • The first paragraph of "Artificial dissapation" probably needs more citations.
  • The information in the table at the end of "Intensity classification" (table title: "Tropical Cyclone Classifications (all winds are 10-minute averages)") needs to be cited.
  • Issues in "Notable tropical cyclones"
  • You should probably find an English website to cite this sentence because (based on figures in the typhoon's Wikipedia) there appear to be discrepencies on how many casualties the storm caused. "Elsewhere, Typhoon Nina killed 29,000 in China due to a 2000-year flood that caused 62 dams including the Banqiao Dam to fail; another 145,000 died during the subsequent famine and epidemic."
  • Need to be cited:
  • "The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is the deadliest natural disaster in the United States, killing an estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people in Galveston, Texas.'"
  • "In addition to being the most intense tropical cyclone on record, Tip was the largest cyclone on record, with tropical storm-force winds 2,170 kilometres (1,350 mi) in diameter."
No action appears to be needed, as the reference for Tip is the same as Tracy, located one line below. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hurricane John is the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record, lasting 31 days in 1994."
Again, no action appears to be needed, as the reference for John is located after the following line. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John is the second longest-tracked tropical cyclone in the Northern Hemisphere on record, behind Typhoon Ophelia of 1960, which had a path of 8,500 miles (12,500 km). "
Again, no action appears to be needed, as the reference for John/Ophelia track lengths is located after the following line. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in "Global warming" may need to be cited. "Both Emanuel and Webster et al. consider sea surface temperatures to be vital in the development of cyclones."
  • This sentence in "Related cyclone types" needs to be cited. "From space, extratropical storms have a characteristic "comma-shaped" cloud pattern. Extratropical cyclones can also be dangerous when their low-pressure centers cause powerful winds and high seas."
  • You should probably provide more citations in "Tropical cyclones in popular culture". Thingg⊕⊗ 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above issues should all be addressed now. If not, please let us know so we can more fully correct them. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great job with the article. Definately FA status. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm sure I could find some small thing that could be done, but I believe the article, as a whole, passes all of the FA criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After seeing that the issues have been addressed, and that the article is looking much better, I change my vote to support. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: This is really awkward, and the punctuation makes it hard to get through: can it be cleaned up somehow?

Scientists at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules ((1018 J) per day.[1] That is about 1 PW (1015 watt). For comparison, this rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy consumption of humans (and 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity[1]), or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.[2]

Also, most of the citations say Retrived on, a few say accessed, most of the full dates in citations are wikilinked, a few aren't, please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that said "accessed" were changed to "retrieved", and all the dates are now wikilinked and in the same format. I made a change to the text in the awkward sentence. Not sure how much better it is, but I gave it a shot. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem was the excess parentheses and commas which made the sentence awkward and hard to get through. I changed it to this, please see if this is correct:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thanks for the help SandyGeorgia. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article looks better since nomination, issues addressed, and I feel that this comprehensive detailed article now meets the criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Ganymede (moon)[edit]

Self-nominator. The article, which is about the largest moon in the Solar System, has been significantly expanded and copy-edited for the last two months. It has passed through the PR process and I believe now satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As ever with articles Ruslik works on, this is extremely rich in statistics and information. It compares favourably to the other satellite FAs. It's very similar to Callisto (moon) in organization but I think the prose is somewhat more accessible, as we've tried to pay attention to that. Marskell (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak support. From the standpoints of comprehensiveness illustration and citation, excellent. But it could still use a grammatical/semantic going-over. EDIT: Just did a quick workthrough. Will come back later.Serendipodous 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nearly there - I'm giving it a bit of a massage as I go and it looks good. I'll list potential fixes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::The heating mechanism required to produce the disrupted surface geology is of particular interest. - this strikes me as redundant, especially if the "unsolved" is changed to something like "intriguing" in the previuous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The existence and possible nature of the atmosphere of Ganymede have been controversial. - I'm wondering whether we could lose this as well, or at least reword or cite it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
I fixed these two sentences. Ruslik (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to eliminate duplicate blue links. There's probably still a few, as there were a lot to begin with. If there's a link in the lead, I allow a second one later. Marskell (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support   Comment—Another fine Jovian moon article. Most of the content looks FA ready. I just have a few issues:
    • "Ganymedian craters are quite flat, lacking the ring mountains and central depressions common to craters on the Moon and Mercury." Shouldn't that be "central peaks"?
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The {{e}} template has been fixed now so that it incorporates spaces around the '×'. Hence the additional ' 's are no longer necessary.
      Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I searched but could not find an explanation why there is a magnetic field on Ganymede but not on Callisto or Europa. If Europa has an iron core like Ganymede, why doesn't Europa have a magnetic field? Europa is also being tidally pumped, so the explanation seems incomplete. Some mention of the reason in the "Magnetosphere" section would be good.
      In fact, nobody knows why Ganymede has a magnetic field but Europa and especially Io lack it. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a sentence to that effect. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following sentence doesn't quite explain why there is a difference between formation time intervals for the two Galilean moons. Aren't both Ganymede and Callisto considered Galilean satellites?
      • Jovian subnebula may have been relatively "gas-starved" when the Galilean satellites formed; this would have allowed for the lengthy accretion times required for Callisto.
        Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Callisto doesn't have the iron core, which would explain one of the two. Possibly Europa's is no longer liquid? Marskell (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the fixes. I've changed my position to support.—RJH (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct the endashes, I found one very bad instance of a formula wrapping to the next line in need of {{nowrap}} (there are probably others), I found some hyphens that meant to be negative signes, and I attempted to clean up the citations to provide a consisent bibliographic style on author names, but I couldn't decipher what bibliographic style was in use (varying use of commas, periods, semi-colons, differing ways of using et al, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed these issues. Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ruslik, I promoted it to featured about an hour ago, but the bot hasn't been through yet. (See WP:FAC/ar) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Portal (video game)[edit]

Self-nomination The article has passed GA, and has had a peer review, and feel that those that have helped edited it have made it a high-quality article. MASEM 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article has good content, plenty of supporting facts and references, and seems to be on track thoughout. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The opening sentence of the third paragraph is horribly clumsy and confusing. Please do not let this terrible writing into a featured article. (This is probably not the proper place to post this comment). --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. --MASEM 13:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything flows, but I question why Aperture Science needs its own long, unsourced section. David Fuchs (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because its unsourced, or that it's just long, that is a problem? I don't want to crystal-ball its importance though gamer speculation says it will come up in Half-Life 2 Episode 3, but compared to, say, Black Mesa Research Facility or City 17 (which yes, are not good examples), this is rather tame, but if you feel it needs to be cut down in length, I think it can be; sourcing should not be a problem if that's the issue. --MASEM 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little of both. While it's certainly better in the article than in a crufty article like the above, I feel like it makes more sense to just discuss it in the context of the setting and relevant details without going into minute detail or speculation. Perhaps make it into the setting before the characters and plot? David Fuchs (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've swapped that section around a bit (setting before plot) and I agree that works a bit better, I think more can be cut from the ApSci section if it still feels heavy weight. --MASEM 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks a lot better. David Fuchs (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the logo and image of Chell for non-free reduction and took out the portal_game.svg image since it duplicates information. I will argue that the image of Chell helps to show what the portal gun, the main characters, and what heel springs are as described in the text. --MASEM 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I agree that Chell is acceptable. I meant Image:Weighted Companion Cube (Portal).png ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cube one is a bit more difficult to assess; the fact is that the cube is one of the more popular aspects of the game (described in the reception section), but the only other image of it, in the top screenshot makes it difficult to judge what it looks like (it is described in text up in the story section, but as there's already images there, it makes it a little image tight). I do see where the suggestion of it being extraneous is coming from as well, so the question is, can this be corrected by adding some text to the article to support it better, or another solution besides just removing the image. --MASEM 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question is, do we have a significantly better understanding of Portal by seeing the cube? I don’t think we’re there yet, but I do agree that it’s a close call. The other question raised by the prose, however, is that of replaceability (NFCC#1). If this object has plush, cakes, pc mods, etc., those could be free alternatives; we can only employ fair use if non-free images are reasonably expected not to exist. These items – especially, say, cake – could be significantly different as not to constitute derivative works (as a contemporary example, Blue’s Clues, also up for FA, uses plush characters). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point; if a fan-created version of the Cube can be considered as the free alternative, then that makes sense, I'll see if I can get one of the user-creators to post a picture to commons. --MASEM 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside, I've been told (per Crazy Taxi (series) that user-created photos of copyrighted toys (those made by the copyright holder) are not free, as they are 2D derivative works of a "sculpture", thus the Blue's Clues plush (which is not clear if they are made by the user, or purchased) picture may truly not be free. If I'm mistaken, I know people that have the store-bought Valve plush that can be included as a commons picture, but if not I would resort to a picture of one of the user-creations. (Of course, since the cube isn't a physical object, it's hard to say if that's a sculpture or not, I'd just rather make sure on the appropriate licensing here). --MASEM 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think Blue’s Clues is questionable. I should have explicitly indicated that I mentioned it as possible precedent, not as known acceptable use; I apologize for not articulating that well. Note, however, my intentional use of “could” in my previous comments, as opposed to, say, “would”. I’m going to read through the copyright law and see whether I can determine what we could use for an alternative. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:Bill Gates Master Chief.jpg was used when Halo (video game) was up on the main page as TFA (this after it was determined that no non-free images can be used for the main page), with the image blessed by User:CO, though noted that you can't copyright clothing and a costume would count as that. This, of course, would be different.
Regardless, even if it ends up being non-free, I think replacing the non-free computer-generated picture of the Cube with a (possibly non-free) user-photoed, real-world creation as to match that section (the fact there is user-generated content and/or mechandise) would be much better to match what is being discussed per your comments, so I am pursuing that aspect. --MASEM 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my (hopefully helpful) GA review of this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe Image:Aperture Science.svg is incorrectly tagged and is actually a copyrighted image. And as a non-free image, I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - kollision (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on the #8 - though I do know that Valve created "Aperture Science" merchandise as well, so like the Cube picture, this may be (maybe free replaceable) with a single photo of various Portal merchandise that would serve multiple purposes. I've taken the image out for now. --MASEM 22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn’t comment on this image because, being entirely unfamiliar with these games, I didn’t know whether it was from a fan-created add-on. If it’s from the software company, however, it certainly has all sorts of issues. Unlike the creation of 3D object with utility value (which may legitimize one of the aforementioned cube uses), a logo appearing on merchandise would constitute a derivative work and not be viable. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: - Quite a good read. It is pretty comprehensive and well sourced, though a few issues stood out at me while reading.
    • In the "Gameplay" section, the sentence "This allows the player character to launch objects, or even herself, over great distances..." seems a bit off since this is the first time the character's gender is brought up. Also it is rewritten from a viewpoint that suggests the player-character is in control of the action, rather than the player. Perhaps "This allows the player to launch objects, or even the character, over great distances..."
    • In the "Setting" section, I think "Aperture Science Laboratories" should not be bolded per the MoS.
    • The "Characters" and "Setting" sections could use some more citations, just for good measure. I'm sure this could be done from either the current sources or even the game.
    • In the "Story" section, the phrase "victory candescence" is wikilinked to Incineration. This might be confusing to a general reader. I would maybe reword the sentence to be less in-universe.
    • This appears to already have been discussed above, but the image in "Critical reception" seems a bit out of place. I get the connection with the user created and official products, but I think a picture of an actual product would be better here (not that big of deal though).
    • I would also recommend a table of review scores using Template:VG Reviews to help give an overview of the critical reception. Also not that big of a deal, but I think it would add to the section.
    • The "Soundtrack" section seems a bit sparse in comparison to the other sections. Maybe the content should be integrated into the "Development" section along with the info on the closing credits.
    • Some references are missing some information, like publisher, accessdate, publication date, and/or author. Ones that come to mind are are ref 1, 2, 3, 6, 20, 32, and 45.
    • Ref 61 brings up a retrieval error and may have been moved.
All in all, it's close to FA and is a good article. I think most of these issues are minor and once addressed, I'll be happy to support the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've addressed all of the above save for citing more Character and Setting lines, getting the right ref info for the Portal commentary, and then the Cube picture (moving the section on Valve merchandise up to Development makes it very clear that this should be replaced with an official product picture, even if it's still non-free.) --MASEM 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang Masem, you can be as fast as lightning. I'll check back tomorrow on the rest of it. Mind if I do some light copy editing to tweak some possible in-universe wording after you're done? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Be my guest. --MASEM 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed the remaining issues. I will also note I have replaced the cube image with a picture of the Cube fuzzy dice (still non-free, but better justified for the topic at hand. --MASEM 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: - My concerns have been address. I believe it meets FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Notes: Please explain the reliability of this source:

^ Polokov, Kadayi (October 16, 2006). Untitled email from Portal developer. Retrieved on November 27, 2006.

Also, review WP:PUNC throughout: ... that he "[could not] think of any criticism for [Portal]," ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that reference and the statement that was being supported by it (Chell being alive at the end). Being a forum post reporting on an email convo, even with the email writer being appropriate (one of the game developers) doesn't make it reliable, and the fact that it was trying to support is not critical to the article's understanding, nor could I find a better corroborating source. I've gone through and corrected what punctuation issues I could find. --MASEM 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Masem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cyger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 00:38, 27 February 2008.

Alanya[edit]

Self nomination Alanya has been a Good Article for more than a year, and since has received both a positive Good Article Review and a Peer Review. The page has become a focus of Alanya information on the internet, and even the municipal government page quotes from the information. Please address content specific comments to the Talk page. Patrick Ѻ 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brískelly's userpage notes that the user is from the Italian wikipedia, with contribs. Don't know if that matters.--Patrick Ѻ 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet The story that Atatturk renamed the city on the basis of a telegraph error requires much better support than a website; and the sentence in which is stands is not English; it should read two years before. This is one example; doubtless there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, if you look, the telegraph bit is from a book, Dünden Bugüne Alanya by Haşim Yetkin, the external link on the reference contains the particular excerpt. I don't know the book's availability, but I've changed the reference and phrasing to suit.--Patrick Ѻ 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.--Patrick Ѻ 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article. Thanks--Uannis (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; please review WP:PUNC, logical punctuation on quotes, and ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty endashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Could any more be added to the history section on the 17th-19th centuries?
    • Could the geography section include info on the geology and nearby cities?
    • The last paragraph of the tourism section goes into too much detail about the 2006 tourist season.
    • Are there any radio stations, motorways or train stations in the city? Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The population table needs sourcing. What is the reason for the population surge over the past few decades? Epbr123 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? Is Epbr123 satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, pls double check the external link checker (at the top of this page), some are iffy. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Good progress is being made and I have struck through the items I am now satisfied with. Also, please ensure each ref includes the publisher and publishing date. Epbr123 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions!--Patrick Ѻ 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? Several days since last comment, where do things stand on Epbr's suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I acted upon the above suggestions, and feel the article has benefited from them. I appreciate any further final comments and observations.--Patrick Ѻ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any train stations in the city? Epbr123 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't trains in the province. This is stated in the Transportation section. I added a note with reference when this was raised.--Patrick Ѻ 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

Metroid Prime[edit]

User:igordebraga Did tremendous work on this article, and it seems that every critique from the last FAC was addressed but it did not pass for some reason. It is comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Third times a charm! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things to be straightened up before I support. I've reviewed this article many times, and I feel that it's reached a featured point. However, a few problems need to be straightened out:
    • In the gameplay, we have: "and shooting foes, with the addition of a "lock-on" mechanism that allows circlestrafing while keeping focus on the enemy." I think it could be better rendered as "and shooting foes with the help of a 'lock-on' mechanism that allows circlestrafing while staying aimed on the enemy."
    • In the items section: "You can also use a "soft mod" device such as Action Replay or Gameshark to do this or other things." First-person is an absolute no-no.
    • In the plot section: "Prime has an extensive use of storyline." I think "use of" is best omitted; it seems rather redundant.
    • The image fair use rationales should mention the article the fair use rationale is for, so "Fair use rationale for Metroid Prime" would be the correct way to write the section title.
    • Would it be okay to find something about the speedrunning? Specialized communities are mentioned, but no source is given.

I'll be checking to see if improvements are made, although if I forget to check (which is quite possible), it would be good of you to reply to me. bibliomaniac15 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed! Let us know if you notice or have others. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Support. Good job, Igordebraga and Judgesurreal. The article really has improved over the ages. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns by ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Criterion three concerns:
    • Image:M_screen017.jpg‎ and Image:Morphball.jpg‎ both say “The image is used to illustrate the game's gameplay.” Please explain why two fair use images are needed to accomplish this. WP:NFCC#3A requires “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”.
    • The license on Image:Metroid_Prime_Pinball_gameplay.jpg‎ allows fair use for “identification and critical commentary on … the computer or video game in question”. As the game in question is Metroid Prime, fair use of a screenshot from Metroid Prime Pinball is not supported. NFCC#8 concerns, as well. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Pinball image, since your right it's not strictly necessary. As to the other question, as you can tell from the article, the issue of whether the game would be in a first person perspective or 3rd person was a huge source of fan reaction before release, so clearly the picture of the first person perspective image is crucial. The morph ball is the only time in the game that you play in the 3rd person, so I'm not sure that it's entirely necessary. What do you think? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The morph ball is to show different gameplay aspects (example), while the pinball one was just because one of the FA complaints was lack of images - so I added two, the one Judge removed (illustrated Legacy, how inspired a "reimagining") and the sketch one (illustrates Development, no description necessary). igordebraga ≠ 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To fully articulate my concern, the real issue is the lack of specificity of the purposes. Having never played the game, I’m not qualified to comment on the importance of the ball/perspective, or lack thereof. If it really is essential to our understanding, that’s fine; the rationales, however, need to be very explicit in their articulation of the significance of their respective contributions. As they exist now, the stated purposes are identical; if showing gameplay is all they’re meant to do, one would suffice. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see more than one picture for varied gameplay modes in Zelda: Wind Waker and Zelda: Majora's Mask(one for regular gameplay, one for instruments that take a large play) and all the Final Fantasy FAs (one for overworld, one for battle; one in particular has 4). And the Morph Ball is mentioned twice in the gameplay section - first on having a different camera, and then a description on how it works. The image helps illustrating both aspects. igordebraga ≠ 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those were not necessarily screened for FU and, in fact, appear to be in violation. They are, however, not pertinent to this article or discussion. If you’re pulled over for speeding, pointing out that other cars were also speeding, even if true, does not absolve you of the violation. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, we just need to describe its use in the fair use rationale? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just cut the morph ball image, its not that important to fight about, the first person image is the crucial one after all. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's disagreement, as I said, I'm not necessarily saying that one has to go. I'm just trying to get across that the rationales, as they stand/stood, indicate(d) that the images fulfill the same purpose. If one image contributes significantly above the contribution already made by the other, that just needs to be spelled out. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put the morph ball back and I changed the two rationales to include how specifically they are used. Feel free to fix them if they are wrong, but I tried to be specific as to how they are used. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One first-person and one third person. Good enough for me. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "becoming one of the highest reviewed games of all time." I know what's meant, but this is ambiguous and a bit awkward. This could mean a game that has received the most reviews. Please reword.
  • Please conform to WP: DASH. Spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
  • "which protects Samus' armor against heat, allowing to enter volcanic areas." Prose isn't great here
  • "Among these are the Morph Ball, which allows to roll into narrow passages and drop energy bombs" Do you mean "which allows Samus"?
  • "and allowing to swing from them across gaps." As before; without it, it sounds ungrammatical
  • "The percentage of collected items and Scan Visor logs unlock art galleries and different endings." The percentage itself does nothing—it's just a value. Rewrite to make clear that these unlockables are dependent on the percentage.
  • "Manipulation of the game's physics can allow knowledgeable players to receive items earlier than intended, or to bypass collecting them, a challenge known as sequence breaking." I'd omit this. Some guys (or girls) broke the system. So what?
  • "The player can also use a "soft mod" device such as Action Replay or Gameshark to do these things." Again, worthless and seems to infringe upon WP: GAMEGUIDE
  • Plot's too long for my liking, but this is just a stylistic preference of mine—there are some FAs with larger plots than this.
  • "because Nintendo "couldn't come out with any concrete ideas". Shouldn't you mention who said this?
  • "Director Mark Pacini said Retro tried to make the game in a way the only difficult parts would be boss battles," Shouldn't there be that after "the"?
  • Don't leave the last two sentences as standalone paragraphs as they're too short.
  • Possibly too much weight is given to the game's sequels.
  • The external link to Mobygames is questionable by looking at how bare the page is
  • You have to external links to the game's soundtracks, yet, to my knowledge, these soundtrack aren't even mentioned in the article.
  • Why have you linked speedrunning twice consecutively in the last sentence of "Reception"?
  • Refs are inconsistent—some are "forename","surname" while others aren't.
  • If you can find an alternative to ref 4, then use it.

A decent article, but there are errors, as well as disappointing prose. I hope that this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all the corrections are done, and here are a few responses:
1)Dashes suck! :) I think I got them all, this article was way over dashed before.
2)The sequence breaking sentence is related the speedrunning, so I elaborated in that sentence.
3)I looked over the plot, but there isn't a lot of unnecessary detail, like descriptions or things like that, so I left it as is.
4)I trimmed out a sentence of the legacy section, talking about how Prime Hunters was multiplayer, not really relevant. I think it's pretty concise, but let me know if you see something that could go.
5) I checked, and the soundtrack is mentioned in a sentence, though it doesn't go into detail.
6)Speedrunning is linked twice, once as the general topic, and once to the section of the article dealing with Metroid, as this a major speedrunning game.

So let me know your thoughts, and if there are more corrections. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't feel that the reference to speedrunning adds anything to the understanding of the game, but that's just me. As I've said, the plot's probably okay, I'd just personally prefer something more brief. Thanks for making so many amendments, though. As I've said before, I don't think that the prose is up to the job, but I'll have a go at rewording some parts if I have enough time tomorrow. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut that sentence as speedrunning is already mentioned below, and look at the plot again. Once you do your rewording when you get the chance, let me know if you notice any more prose issues that we can tackle. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shaved a bit off the plot. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

Hurricane John (2006)[edit]

Previous FAC

Having written this article about a year ago, I believe it holds up to the FA criteria. I'll be happy to address any objections. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment These three sentences, Hurricane John was the eleventh named storm, seventh hurricane, and fifth major hurricane of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. The hurricane threatened large portions of the western coastline of Mexico, resulting in the evacuation of tens of thousands of people. Hurricane John developed on August 28 from a tropical wave to the south of Mexico... goes from meteorological aspects, then to preparations, and back to meteorological aspects. In other words, it bounces around between ideas. I will go through the rest of the article later, but that is what popped at out me at first glance. Juliancolton (Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I moved that sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much better. After having read the rest of the article, I Support. Juliancolton (Talk) 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, rassegnato, solo ora capisco fin quanto si può scrivere su un uragano :-) (if you wanna the translation call me XD) - compliments!!! --jskellj - the nice devil 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets all of the FA Criteria in my opinion. Another great WP:WPTC article. Good job to everyone who helped with this article. ---CWY2190TC 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Comments - another great Hurricane article. The prose is smooth and interesting. I just have some small issues that I think need to be fixed:[reply]
    • You link twice to Baja California which is the Mexican state consisting of the northern half of the Baja California peninsula. I'm sure you meant to link to the latter since you are referring to the land mass, not the state.
    • "Favorable conditions allowed the storm to quickly intensify..." Fix split infinitive.
    • "It entered the eastern Pacific Ocean on August 24, and quickly showed signs of organization." Jargon alert. Casual readers will not know what "organization" is for a tropical wave. The tropical wave article is no help.
    • "Due to land interaction and its eyewall replacement cycle of its interaction with land..." Does this state what was intended? It's not clear.
    • "Officials in Acapulco advised low-lying residents to be on alert, and also urged boats to return to harbor." Suggest rewrite. The residents themselves are not low-lying, unless they are on the floor. They didn't urge the boats, they urged the skippers/captains/etc. --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot - I got them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

Triton (moon)[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone substantial revision since becoming a Good Article. Serendipodous 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, although I would still like to see the last two issues get addressed. Thank you. Comment—I think this article is fairly close to FA, but it may need some editorial polish in a few places. I made some changes, but I think more people need to look it over. I also have a few comments:
    • There should be a disambiguation link at the top.
    • The pronunciation section at the start of the lead is an unsourced mixture of entries. I think there should just be one entry and it should be referenced. The greek name is not covered in the body, so why is it in the lead?
    • "especially in the mantle" is redundant with the earlier text in the same paragraph of the lead.
    • "and produced better mirrors in 1844" seems to dangle at the end of a sentence. Perhaps the relevance of this could be clarified?
    • The following sentence seems like it should be down in the exploration section: "During the Voyager 2 encounter, Triton's south pole was facing the Sun." Voyager 2 had not been mentioned prior to that point, so the entry is unexplained.
    • The text uses the word "riven" (from "rive", to rend asunder) in talking about the troposphere. Should that be "driven"?
    • The article makes two comparisons of the moon's surface area to the land area of the Earth. (See "Physical characteristics" and "Surface features".) I think only one of those is needed.
    • I don't think a third explanation of retrograde orbits is really necessary down in the "Observation and exploration" section. I.e. the "I.e." can be removed as redundant. That section starts with two single-sentence paragraphs that should be merged or expanded.
    • Can the "Temp category InfoboxPlanet-Magnitude" category be removed? It looks messy.
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed most of your issues. The only dictionary I have doesn't supply an IPA for Triton; I suppose it just assumes it's self-evident. Still, none of the other featured moons have reffed pronunciations, so I suppose that's OK. All the Greek-named astronomical objects have Greek spellings next to their names, so the convention appears to be set. I meant "riven", but yes, "driven" works too :-) I can't remove the temp category, since it doesn't appear in the edit window. Serendipodous 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've had some debates over the topic of referencing the pronunciation and I think it does need to be included. It has been let slide for a while now and I'm bothered by how much the pronunciation entries seems to keep changing. I tried inserting a referenced (Merriam-Webster Online) pronunciation in one of the articles and it promptly got reverted, so I'm being a little insistent on this score. =) Having two pronunciation codes present instead of one doesn't help the case any. I'd like there to be a solid reference that we can compare against.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How about: http://dictionary.reference.com/ ? It gives IPA pronunciation keys for American English, although it doesn't appear to match the entry in this article.—RJH (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com appears to represent the schwa by omitting a letter, whereas the standard IPA representation for a schwa is [ə]. Not really a good idea to have two different forms of schwa on Wikipedia. Serendipodous 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming by "standard" IPA representation you mean the unreferenced one on wikipedia?—RJH(talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean IPA as it defines itself. see here. Note the symbol for the schwa.Serendipodous 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support--jskellj - the nice devil 12:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support - Looks to fulfil criterina, but the only issue I am not hugely happy with is prose. I've tweaked a bit and shifted my support into the net positive as I can't see any glaring examples but an overall feeling it should be massaged a bit more. There is some repetition of words in places but i concede it is difficult to address without losing ambiguity. I'll look a bit more later but I think we're over the line here :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Support - In my opinion the article furfills all the FA criteria. Nergaal (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have made some minor edits, (suggestions),[2] during my reading of this fine article. --GrahamColmTalk 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes. Please attend to punctuation on image captions (distinction between sentence fragments and full sentences) per WP:MOS#Captions. I am not aware of a guideline to italicize, for example, Voyager 2; please clarify (see Apollo 8 and WP:ITALICS). Unclear on the bolding in the notes; pls clarify. Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes in the footnotes; this is an easy fix that keeps appearing on astronomy articles. Please provide publishers on all sources (example, personal website, Dave Jewitt (2005). Binary Kuiper Belt Objects. Retrieved on June 24, 2007. ) This is another recurring issue; for example, what makes that author/personal webpage a reliable source? There is no consistent method of formatting citations (see 2c); some dates are linked, others aren't, and there is variable use of WP:ITALICS in the citations (books and periodicals should be italicized). Please see WP:CITE regarding mixed citation sytles and methods. What makes scienceagogo.com a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why some dates are linked and others are not, since they both use exactly the same template. Still, in the process of manually correcting them. Done my best also to cater to Wikipedia's Lewis-Carroll-esque obsession with dashes, which I can only assume was established purely to torment FA nominators, since it has no other discernible purpose whatsoever. (Sorry. After three dash-corrections, I had to say that) Serendipodous 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't "use exactly the same template"(s), and that's why this problem continues to show up in these articles. Have a look at WP:CITE#Citation templates, where this is discussed. The citation and WP:CITET templates have completely different formatting: for that reason they shouldn't be mixed in the same article, and they are mixed here. The difference in formatting is not only in the dates, it's the entire bibilio style. They use different biblio styles, so shouldn't be mixed. To fix it, the citation templates should be switched to WP:CITET templates (since they seem to be the most oft used), and then you'll have consistent formatting. I'm raising this because it shows up on every astronomy FAC. Further, there should be no need to fret over endashes; if you start using them correctly, they won't need changing, but when they do need changing, it's a simple matter of asking Brighterorange to run a script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the templates, but I would like to state for the record that I had nothing to do with the template change. I added most of the refs on this page, and I only use cite template. Serendipodous 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least now you know the source of the problem, and maybe you can watch for future additions of the citation template, when the rest of the article uses cite templates; they are two completely different citation styles and shouldn't be mixed. Now, almost all of your citations are missing authors because you left the faulty field from the old citation templates, which is different than citet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are still numerous dash errors, I'll leave a post asking Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate that. Tedious work this, but I think I've got all the cite errors. Anyway, hope this and Brightorange are enough to clinch it. Serendipodous 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, no, many errors still). I've left numerous sample edits to help get you going; refs need extensive cleanup, the following are issues:

1. Month-year combos should not be linked, see WP:MOSDATE
2. What is your et al threshhold? Diberri's template filler and the medical articles list the first three when there are more than five. You don't seem to have a consistent threshhold for the use of et al. Does the Space Project have a guideline as WP:MEDMOS does?
3. There are author errors throughout, caused by the mixed citation method.
4. What is the citation style on authors? It should be consistent throughout, including punctuation. Diberri's PMID template filler returns Author1 AB, Author2 CD, Author3 DE. Do you use first name first or last name first? Do you use initials or full names? There should be a standard format throughout.
5. The year and date parameter on templates don't need to both be used.
6. What is your threshhold on page numbers? Is it 1445–1456 or 1445–56 ? If the articles that you cite have PMIDs, all of this can be simplified and standardized by using Diberri's template filler.
7. When a full-text URL is cited (not a DOI or PMID), an accessdate is needed.

I'm taking time on this because it comes up on all the astonomy articles and there doesn't seem to be a standard; a standard citaiton method (such as seen in all the medical articles) might be good to establish. There are so many errors now that re-checking each citation might be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't mean to sound rude or anything but hammering it down like this isn't going to help. The reason the space articles on Wikipedia don't have a standard is because a) there are several different space-related Wiki projects, all of whom have overlapping contributors and b) leaving a message on most space-related talk pages is akin to leaving a message in a bottle. I mean sure, you are likely to get me to establish a standard by doing this, but that standard is unlikely to travel far. Serendipodous 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem; if they don't have a standard, they don't, but you can start at home by making sure this article has a consistent citation method, since crit 2c requires it, and the WP:CITE guideline explains why we shouldn't mix citation and citet methods. You're almost done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note about names. I tend to prefer the names first name first, and to use full names when provided, initials when it is not. Serendipodous 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I followed Diberri conventions on the samples I did. Do you want me to fix the ones I did, or are you going back through all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The artilce is comprehensive, well sourced and well written. However I noticed that the lead says Triton has a mean density of 2.061 g/cm3 and is composed of approximately 25% water ice., while 'Physical characteristics' section says This density means Triton is probably about 30–45% water ice,. I think these two sentences should be reconciled. Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Serendipodous 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:MOS#Images, several images need to be relocated. "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serendipodous, I think everything is set now, and I hope I've gotten the author formatting the way you like. I found what I think was a typo and changed it; can you check this edit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. You got it right. Don't know how you knew it was 15%, but yes that was the figure intended. Don't know why that happened. Weird. Thanks very much for all your help. I'm going to sleep now. Good night. Serendipodous 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object Why six refs in the lead? if the is a true summary, the refs can go in the body where they belong. Also, some sections are only 2-3 sentences long. Overall, very close to FA. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put the refs in the lead on the advice of another reviewer. Also 2-3 sentences is a fairly normal length for a paragraph. Serendipodous 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of FAC reviewers object to not having citations in the lead, so this is why they get added. A reason I've seen given is that the reader should not have to search down through the body for the appropriate reference. I don't see that this is reason to object. But I do agree that some of the sections have perhaps become unnecessarily short, with a single paragraph.—RJH (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

Mana (series)[edit]

previous FAC

User:Kariteh brought this article up to standard but it didn't pass for some reason. Regardless, it meets all the criteria, is well written, comprehensive, and deserving of the FA star. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - User:Krator (t c) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Critical reception" is not comprehensive at all. Also, the lead mentions "The series is mostly known for its musical score", but the section on music doesn't mention this.-Wafulz (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will fill up the reception section soon, and rephrased the music statement and added some opinions on the music to the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, reception section much fuller, has some sales figures, and added a lot more music reception. Let me know if this satisfies, or what else you think it needs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work.-Wafulz (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • According to the external link checker, the link named "Sword of Mana – in shops tomorrow" is broken.
  • "The action-based battle system is notable, since most other console role-playing games instead use the traditional turn-based style." Needs rewording to flow better and to convey the info more clearly. Deviating from the trend doesn't necessarily warrant the term "notable". Also, do you mean that other games didn't use this system at the release of the first game, or is this related to the current gaming traditions? If it's the current time, then I'm sure many other games besides this series use the system, which questions the use of the term "notable".
  • "The Mana games are linked with a common mythology centered". Doesn't sound right to me. What is meant by "common mythology"?
  • No mention of Music, Development (I think), Story or common elements—which much space has been devoted to—in the lead. Information on gameplay is also sparse; it doesn't make for a comprehensive summary of the article.
  • "Occasionally, tears may be created by great powers in the dimensions, allowing powers to enter different realms." Without any further context of the plot in the lead, this is a confusing and illogical sentence. I know it's linked to the timeline statement, but it still just doesn't seem to fit.
  • The info in "Classic series" doesn't seem to fit continuous prose well. What we've got is a whole section that lacks cohesion as it details each game by paragraph. It would make more sense to have a table, like in Fire Emblem.
  • A question, who has determined what is in the "Classic series", and what isn't? In fact, has the term "classic series" been used by the developers themselves?
  • The "World of Mana" seems to add nothing about the overall context of the series, and suffers from the problems of the previous section. The majority of the text seems to be broken up by details and dates that prevents it from being read fluently. Why not mention how each game was notable, and what new features they offered to the series?
  • "the one featured in the first Final Fantasy titles". Shouldn't that be the first few titles?
  • "people who are not good at action games". "Not good" isn't encyclopaedic.
  • "an anthropomorphic peddler allows saving the game outside of towns". Needs rewording for better fluency
  • Way too much weight has been given to the Rabites and Flammies. I really think that "Common elements" should be cut down to half its current size, with all of the sections merged together.
  • "The music for Final Fantasy Adventure was composed by Kenji Ito and was his second original score." Again, awkward phrasing.
  • "Legend of Mana's score was composed by Yoko Shimomura and she considers it the one that best expresses herself". Again, awkward phrasing.
  • Section on "History" is brief, but I appreciate that such information will be hard to attain.
  • The "Reception" section needs to include information related to the series' native country, Japan.
  • Suggestion: Merge the section on "Games" with "History", with a table to account for all the games. This should offer a more cohesive and logical direction for the article. This is only a suggestion, though.

A good start, but too many problems currently. I feel that the article needs quite a large change in direction before becoming FA. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begun working on the prose and trim, fixed the external link, but as for the history section, are you saying it's not comprehensive, and if so what is needed? Also, I have been basing the article off of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article, it's more similar in layout than Crazy Taxi, the other series FA. Thanks much Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done all the your corrections, but I have 3 questions; the gameplay section matches the Kingdom Hearts (series) article, which is the only featured article of a video game other than Crazy Taxi, so to format it like Fire Emblem (series), which isn't featured would be strange, no? Also, you wanted context, and explanation in the games section of why the games are individually notable... but I looked at it again, and that's exactly what it does, doesn't it? Second, Why does the common elements section need to be trimmed? A lot of the material is out of universe, like merchandising information, so it's out of universe and shows the series notability. Finally, the question regarding the history section, what information would you like to see added? Other than that, all corrections have been done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer each question individually:

  • 1) It was just a suggestion of what I feel is better, but that may amount to just that—personal preference. While using Kingdom Hearts as a guideline, please remember that the same circumstances aren't exactly the same; this game has more titles than Kingdom Hearts and thus may warrant a table. But again, this is a matter of preference. If you look at it now, there are seven paragraphs, with each one focusing on a different game, which means that the Japanese translation, the release date, the format, and the developers all have to be repeated in the prose seven times in total.
  • 2)My mistake; I guess that it does that mention this. As for Common Elements, I feel that far too much space is devoted to it, especially in comparison to other sections. While it does have some out-of-universe content, I feel that some of the detail and nuances could be cut down. Cut stuff like "The Flammies are described as "beautiful yet powerful beasts" created by the Moon Gods". Plus, is it really necessary to detail the the organisms' appearance when the images exist in the article? It's just at the moment, there's quite an imbalance in the article as the primarily in-universe section is about twice the size of the other sections.
  • 3)The second paragraph of this section just detail factors that seem quite unrelated to the development process, and seems to be a reiteration of the "games" section. Try some specific development with games and basically a more comprehensive section about how the series developed from one stage into another. Try mentioning how the series gradually gained in popularity, and maybe an emphasis in the changes in representation of the series/graphics, or how the developers took a new approach. Basically, more behind-the-scenes context.

Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what I did;

  • 1) Having reformatted it like you suggested, it actually does look a lot better, much better than I thought it would! It also showed where there were information gaps, so I filled them in a bit.
  • 2) I trimmed the common elements by consolidating the information, aka making thicker sentences and keeping the references, so it's noticeably trimmer. Let me know if you see more to be trimmed. Keep in mind that if you count the Common element, characters and story section of the Kingdom Hearts (series) article as one section, they are about the same size now.
  • 3) As I was filling in the games section tables, and began to look for information to fill in the history section, I have found it fits better in the games section description. I would merge the history section into the games section, but it is very general and about the whole series. Is there any broad series-wide info that would go in the history section that you think is needed, or should we just fatten the games section descriptions?

Thanks for your notes! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have filled in the gameplay sections and added a few sentences to the history section. Let me know what else is needed if there is anything else :) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)
Support: Nice work on addressing the issues. You may want to add an opening paragraph to "games", but that's about it. Well done. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I moved the development section to above the game section, that way people will read the general outline of the franchises history, then the games section will discuss individual games and their history. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea; it definitely works better than having an abrupt change from a lead to a big table. Nice work. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment criterion 3 concerns:
    • Per WP:NFCC#3A: “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”. This article employees eight fair use images. Please critically evaluate the necessity of this many uses. Consider NCFF#8, which states “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Do all of these images truly significantly contribute to our understanding?
    • Not all images (e.g. Image:Princess of Mana.jpg) contain all “necessary components”, as defined by WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I already removed the Secret of Mana logo, wasn't really needed, and I think that it would be fine to not have the manga comic cover; the rest though are of encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I may not agree with the layout/structure of the article, like the game table, but it works here. The article is comprehensive, well written, and looks to satisfy the FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I don't see the problem with the table—what's wrong with it? It seems better than a a list of bullet points. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't like the way it looks, I think such tables clutter articles. Though I can't deny that it works in presenting the information and flow of the article. It mainly just boils down to my own personal style preferences. We just got different view points in what looks better. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I was iffy about it, but it really highlighted for me that content needed to be added once I boxed the title and the dates of release, since there was almost no text left :). If there was a way to present the information without the actual box outline that would be cool. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is personal preference, although I feel it looks better than alternatives, but more importantly functions better for representing information. I don't want to delve too deeply into this, but in the prosaic form, it was already categorised, i.e. *name*,*Jap translation**platform**release date**How it's notable*. What happens is there's no fluency in the text, and these features are just reiterated several times in continous prose. Why? Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with Guy here. When comparing this article to e.g. Final Fantasy and The Legend of Zelda (series), I must say IMHO that latter's games sections look a lot neater. But that's just a preference, and no good reason to vote oppose. Overall, the article is quite good. 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Prince of Darkness (talk • contribs)

Are we seeing the same thing here? Anyway, what's the obsession with aesthetics? I guess it's just a conflict of preference. No worries ;) Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:58, 26 February 2008.

William Hillcourt[edit]

Self-nominator, a major contributor. William Hillcourt was a Danish-American who was a major influence on Scouting in America and the world. He was known as "Scoutmaster to the World". We've worked on this article a lot lately and feel it's ready for a FAC review. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The article is well-referenced and reasonably well-written, but I feel is lacking information. As it stands now, the article only describes Hillcourt's life. In the lead (which should be expanded to include a fewe more important details about his life and influences), it says that he was influential, but the article doesn't explain why. All that is does is offer a laundry list of his achievements. Why is he so important to the scouting movement? Is his influence still felt today? The article is also choppy with many short paragraphs. It would read better if the paragraphs are consolidated. I think you should look at the featured Robert Baden-Powell article for inspiration. Instead of being arranged sequentially like the Hillcourt article, it is divided up thematically. Consider splitting thee article into a 'personal life' section and 'scouting' section like in the Bade-Powell article. This would make it easier to separate Hillcourt's personal life from his achievements, and much improve the article.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worked on this. Pulse check? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support The article has been much improved, which means I can now support it. Zeus1234 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now with these changes. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did more tweaking with comments from Outriggr. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.
    • Are these reliable sources?
    • He needs to be consistently referred to as "Hillcourt", not by his nicknames (per WP:MOSBIO)
        • Fixed
    • Quotations need to have a citation immediately at the end of that sentence.
        • Fixed, I think ;-) (FNs to nicks are in body)
    • Many repetitive sentence beginnings. For example, in Later Life second paragraph 4 sentences in a row start with "Hillcourt" or "He"
        • Fixed that one, advise if more
    • The Personal Life section seemed to jump around a lot which made it seem to now flow.
        • Thanks
    • Should not refer to Baden-Powell as B-P either.
        • Fixed

Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • As for the refs, we can use other sources if you like, but they are reliable and we can also add companion sources, but the DESA one is the best there is. Thank you for giving ideas to improve. Advise if there are more. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The first three references are reliable and have been used in other articles. That T125 reference is a copy of other sites repeating some incorrect information. I have removed it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There were three refs there, no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - this is a great article. I only found a few things I would like to see either improved or discussed:
  1. (For discussion) "Hillcourt decided to see Scouting around the world and to return home with the best ideas. He worked his way through Europe and England and arrived in the United States in February 1926. He was hired by the BSA's national office and in 1933 married Grace Brown, the personal secretary of James West, the Chief Scout Executive of the BSA. They had no children." - I'm bothered by the very short sentence at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps this could be fixed by taking the marriage out of the preceeding sentence and combining it with this sentence? Otherwise perhaps it could be combined with some more information about the marriage - such as whether the couple were married their entire lives or if they had other previous marriages, etc.
  2. (For discussion) "His writings are still relevant and his material continues to be reprinted in Scouting magazine." - the word relevant causes me a little concern. Relevant to whom or to what? To Scouting I assume since the reference is Scouting magazine. Maybe that would be more clear if it said "relevant to Scouting" or "used within the Scouting movement". I'm also a little concerned about the tense. The reference is from 2008 so that is as new as it gets, but what about next year or 5 years from now? Should this be "....reprinted in Scouting magazine as recently as __ 2008."?
  3. (optional) It would be great to have more ISBN's for the works, if availalbe. Especially the Boy Scout Handbook, ninth edition. Johntex\talk 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three issues worked, please advise if okay now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interesting article on an interesting historical figure. I note that in the closing paragraph on his "later life", the year of death is missing. Two other points: (1) It is not clear where the eponymous museum is located — I'd rather see it in the article than have to click on the citation to find the information. (2) "Still" is used twice in this paragraph. — ERcheck (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the input. Are there more concerns? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — all of the input/comments on this page, with the responding improvements have served to improve the quality of the article. My kudos to all. — ERcheck (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very well written and sourced article. Interesting and notable subject who's article seems very stable and neutral, follows all the guidelines. Very nicely presented subject. Dreadstar † 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff Support, with optional suggestions.
Can we stubbify 2nd World Scout Jamboree so that anons who happen to like it the day its on the main page can add there?
Made a redirect to World Scout Jamboree for now. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -
"He was soon hired by the BSA's national office and worked for the BSA until he retired." he retired in.... <FIXED>
"In 1933 Hillcourt married Grace Brown, the personal secretary of James West, the Chief Scout Executive of the BSA. Hillcourt and Brown had no children and remained married to one another." seems better as "In 1933 Hillcourt married Grace Brown, the personal secretary of Chief Scout Executive, James West. Hillcourt and Brown had no children and remained married to one another."?<FIXED>
Do we have a better free image? The navbox one won't scale well to a thumb, and the other 2 are rather pixelated.<NO>
"He then worked for the BSA Supply Division where he broke his leg when a crate fell on him" in...? <UNKNOWN>
"iconic signature" seems a little POV-ish<FIXED>
See the signature in the infobox—this really is iconic within the BSA --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -
Is Aids to Scoutmastership notable enough to have a stub link?
"run a Wood Badge course" (double meaning), maybe "oversee/manage/instruct a Wood Badge course" <made 'oversee'>
"returning to the focus of Scoutcraft" a link explaing what Scoutcraft is and is not would be good <linked>
Was linked in earlier paragraph, but appropriate to link again. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -
A couple more See Alsos might improve the lower section MBisanz talk 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also should be minimized per WP:GTL; there's no need to add to them. As soon as the personal webpage sources (non reliable sources mentioned by Karanacs) are replaced, this looks good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, was not aware of that, thanks. MBisanz talk 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - William Harcourt is certainly compliant with the FAC criteria and the dedication of the users who have worked so hard on it is reflected brightly in the sheer composure of the prose. Delightful. Rudget. 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like all we need now is for me to dig out the official DESA list I have at home. I'll do that this evening. LOoks like Sandy will be satisified then. Thanks to all for the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed the ref Sandy was concerned about. Let us know if there are more. I also fixed this in the FL on Eagle Scouts. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:03, 24 February 2008.

Harold Innis[edit]

Self-nominator.

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the editor who rated it as a good article suggested I submit it as a featured article. I also believe this article meets the criteria for featured article status. Bwark (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it necessary to mention the source of each image in the caption? To be honest, this is the first time that I've seen the source of the image mentioned in the caption. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did he receive any degrees from the University of Chicago. I ask on behalf of WP:CHICAGO because I am trying to determine if his article should have any of the categories in WP:CHIBOTCATS that we use to tag our articles (or if a new category would be appropriate).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Innis received his PhD from the University of Chicago in August 1920. I have added this information to the article.Bwark (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support this nomination; it looks like a really well-written article. Good job! Gary King (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well done, I think this meets the criteria for FA. Morphh (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is an engaging read. I fact-checked much of it. I hope we can see more of User:Bwark's work in the future. --maclean 05:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: there is a MOSNUM issue in the lead, with the century. Please doublecheck the punctuation on the image in the Innis and McLulan section. This would be better cited to an independent source, and the citation should be formatted correctly (see WP:CITE/ES, 44. ^ See Forest Products Association of Canada web site). It may be helpful to ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to do a runthrough for any other MoS issues, since there is one in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epbr123 did a run through, and I removed the Forest Products Association of Canada reference. --maclean 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:03, 24 February 2008.

Dover Athletic F.C.[edit]

Another stab at a FA on a non-league football club, pretty much following the pattern of other similar FAs such as Stocksbridge Park Steels. Let me know what you think, anyway.......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Brilliant article, well referenced and verifiable, well done :) NapHit (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as long as you do something about " Probably the club's most high-profile former manager " - a little bit POV/OR to me...) - my concerns were addressed at the peer review, great work again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just took it out completely, I agree with your assessment of the sentence ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support just a couple of minor points
    • nickname in the lead is The Whites, but in history the Whites (lower case t) - they ought to be consistent.
      • Most common usage in the middle of a sentence appears to be with a lower case t judging from a wuick Google search, so I've changed it accordingly.....
    • Colours and crest says "current" three times. It reads the same without current, but adding current doesn't make it strictly wrong, but it might be worth a re-read to see if it needs to say current. Peanut4 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything done. Nice use of images, good work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-rounded and worth of FA. Just one minor suggestion: The infobox states that the club's ground is in River, so the Stadium section could do with mentioning that the club play just outside the town of Dover itself. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:03, 24 February 2008.

History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)[edit]

previous FAC (00:08, 17 February 2008)

I am renominating this article with the permission of Sandy after it was recently failed. I have contacted those who opposed last time and all issues have been addressed. As a recap: The history of Aston Villa is too long to condense into a single article and as such is split into two: History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874-1961) and History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). It is currently a good article. I think it now meets the FA criteria, I look forward to your comments. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have read this article in great detail and have made a very small and not significant contribution: [3]. I know very little about football but I think this does not invalidate my views. Until I read the article I never realised just how much goes on off the pitch in this sport. The article describes with drama and clarity the ups and downs of a world famous football club but never strays from a neutral point of view. The contributors should be congratulated on their success in describing over forty years of history so lucidly. --GrahamColmTalk 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the article looks fantastic after recent copyedits. My concerns from the previous FAC have been fixed or addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The comments I raised during the last FAC have been resolved; I was going to support then, but found it had already failed when I attempted to do so. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first sentence doesn't seem grammatical. Epbr123 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems grammatical to me. Which bit do you disagree with? Woody (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'including two "Ellis Out" protests, and an "Ellis out" march' - is the differing capitalisation deliberate? Epbr123 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, was an oversight, have fixed it now and added a ref for good measure. Woody (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I gladly supported at GA and while the step up to FA is a big one, the article now manfully strides the gap. My only itsy bitsy inkling of sadness is that there are three red links and if it was me, I'd make stubs for these, but that's certainly not going to stand in the way of my support. Great, patient work. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am currently creating one of the final articles. Woody (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article: comprehensive, lucidly written, engaging, meticulously referenced = promotion. SoLando (Talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work now. Everything I previously mentioned has been addressed. Just one minor point is the use of inconsistency and inconsistent in the same sentence in the lead regarding Villa in the Premiership. I can't think how to change one so have left, but I'd say a minor amendment would improve readability. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have fixed this.--GrahamColmTalk 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems good, I was going for erratic but hey. Woody (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 22 February 2008.

Emily Dickinson[edit]

Co-nominating with Roger Davies. This article has come a long way since November when I began working on it for the Core Contest. A delisted GA when I got my hands on it, it was re-listed on December 25 and reviewed by Awadewit, after which it received an early copy-edit and critique from Scartol (comments form both in talk page archive). Next it went through two separate peer reviews (archived here and here). Roger joined in during the Peer Review and together we polished it up to the state it is now. So, really, a lot of people helped me get to this point and I'm truly thankful. (I promised I wouldn't cry... < / Oscar speech >) Ahem, this is an article about a truly important figure; Dickinson is often heralded as one of the most important American poets. I believe it's comprehensive and well written, but perhaps I'm biased. :) All comments and suggestions are welcome, of course, and since there's two of us available on this FAC, all concerns should be addressed quickly. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nom, obviously. María (habla conmigo) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominator --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rock on, Maria and Roger. --Moni3 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as someone who did some work on this once but is impressed with all the intense labor that has been devoted to it by other people since then. – Scartol • Tok 01:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was about two thirds through the biography when I realised I'd become so absorbed that my nitpick glasses had fallen off. That says a lot to me about how well written the article is. Congratulations to the editors.

  • Just one point: there were certain places where I felt the article overdid it. I thought there was too much on her family history: I was itching to cut to her. Three large, separate sections on "publication history", "posthumous publication" and "reception" seemed to me overkill. I also thought the "posies and poesie" section was not really about the poetry at all but was a displaced biographical strand, one that could perhaps be cut down to a couple of sentences. On the other hand, I would have preferred a little more on her style and themes, with the occasional specific short quotation to contextualise the analysis. qp10qp (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, qp10qp, thanks for the kind words. :) This has definitely been a labor of love. In reply to your spot-on suggestions (the "Poetry" section was always the weakest point, I thought):
  • There's been a lot of flab cut out of the family history already, but every time something is removed, it looks better and better. Is there anything in particular that you feel is unnecessary? Please feel free to make a few snips yourself since you're doing a fine job of copy-editing already!
  • The "Posies and poesie" section can be trimmed, I agree. Roger and I have toyed with putting it in both the Biography and Poetry sections, but it looks out of place everywhere, it would seem. This is a question I'm throwing out to everyone, but if it was cut down to a couple of sentences like you suggest, which would be something we haven't tried yet, where would it go? Perhaps after mentioning her enjoyment of Botany in school?
  • And finally, I can play around with cutting down both the "Pub. his." and "Post. pub." sections; I guess it's just a matter of finding out what is important and what is expendable. The Blackmur quote can go, I think, because it really doesn't say anything new, and the same goes for some of the extra detail about the different collections published. There's just so much to say about ED, I want this article to be twice as long as it is!  :( María (habla conmigo) 03:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've renamed Publication history > Contemporary publication; and moved Posthumous publication to follow it directly. Both have been pruned. The Blackmur quote has been cut to within an inch of its life and now leaves a distinct impression rather than a blur. I cannot do much better on the major themes, I'm afraid. It's a very big subject and requires considerable explanation. Farr's round up of Dickinson themes, for example, identifies about twenty. A fuller discussion of major themes will take up a huge amount of space and requires considerably more scholarship than I can bring to it. We may have to wait until someone writes a Themes in the poems of Emily Dickinson article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are very helpfu;. The article is excellent, so I won't push the point about themes and style too much, but this seems to me the soft spot in so many Wikipedia literature articles. To explain what I'm getting at: at the end of this article, one hasn't really found out what was special about her poetry, why she is one of America's greatest poets. One has read a great deal of commentary about secondary aspects of her work—publication history, critical history, legacy—but about her work itself we have been told little beyond its eccentricities of layout, the fact that some was sentimental and conventional, some was mock-valentine, most was about flowers, and her main theme was life and death. At the end of the article, one of course wants to go and read some poems, which I did: unfortunately, I did not have any guidance about what her most significant poems were, so I had to go lucky dip at Wikisource. None of the poems I read were anything special—perhaps they were just jottings (there is no critical matter there)—nor were any of them about life and death, flowers, or valentines. It would be the same delving randomly into, say, Blake. I appreciate that addressing themes and style is daunting; but there are some short cuts. For example, one can look at the introductions to collections of her work, where the editors would be obliged to sum up her significance concisely. qp10qp (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad you think the article is excellent. :) It's worrying to think that Dickinson's place in American poetry isn't explicitly stated; what I think makes it difficult, in least when trying to find the middle ground between explaining it fully, going overboard, or being too vague, is that Dickinson's legacy lies in her oddness. Not only her personal eccentricities, but the eccentricities of her poetry. With other authors it may be possible to explain how influential they ultimately became, but in the case of Dickinson, this isn't exactly the case; she didn't start a fad or influence a new kind of poetry. The collections and volumes I have read greatly explain this factor, and I've tried to touch on it -- any suggestions would be much appreciated to drive this point home. As for her significant poems, it's difficult to mention a handful of them when there is nearly 1800, but the article does name a few of the most popular: "Because I could not stop for Death", "I heard a fly buzz when I died", and "Success is counted sweetest" are a few I know it mentions off the top of my head. Are you suggesting that there be a list or something similar? María (habla conmigo) 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm suggesting some evidence for style and themes based on the text of specific poems. This is difficult, I know, but I believe it is do-able, and useful. But, no matter. qp10qp (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, why are websources formatted in a way that doesn't list publishers? Please include publishers on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisit WP:PUNC ? Austin wrote in his diary for the day: "The day was awful. She ceased to breathe that terrible breathing just before the [afternoon] whistle sounded for six".[100] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted cites to include unambiguous refs to publishers. Revisited that awful day to fix punctuation. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A few issues:
  • I think the dates in the first image caption are off by one year: Amherst says Dec 1846-Mar 1847 [4].
  • "Until, in 1855, she visited her father in Washington during his tenure as Representative from the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts, Emily had not strayed far from Amherst." - It's really hard to get through the lengthy opening phrase to the meat of the sentence.
  • "illnesses that effectively kept her bedridden until her death" - I think 'effectively bedridden' would be better than 'effectively kept her' as the latter is open to misinterpretation.
  • "her "coffin [was] not driven but carried through fields of buttercups" for burial in the family plot at West Cemetery on Triangle Street, where it still lies." - This almost reads as though she wasn't buried! Perhaps drop 'where it still lies'?
I fixed just a few minor punctuation/grammar issues. Very well done! Maralia (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've recast the "Washington" paragraph and the "bedridden" sentence for flow, and lopped "where it still lies". And fixed the caption dates. Thanks for the CE and kind words. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support

Is there an article as Fine as yours?


That uses the Word — Antimacassars?

Really brilliantly done. Regarding above I would vote for "Posies and poesie" after "The woman in white". I agree it's a bit awkward anywhere, but it seems a better fit in the biography section to me. The length seems just perfect and the poetry boxes add a delirious whirl of fun to the article. Possibly worth noting outside external links that Wikisource contains her complete works at s:Author:Emily Dickinson? Would hate for someone not to know of this resource. --JayHenry (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I followed your advice on both of the above. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Great idea, Jay; I much prefer the "Posies" section in the biography. María (habla conmigo) 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are now :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Overall, nice job, but a few minor points:
  • In "Family and early childhood", I don't really like the quoted description of the house as "forbidding"—to me that's a strange way to describe a building. Are there any other adjectives that the minister used that might be better?
  • From Habegger (p. 129): "...the second-floor rear windows looked down on Amherst's burial ground, described by a local minister as treeless, 'forbidding', and 'repulsive'." I believe I prefer "forbidding" over "repulsive". :) María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I understand what he's trying to say, but I just can't see how a building can be "forbidding". Forbidding me to do what? Foreboding I can see, repulsive I can see... but forbidding? Eh, probably one of those modernist uses of adjectives =). --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the serial comma or don't—I see "taking classes in English and classical literature, Latin, botany, geology, history, 'mental philosophy' and arithmetic" and "tutor, preceptor, or master"
  • I've removed the serial comma you referred to; if there are any others, please feel free to fix. María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to see the unspaced mdash used throughout for non-poetic separation of clauses, rather than seeing the spaced ndash in some quotations. Not a major issue though.
  • Hmm... really? I don't have my manual handy, but I'm certain Chicago expressly prohibits modifying punctuation in quotations (including dashes) even if the quoted material is a different style than what you're using. Does MLA or (gak) MOS say something different? --JayHenry (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check my copy of CMS; you're probably right. I tend to prefer consistency more than most, but like I said, not a big deal (so long as all non-quote dashes are mdashes, which I believe they are) --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to Dickinson's quotes, such as quotations from her letters? I'm afraid preference must be put aside for how Dickinson is commonly cited. All contemporary scholars and major biographers (including my two major sources, Sewall and Habegger) punctuate her letters like her poetry; with en-dashes. María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency—in "Adulthood and seclusion", I read "The first half of the 1860s, after she had largely withdrawn from social life and rarely left the Homestead" but then in "The woman in white" I see that "Dickinson's behavior began to change. She did not leave the Homestead unless it was absolutely necessary". Not much of a change there, right?
  • Rarely leaving and not leaving unless it can be avoided is not the same thing, surely? María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds quite similar to me; if there is a difference, to me it isn't worth drawing attention to this as a "change" with the phrase "Dickinson's behavior began to change". --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; to make the change in behavior more evident, I removed the first instance of "and rarely left the Homestead" in the "Adulthood" section.
  • The first sentence of "Decline and death" should be modified. "For some reason" is a useless; it gives the reader no additional information. Also, when did she stop editing her poems? Had he done this regularly before? In the second sentence, why did she want her sister to burn her papers?
  • "For some reason" is there because it is not known why she stopped editing her poems, so that answers your first question. It's also not known why she asked Vinnie to burn her papers, but presumably it's because she did not want people reading her personal correspondence after her death -- ah, well. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "for some reason" wasn't there, the reader would assume that this is not known or not important. With "for some reason", the author is loudly emphasizing that this is not known (is that necessary?). Not a big deal though. Do we know how extensively she edited her poems before this and when she stopped? This would be interesting information to include. --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll wait for Roger to weigh in on the "for some reason" since he's the one that advocated its use, if you don't mind. In the "Adulthood and seclusion" section, it states that "Emily began in the summer of 1858 what would be her lasting legacy. Reviewing poems she had written previously, she began making clean copies of her work, assembling carefully pieced-together manuscript books.[53] The forty fascicles she created from 1858 through 1865 eventually held nearly eight hundred poems." That provides an amount completed (eight hundred poems, forty books) and approximately when she slowed down and eventually stopped. María (habla conmigo) 13:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. It seemed like a good idea at the time :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1983's first collection of critical essays..." Um, is the year that important? Were multiple collections being published every year by the same publisher? How do you know that there wasn't a largely unknown collection published that year but before that one? Just give the title of the anthology and tell us who said what.
  • I know that there wasn't a largely unknown collection published before the one cited because in the introduction, which is cited, it says as much. The title of the book is redundant, I feel, but I removed the year because I agree it's not truly necessary. María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these comments help. Let me know if I need to clarify anything. --Spangineerws (háblame) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and suggestions! María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments This is really a very good article and I'm so glad that Maria and Roger have taken it upon themselves to work so very hard on it. Writing about iconic literary figures is anything but easy. :) However, I agree with Qp that the article lacks a bit in the "Poetry" section and considering that Dickinson is remembered for being a poet, I think we should try and spruce up that section a bit. A slight expansion of the "Style and themes" section and a slight revision of the publication material would easily effect this. The publication material is repeated several times in the article - it only needs to be there once. Making "Publication" its own section with two subsections - "Contemporary" and "Posthumous" - and adding a little introduction to prepare the reader for what is to come would also help readers unfamiliar with the material. Here are some questions to help the expansion and refinement:
  • When "A narrow Fellow in the Grass" was published (as "The Snake") not only without her permission, but with punctuation separating the third and fourth lines, Dickinson complained the meaning of the entire poem had been altered. - How was the meaning changed?
  • A narrow Fellow in the Grass / Occasionally rides - / You may have met Him - did you not / His notice sudden is - You tell me. :) I don't know if it needs more explanation, but the fact that she was upset by the alteration is noteworthy, I thought. María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find some scholars who have explained the differences in meaning and use their explanation. Yes, the alteration is noteworthy, but we should try to explain just how and why it is noteworthy to readers. I don't think this will be difficult - and remember that readers are not always as (ahem) quick as we might want them to be. Awadewit | talk 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extensive use of dashes and unconventional capitalization in her manuscripts, and the idiosyncratic vocabulary and imagery, combine to create a unique lyric style. - I think this has to be shown, because after the advent of modernist poetry, what was unconventional then might not appear so unconventional now.
  • Perhaps I could add another poem (blue box style) in this section? Maybe even the often quoted "Because I could not stop for Death", using that as an example? María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an excellent choice for an example, but I don't think it should be in a blue box. I think it should be in the text proper, surrounded by explication. Awadewit | talk 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dickinson's poetry also frequently utilizes humor, puns, irony and satire - Again, I think examples of the humor, puns, irony, or satire need to be offered. Perhaps two of the four?
  • Dickinson left no formal statement of her aesthetic intentions, and her work is placed in various genres, including American Puritanism, English Romanticism, and American modernism. - Very large statement - why are her works placed in these movements - these are very different movements!
  • Trust me, I know. The idea is that she doesn't fit into any one category, but she's often stuck into different ones by different people because of one theme or one technique. That's why there's some explanation of common themes and unconventional poetic techniques, to illustrate without listing examples one by one: because a lot of her poetry has to do with religion, she is often thought of as a religious poet; because a lot of her poetry has to do with love, she is often thought of as a Romantic poet... etc. But the main idea is that she isn't any of these. María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inability of scholars to agree on a categorization for Dickinson needs to be made clearer. How about laying out some of the arguments in more detail? How about starting out by saying that scholars disagree on where to place her and offer three major arguments (or whatever) and then explain those briefly. Awadewit | talk 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics remark on her nature and philosophy themes, including numerous references to bees and flowers, and sometimes see her as a Transcendentalist. - What does she about nature and philosophy? Those are huge topics. You might also explain transcendentalist if it is really crucial to this article. You don't want readers to have to click on that.
  • On sources - some quick questions on websources:
  • This appears to be a self-published website. Perhaps I'm wrong?
  • You're right; this was linked to me by someone during PR. I'll see if I can find a replacement. María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not actually say that the school was named after the poet Emily Dickinson - does it say that somewhere else on the website?
  • No, I don't think it does; I probably just thought it was obvious. María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it seems obvious, but what if there was someone else named Emily Dickinson? You know that old saying about "assuming". :) Surely there must be another school that actually does list Dickinson as its namesake? Awadewit | talk 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha; I've Googled, but I wasn't able to find any other example, so I just removed the NYC school as an example. The remaining school can stand on its own until another presents itself. María (habla conmigo) 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very enjoyable article to read and was very well-written. Like others, I found myself drawn into the story of Emily - a testament to the article's brilliant prose and narrative structure. Awadewit | talk 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I've think I've addressed everything. It was much easier to undertake major surgery than to tweak stuff. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dramatic improvement! What wonderful work you two do! The only thing I would recommend as an addition would be a "roadmap" or a partitio forecasting the main points of the publication section. Awadewit | talk 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 22 February 2008.

2008 Orange Bowl[edit]

previous FAC (00:08, 31 January 2008)

I must be a glutton for punishment, because here's yet another American college football FAC, this time about this year's Orange Bowl game, held in Miami, Florida at the beginning of last month. It's my personal opinion that this article is of an even higher quality than the one that just passed (2007 ACC Championship Game), and I hope the passage of this article will go a bit smoother. It does need at least one person unfamiliar with college football to review it and point out the places where things aren't so clear, but other than that, I feel that the article is ready for featured status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does the succession box need "2009 Orange Bowl" linked? It would be better to state that the next one is scheduled for 2009, as it implies that the 2009 one has already occurred. PeterSymonds | talk 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see your point... but it's linked on other FA-class single-game articles that I've done (2007 ACC Championship Game, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl), and we'd have to insert a link eventually anyway. I don't really care either way. It's a minor change that doesn't affect the content. Whichever way you think is best.
  • Comment
    • Em dashes should be unspaced.
      • Done.
    • This isn't a reliable source.
      • Added another citation.
    • The references section should come before the external links section.
      • Done.
    • The Wikimedia Commons link belongs in the external links section. Epbr123 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. If there's anything else I can do, let me know! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work. --Savethemooses (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another Great article - PGPirate 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Terrific article, very well written, and many great details. Hello32020 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I would likely support with the following fixes:
    • Convert all city-state links to separately linkable links (preferably using {{city-state|city name|state name}}
      • Done.
    • Is it fair to abbreviate ACC and spell out Big 12 Conference?
      • Fixed.
    • Link interception, touchdown, Outland Trophy, kickoff, rush (American football), coin toss, tight end, first down, tackle (football move).
      • Added.
    • Use either kickoff return or kickoff returner. Use forward pass link
      • Done.
    • Since Quarterback rating redirects link to first usage at passer rating.
      • Done.
    • Switch cornerback link to first usage.
      • Done.
    • National and international media widely covered the 2008 Orange Bowl. sounds awk. National and international media coverage for the 2008 Orange bowl was very extensive.
      • Fixed.
    • See Category:Conversion templates for temperature and make it linkable. {{convert}} may be a good one, but not sure.
      • Linked.
    • Sorry I really just skimmed the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I think this needs a bit of a copyedit. Overall, it did seem better written than your last FA nom, though :) I've listed a few examples below of problems with the prose, and I fixed a few blatant things in the article myself.
    • Why does ACC Champion No 3 need to be emphasized in the lead? Why not just "The ACC Champion"?
      • Switched it to the same format as Kansas's ranking.
    • This doesn't make sense "played the host team at the neutral-site Dolphins Stadium for the eighth-ranked Kansas Jayhawks from the Big 12 Conference (Big 12). "
      • Clarified. Tech was the home team in a neutral-site game. Replaced "home" for "host" and reworded.
        • It's not the "home"/"host" that is confusing but the "at the neutral-site Dolphins Stadium for the eighth-ranked Kansas Jayhawks". How about something like "The game between the ACC Champion, third-ranked Virginia Tech, and Big 12 Conference representative Kansas, ranked number eight, was held at the neutral site Dolphins Stadium. Kansas was considered the home team." Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. I think I've got it now, but you might want to check to see if it's understandable.
    • The lead does not seem to summarize the article. There is no mention of any of the final statistics or post-game effects.
      • Added an additional paragraph.
    • "football was taken up as a way to recover from tragedy" - this needs to be reworded
      • Replaced with "seized"
        • Do you think it would be better to directly quote part of the reference here instead? I think the applicable lines were "The massacre left the Virginia Tech campus in search of catharsis, and nearly everyone in the southern Virginia community spent the summer pointing toward this game as the next step in helping the Hokies heal." It provides a bit more context and doesn't sound as melodramatic (to me anyway) as the current version. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not a big fan of direct quotes, but I've paraphrased that sentence from the article. If you think it's still too confusing for you, I'll put in the direct quote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch for repetitive text (examples: "to face the No. 2. LSU Tigers. The highly ranked Tigers" ->yes, #2 is highly ranked; "From their opening game of the year....In their opening game of the year")
      • Fixed, Corrected, and Replaced. The Department of Redundancy Department thanks you for your service and help and assistance.
    • "widely regarded as a pre-season pick" -> seems to me to mean that many people expected them to be a pre-season pick, not that many people chose them as a their pre-season pick
      • Reworded
    • Did you find any information on how long it had been since Kansas had been ranked? "Kansas broke into the rankings of the top 25 college football teams in the country for the first time in the 2007 season, " makes it seem like it was a regular occurrence, and I know that's not true.
      • Added.
    • "Jayhawk rivals such as Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Texas A&M went down to defeat," -> very awkward phrasing
      • Reworded.
    • I don't know that this information is necessary in this article " Irie became the first DJ to perform in the halftime show of a bowl game in 2005 when he played during halftime at the 2005 Orange Bowl."
      • It's not necessary, but it's an interesting fact and it helped to fill out the halftime show section a bit. It's also useful in explaining why this guy was there alongside ZZ Top.
    • Be more consistent on whether you write out numbers or use numerals. In some sentences the styles are mixed, and they should not be (11th and seventh).
      • First through ninth, spell out, 10th and above, use numerals.
        • It's kind of lost in Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Spelling_out_numbers, but the guideline says Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
          • That's one part of the MOS that I completely disagree with and choose to follow Associated Press style instead. It's personal preference — I simply think that using numerals is jarring to a reader and takes away from the flow of a sentence. I don't mean to be disruptive, but I simply don't like that rule :) I don't mind if someone else changes it, but I'm willing to stick to my principles on this one.
    • Stewart Mandel is misspelled in the references as Stuart.
      • Fixed.

Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object This is a fine article which is very well written, but I cant support it as Featured Article. It's just not important enough.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry you feel that way. Other single-game college football articles have already reached featured status, and those games were watched by fewer people, had smaller cash payouts, and involved less-highly ranked teams. This is neither the first nor second single-game article to be judged for featured status—precedent has already been established. If I cannot change your mind, allow me to point to that precedent and invite the final judge to take precedent into consideration. No previous objection has been made to the "importance" of a single-game college football article in several different cases. I can supply examples for both articles that have passed Featured Review and those that have failed featured review for other reasons. In no instance has the perceived importance of the article been an issue of debate. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—The comment above should be ignored. I don't find it at all interesting, but it's well-written and seems to satisfy all of the criteria (aside from the MOS breach "maybe the best cornerback duo in the country.", which needs the dot to be after the closing quote, since the quote starts within WP's sentence). Stub para under "Halftime show" could be merged, yes? Tony (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made those two fixes. Thanks for the suggestion! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 22 February 2008.

Her Majesty's Theatre[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through a tough GA process; and I believe the article meets the criteria and is ready to go through this process. Kbthompson (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't "patent theatre acts" be capitalised?--Docg 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It's not capitalised in the linked wiki article, and a quick check shows that it is not capitalised by either Britannica online, or the UK theatre museum. Glamorgan university, do ... my personal opinion is that Acts of parliament should be capitalised, but it's not - it involves the issue of Letters' Patent by the monarch. In order to avoid the issue, I've rephrased the expression. I hope you find the current form acceptable. Kbthompson (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. I wasn't objecting, just questioning.--Docg 01:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is a decent article. I don't think the prose is great, but it is better than a lot of articles I've seen at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The prose needs work, and I am concerned that many of the sources are not reliable sources, and much information is not cited. I have listed a few examples of the prose issues below, but that list is not comprehensive. Basically, there is a lot of passive voice, a lot of repetition and a lot of very long unwieldy sentences.
    • Lead prose is not very compelling. A good copyedit might help it to reel you in a little more
      • The LEAD has now been reorganized and copy edited. Please take a new look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose issue examples:
      • unnecessary repetition - "theatre has been home to a number of record-setting runs in theatre history, "
      • "The history of the theatre involves a series of struggles for control of its management and ownership, because several parcels of land had to be leased to build and expand it, and these separate leases, with varying mortgages and lease terms, caused ongoing disagreements among the owners and lessees." - very very long sentence. This could be reworded to be clearer
      • "has principally specialised "??? shouldn't this just be "specialised"
      • " The company had performed productions combining spoken dialogue with incidental music, but a taste was growing amongst the nobility for Italian opera, which was completely sung, and the theatre began to present these" - too unwieldy. Could be simpliefied to something along the lines of "Although previous ed productions combined spoken dialogue with incidental music, as the nobility began to clamor for Italian opera, the company began singing all of their dialogue." (my version isn't perfect either)
      • "described as showing " -> why not just "showing"
      • "Following his personal success with Rinaldo, Handel presented a series of over 25 of his operas, performed under his personal direction, by a Royal Academy of Music (known from 1734 as the Opera of the Nobility)[10] formed by subscription from wealthy sponsors, including the Prince Regent, to support Handel's productions at the theatre until 1739" --- ack, what a long, ungainly sentence!! I'm not entirely sure what it is saying.
      • "The two fell out, each planning to wrest control of the venture from the other" clauses don't work well together - did they fall out because they each planned to wrest control or did they each plan to wrest control because they were upset with each other (and fell out may be too colloquial)
      • "Meetings were attempted to reconcile the parties at Carlton House and Bedford House. " - did they attempt to have meetings or attempt to reconcile the parties?
      • More passive voice! "The stage was stormed by the audience" - "The audience stormed the stage" I like this sentence much better now :) Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Phantom of the Opera had its world première on 9 October 1986 at the theatre,[50] in which Michael Crawford earned an Olivier Award for his performance in the title role. " - Michael Crawford did not win his Olivier at the Theatre
      • "The setting of the fire, in the roof, had been deliberate" - why such passive voice? "The fire had been deliberately set on the roof"
  • All of the above have now been resolved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need non-breaking spaces between numbers and their qualifiers (such as 4 levels, 1216 seats)
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, the callout quotes (with the quotation marks) are generally not encouraged in wikipedia articles. Instead, for the long quotation use block quotes.
    • Need citation for "The theatre provided the first alternative to the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and the Lincoln's Inn theatre (forerunner of the Theatre Royal, Covent Garden). "
    • Need citation for "The theatre's site is the second oldest such site in London that remains in use."
      • Is this covered by the citation for the next sentence? Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All covered by the theatre's entry in Guide to British Theatres 1750-1950 Kbthompson (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need citation for "These three post-interregnum theatres defined the shape and use of modern theatres."
    • Need citation for "At this time only a handful of patent theatres were permitted to perform serious drama in London, and lacking such a permit, the theatre remained associated with opera. "
    • Don't bold "The Queen's Theatre" in the article body. It can be bolded in the lead, but shouldn't be bolded here. (same for The Haymarket Ioera House)
    • See WP:MOSDASH; year ranges should be separated by an unspaced ndash;
      • Doesn't this indicate, rather, that year ranges should be separated by a spaced ndash?
        • It should be spaced if there is a space in the date (for example, January 1, 2008 – January 8, 2008), but if it is separating single years, no space (2005–2008). Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In section "Vanbrugh's theatre: 1705", several of the paragraphs start with From/In and a date. Please try to vary this a bit.
    • I would remove the years from the history subheadings. They make it appear that the section only covers that year, which is incorrect.
      • Fixed by adding date ranges, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need a citation for: "At this time only a handful of patent theatres were permitted to perform serious drama in London, and lacking such a permit, the theatre remained associated with opera"
    • "He finally escaped his own creditors upon his election as member of Parliament " - did being a member of Parliament mean you didn't have to pay your debts?
    • Need citation for "The Italian composer Cesare Pugni, was appointed Her Majesty's Official Composer of Ballet Music from 1843 until 1850, and he composed the bulk of the ballets presented at the theatre"
    • Need citation for " Pugni remains the most prolific composer of the genre"
    • Quotations of less than 4 lines should be inline rather than offset
    • References are not formatted properly. Many are missing publishers or dates (even books need publisher information!!)
      • Done. Publishers/dates added, and we've formatted to the best of our ability.
    • Books need page numbers
    • These do not appear to be reliable sources:
      • victorianweb.org
      • www.arthurlloyd.co.uk
      • culturevulture.net
        • Done: All refs to culturevulture removed.
      • karadar.com
        • Done: All refs to karadar removed.
      • www.peopleplayuk.org.uk

Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look into the article and the sources. As ever the intention is to improve the article, nothing else and I thank you for your suggestions.
I might say that victorianweb is an acknowledged source on matters of the Victorian era, using mostly primary sources - ie contemporary newspapers; the Arthurlloyd site, again drawers on contemporary sources to provide information on theatre history. In my experience, it is reliable. PeoplePlayUK is the website of the London Theatre museum, maintained by the the Victoria and Albert Museum. If the last is not a reliable source, what is? The majority of cites are covered by paragraph cites of the excellent Survey of London article on the theatre. That has been an extensive source used in paraphrase.
Thank you for a useful critique and I'll try to address your issues tomorrow. Kbthompson (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I understand that it is more difficult to gain information about past eras, but I wonder if it would be possible to source the Arthurlloyd information from somewhere else? Can that information also be found in newspaper articles or books? The largest problem with websites is that there is no editorial control, which makes them less reliable than sources that do have editors or fact-checkers involved. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The Arthurlloyd site is extremely informative and one of the most comprehensive sites on the internet about London theatres, containing numerous original images, quotes from contemporaneous materials and references to both the author's extensive collection of theatre programs and other materials, as well as lots of research. Why do you question its reliability? BTW, thanks for your excellent review and comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the ArthurLloyd references, but certainly feel as ssilvers that this is a reliable source. It's certainly the best theatre history site I've ever come across. Much of the information comes from contemporary theatre programmes and reviews that are reproduced on the site. Kbthompson (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently only two Arthurlloyd refs left in the article. Please let us know if you doubt their reliability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood your description of "contemporary" as meaning NOW rather than "at the same time the play was performed". In that vein, then, I withdraw my objection to that site. Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support As far as I can tell, the prose is good. The only problem is that some paragraphs do not end with references. Juliancolton Talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and there were a couple where text had been shifted around, I've fixed it now. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on 1a. Needs a run-through by someone new. Much of it is well-written, though. Examples at random:
    • "large scale"—hyphenate. Done.
    • "... Tree. Tree ..." Done.
    • "Tree and the theatre were instrumental"—odd duo. Done.
    • "premières"—does MOS really say to use the diacritic?
      • Typically, in English, where it's a borrowed word from another language, the diacriticals are used. In fact, if it's missing my British-Irish spell checker marks it as an error. Your local mileage may vary ... depending on the size of your gallon? Kbthompson (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The name of the theatre changes with the gender of the monarch, becoming the King's Theatre in 1714"—Clash of tenses (the present leaks into the second clause). Done.
    • "Most recently, the theatre was known as His Majesty's Theatre from 1901 to 1952"—Since the years are given, why the first two words as well?
      • If you cut the first two words, it would imply that these are the only two times when this happened - We don't want to name all the different periods when this happened in the LEAD. I would leave this one alone, unless you have another suggestion, Tony. I suppose the sentence could be cut....
    • "current capacity is 1,216 seats, and since 2000 ..."—Can you move the year away from the "1,216"? Done.
    • "over 25" (twice): it really would be nicer to say "more than 25". Tony (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Done.[reply]
      • I took care of the ones above marked Done. Thanks for the comments, Tony! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... and a thank you for taking the time to read it through, from me. Kbthompson (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting, very well written with good illustrations and quotations. (PS. I ran a full spell check). --GrahamColmTalk 21:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as GA reviewer. It has only improved since then. Wow! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a significant contributor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a reliable source. Ref 33 has a dead link. Epbr123 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's currently working, but as a 'fan' site for musicals, perhaps it is not the best source. It essentially covers the same material as the prior BBC source - but is more up to date. Kbthompson (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mos issues, resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, the following need review (perhaps Epbr123 will give feedback on these items):

  • Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in "Second theatre: 1791–1867"
  • WP:MOS#Captions, punctuation, for example in "Performance" section
  • Citation formatting, publishers are not identified on many sources, was reliability of sources checked? See WP:CITE/ES. All publishers should be listed, as well as author and publication date when available. Also, accessdate should be given on all websources. This (New York Public Library, "500 Years of Italian Dance" ) for example, is an unformatted citation.
    • NYPL fixed, also I found one example of a pre-1900 book where a modern publisher was missing, are there any more I should attend to? Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As mentioned by Epb123, world-theatres.com is not a reliable source. Publishers need to be identified on all sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I replaced that ref with Operetta: A Theatrical History pp. 217. Sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear. I went through the refs and only identified one without a listed publisher, which I added. I cannot see any others that are missing publication sources, or dates. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure where the confusion lies, but just about every one of your websources is lacking a publisher and consistent citation formatting (see WP:WIAFA, 2c). Would you like for me to make some sample edits to guide you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks for that clarification. I was looking at the information for books. The two you changed, was to move the publisher outside the link. I will go through them when I have a moment. cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I finished up what I could, but there are about three different referencing styles and methods in use, with no consistency. In particular, there is a misuse of WP:ITALICS throughout. I cleaned them up to a point that's passable, but sustained attention to a consistent ref style is needed. More importantly, now that publishers are apparent, questions below about reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources and dead links mentioned by Epbr.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The captions and bolding have been fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding images no longer being used from Elcobbola
  • Comment Criterion 3 concern:
    • Phantom.jpg has no fair use rationale, which is likely moot given WP:NFCC#8, which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (emphasis added). How does the Phantom of the Opera poster significantly (or at all, for that matter) increase our understanding of Her Majesty's Theatre? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a fair use summary. Phantom is currently enjoying an historic run at the theatre, and there is considerable discussion of this in this section of the article, so I think that the illustration is significant in illustrating this part of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the test is a significant increase in our understanding of the topic, which is the theatre, not the play(s) therein. Although there’s indeed discussion of the play’s run, seeing the poster provides no additional understanding of the theater. It's important to also note that the image's license tag says "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The musical has been resident at the theatre since 1986. It would have no existence without the theatre - shall we remove the image, to which I certainly have no personal attachment. The point is to improve the article - does it improve the article? Does it have relevance? Is the image illustrative of the home of the production? Is the text critical commentary on the production? If I were marking this as an academic work, it would be fair use, but I'm not and I'm not an expert on US copyright law. It is not as though the image is used solely for illustration - tough call, please feel free to remove it. Kbthompson (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and recognize the connection between the theatre and phantom. It needs to be understood that this is not a “personal opinion”; I’m merely trying to articulate the policy, which is explicitly clear that an “illustrative” purpose is not appropriate (this article is not critical commentary on Phantom). “Relevance”, as you've used it, is not pertinent to fair use and removal would improve the article by bringing it to compliance with copyright law. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kb, this has nothing to do with U.S. law on fair use. I am a lawyer, and the image certainly can be used under U.S. law. The question is whether it can be used under Wikipedia policy. While wikipedia policy is much more restrictive on what "fair use" images may be used in WP articles, I think this is a very close question, because the musical is so important to the theatre and constitutes a major part of the explanation of what has been happening at the theatre for the past two decades. As elcobbola said, the WP policy question boils down to: "Does the image add to the reader's understanding of the *section* of the article?" (The policy say article OR *section* last time I looked) I think that the image does add to a reader's understanding of the section, since the section focuses on Phantom. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to leave out the key word in the policy, “significantly”. The issue would be “does the image add significantly to the reader's understanding of the … of the article?” Do we have a better understanding of the theater because we can see the Phantom poster? Absolutely not. This issue, in itself, is subordinate to the issue of acceptable uses set forth in the license tag. There’s no point fighting tooth and nail over something so trivial; I’ll tag it with {{fairusereview}} so the discussion can move to a more appropriate forum. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So posted, see this edit. The process appears to see little traffic, so I don't expect timely resolution. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe there to be an unambiguous violation of criterion three; responses to concerns have not been based soundly in policy (e.g. the explicit “significant” contribution has not been asserted), but rather in personal opinions of what would “be nice”. Closer is certainly welcome to discount or disregarded my objection based on prevalent interpretation of necessity to conform to criterion three. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My proposal would be to remove it from this article while that discussion takes place. As you recognise, this is not a forum for making - or seeking clarification of policy. Kbthompson (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ironically, you may actually want to leave it in place so the editors contributing at FUR can see the full "context", as it were. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, however. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now replaced it completely, with a publicity photo of the original production. Please let me know if you have any reservations about this image. cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's a step backwards. It was Theatre -> Phantom, now it's Theatre -> Phantom -> Actors; we're one more step removed from the article's topic. Remember, fair use requires the image significantly increase our understanding of the topic (the theatre). This image does not accomplish that. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I'm grateful for your experience in this matter. cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would either of these work: From German Wiki or From French Wiki? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for taking the time to look for those. The French one appears to have a licence problem. I'll see if I can work out how to link in the German one. Kbthompson (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. It's a warning that the tag used is depreciated and that the image shouldn’t be transferred to commons as-is, as commons doesn’t have an equivalent of the old tag. Simply put, it just needs a current version of the PD license. I do like the German one, though. Considering that this section is really about addressing the theatre today (well, 1890s on), it seems a quite appropriate illustration (it’s lively, illuminated and the Phantom poster is there) and it avoids the fair use red tape. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability of sources Who is David Lewis and what makes http://www.nodanw.com/ a reliable source? What makes him a published expert in the field, and what is the fact-checking and editorial oversight of this website? I am unable to locate anything on that page which assures me that it is a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, this site is a huge independent musical theatre site with information about hundreds of shows, composers, lyricists and authors, as well as licensing agents and general info for theatre companies. I don't know much about their editors or editorial policies, but it appears that the site is run by National Operatic and Dramatic Association (NODA), the main British musical theatre organization. We don't have anything like it here in the US - it's kind of a union of amateur musical theatre and drama companies. If you google any well-known show, information about it from this site will inevitably come up, and I don't recall ever seeing incorrect information at the site, although sometimes they focus on British productions. See their main index page: [7]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm missing it, but I can't find in the links you gave the indication that nodanw.com is run by noda; can you point me at a direct URL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure. I think nodanw means NODA Northwest. Here's some circumstantial evidence: [8] and here, where NODA Northwest links back to this site. But I don't care where all this wonderful information comes from. I just know that I have used it over and over for two years, and it has always been helpful. I suppose that one could e-mail this David Lewis and ask about how the information is compiled and maintained. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! See [9], where it says (scroll down): "The Musical Theatre Guide [linking to the site in question], in association with [Amazon.com] contains information on nearly 1500 shows, many available for performance. This information is constantly being added to and updated and will eventually include everything you'll need to know for you to be able to choose a show for your society to perform. Links to Arts Organisations, Cast Recording details, Lists of Rights Holders together with addresses and details of shows administered by each Rights Holder is also included." -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good! Can ya'll try to finish up the ref cleanup to a standard format? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best ... I made some infrastructure changes here last week, and I'm typing on a machine that is actually laid out in pieces across my desk! It's working for now, I shall try to put it back together (I know, that's too much information). cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all the ref cleanup/standardization that I can. Kb told me that he has no further ref cleanup ideas. If there's anything else that needs to be done to the refs, please let us know. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’ve struck my oppose, as no image(s) with questionable fair use status are currently being employed. Strike is on condition that questionable FU image(s) return if, and only if, consensus determines FU claim(s) for this article is/are valid. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with leaving that decision to the appropriate forums. Kbthompson (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for promotion Broadwaygal (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've made some small additions and corrections to the text over recent weeks and have been much impressed by the work of the major contributors and the overall quality of the article. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:03, 21 February 2008.

Coenwulf of Mercia[edit]

A ninth-century king of Mercia. FAs for comparison: Offa of Mercia and Wiglaf of Mercia; contemporary kings include Eardwulf of Northumbria and Egbert of Wessex. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no surviving images of Coenwulf, and no significant later depictions of him, as far as I'm aware. The only images that might be of him are on his coins, and the Wikipedia Foundation lawyer has said that reproductions of coins do not qualify under the exemption used for two-dimensional art. I can't use fair use either, because I would not be discussing the image itself, but Coenwulf, so fair use would not apply. Hence I don't believe there is a way to add an image to the article. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Coenwulf mancus were inaccessible in a private collection somewhere, "critical commentary" would be no bother. The trouble is that it's in the British Museum and (so far as I know) quite easily photographed. Fair use is only permissible if the image couldn't be replaced by a free one, and everything suggests that getting a picture of it is relatively simple (if you happen to be anywhere nearby). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coenwulf depicted on an early ninth century gold mancus
A tracing of that image could easily be taken. I might volunteer if it's thought a good idea. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be nice to have. Isn't a tracing taken directly from an image also subject to copyright, though? A freehand copy would not be, but I recall seeing a discussion about maps that indicated that a traced map is not an independent work. Anyway, if that's not a problem, yes, please, it would be great to get an image of the coin. Mike Christie (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done one. DrKiernan (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added it to the infobox. Mike Christie (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • "The 4.33g mancus" - I think it should be "The 4.33 g mancus" or "The 4.33-gram mancus". Also, the source says it weighed 4.25 grams. Epbr123 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this to "4.33 g" and added a conversion, and also a ref to the Early Medieval Corpus link -- that gives the weight as 4.33 g and I think that's going to be more accurate than the BBC, so I used that.
Done; I found three instances. Mike Christie (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epbr123 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose changed to Support mainly on some small quibbles about writing and some clarifications on sentences.
  • One thing I've noticed is that a LOT of sentences start "In (date) .. " or "In (place).." Might want to vary those a bit more.The Reign section, the last three paragraphs all start that way, and the last paragraph has the first two sentences start with In:
I've cut a few and moved the language around a bit; please let me know if this has fixed the problem. Mike Christie (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from the lede, if he retook the kingdoms of Kent and East Anglia, why isn't he listed as king of those places also?
Well, in the case of Kent, he established his brother Cuthred there, so Coenwulf was overlord rather than king directly. Yorke lists Cuthred as an intruded Mercian king, but doesn't list Coenwulf. I don't have my references with me today, but as I recall Coenwulf is generally thought of as overlord in East Anglia too, though the records are sketchier. It's relatively rare that an Anglo-Saxon king actually directly asserts that they are king of another kingdom. Coenwulf does make this claim in one charter, but only one, and Kent has kings after Coenwulf's departure, again from memory. (My references are in a suitcase lost by KLM between Amsterdam and Aberdeen; I'm hoping to get them back today.) Overall I think his kingship of Kent and East Anglia can be destressed; I'd be happy to remove the categories that show it. He was overlord, not king, in general. Mike Christie (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You're the kingship expert on the Anglo-Saxons. I was more curious than anything, I know just enough to be dangerous. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background - quibble... are we safe to say that the people AEthelbald was overlord over were English at that point?
Good point. I think some might argue that "English" is OK by this time; it was used by Ine in his laws, earlier than this. However, there seems no reason to use a possibly controversial term, so I've changed it to "Anglo-Saxon". Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to using English, so if someone else (looks at Deacon) wants the English usage, it's not a concern. I just know that a lot of times even in close to the Conquest, Anglo-Saxons is used as much as English. Once again, I know enough to be dangerous...Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a curious sort, did Ecgfrith die peacefully or was he helped by Coenwulf? It would be useful to know, I'd think, because I wonder at the short reign and wonder if there was some help involved in shortening it.
I wonder the same thing! Unfortunately there's no record at all. I could say "of unknown causes" or something like that, or perhaps change the note of his death to comment that the source gives only the date but no other information. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you on that one. I was just REALLY curious, and knowing how things went in those days.... Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons that Coenwulf may have requested the movement of the archiepiscopal see from Canterbury to London was the Archbishop AEthelheard had been driven from Canterbury during the revolt, and AEthelheard was a Mercian appointee and not a Kentish native. Brooks in The Early History of Canterbury suggests that the plan was to transfer AEthelheard to London as part of the plan to diminish the separatist tendencies of Kent. I don't know if you want to go into this level of detail in the article though, as the basic idea is covered by the statement "loss of Mercian control over Kent." It's just that one aspect of that control was controlling the archbishops.
I think some version of this is worth adding; the article wasn't very explicit about this sort of connection and I think it's worth spelling out. I added a sentence or two, reffed to Brooks. Could you give me the relevant page numbers to include? Mike Christie (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the page numbers for you. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the exact extent of Hygeberht's archdiocese is actually William of Malmesbury. There is not contemporary source for the information. Brooks seems to depreciate this information, as he says that William gives the name of the new archbishop as Ealdwulf, who was actually Hygeberht's successor at Lichfield. This is from Brooks p. 119.
At the least I'd like to add a comment that the source of the information about which dioceses were given to Lichfield is William of Malmesbury.
Done, using Brooks as a reference, and giving p. 119; I don't have Brooks or a copy of William of Malmesbury. Kirby seems to accept the list unquestioningly and it's a very plausible division, after all. Do you think some of Brooks scepticism needs to be expressed? Mike Christie (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He more expresses scepticism that those are necessarily the absolutely correct ones. I think what you put in is fine. Later (but on that page or the next, I"d have to check again, Brooks got buried somewhere) Brooks says that a division much like that is likely, he just wants to qualify that the source is late. It's one of those lovely little distinctions that needs to be made when you say something, but doesn't need to be big and bold. A footnote mentioning it is good. It'd probably distract everyone but folks in the know anyway. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I extended the footnote to quote Brooks' scepticism. I agree it's worth explicitly pointing out the lateness of the source, and a footnote seems the right place to do it. Mike Christie (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brooks gives as a possible reason for the creation of the archdiocese of Lichfield the fact that Jaenberht was a friend of Egbert, who had revolted against Offa, and Egbert granted lands to Canterbury while he was in control of Kent. The lands were then confiscated by Offa when he reasserted control of Kent. (Brooks page 114-115) Once again, I'm not sure how much detail you want to go into.
Here I think it's OK to skip the detail, though this might be useful in the articles on Offa and/or Jaenberht. These events happened before Coenwulf, and I think the main things the article has to talk about are the fact of the division of the archdiocese, and the reasons Coenwulf gives in his correspondence with Leo. Mike Christie (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the relations with the church section, fourth paragraph, you mention Wulfred at first, then later you start mentioning Wulfhere. Do you mean Wulfred there? You then switch back to Wulfred in the rest of the paragraph.
Oops; thanks for catching this. Just a typo. I did the same thing in reverse in the Wulfhere article.
  • Did you want to link dates like October 12 803 or did you not want to link dates? You have one linked, one not, so not sure what you want to do.
These should all be linked; I believe it's a definite MOS requirement. I linked the only unlinked one I could see; please let me know if there are more. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was one linked, and one not linked. I wasn't sure which was intended. From now on, I'll just link for you if I see it. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, there are a couple of single years linked, is that desired?
No; all removed now, I think. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and succession, second paragraph, I think you mean to say "Coenwulf died in 821 at Basingwerk near Holywell, Flintshire, probably while making preparations...
Yes, thanks for catching that. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You stare at the text for so long, you just add in what SHOULD be there. Glad to be a help. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all a nice read. Just some questions and a few clarifications and quibbles about prose flow. I'll be happy to support soon!Ealdgyth | Talk 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses are inline above; I'll add more as I get time. Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everything was addressed. Looks good to me. Sources are all very reliable. Maps are all free, chart is useful. Looks great, changing to support. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support (and for putting in those page numbers). Mike Christie (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some comments
    • I think you should say that the reason why Coenwulf came to the throne is not known. At present the reader is left hanging wondering whether Coenwulf deposed Ecgfrith or whether Ecgfrith died a natural death and because Offa's purges had been so ruthless only Coenwulf, a distant relative, was left to succeed. Ideally, I'd like to see both these assumptions raised as unconfirmed possibilities.
I've added a note, saying that the sources don't specify cause of death and also pointing out that Alcuin's comment about vengeance makes assassination seem perhaps the more likely cause of death. However, I don't think I can find a source that draws this conclusion, so I haven't footnoted it; I think it has to come under the exemption for "unlikely to be challenged", since it's a fairly logical deduction from Alcuin's letter. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there should be a question mark next to Cyneberht's name in the family tree? I think he is referred to as a "near relation" in charters? Is that sufficient to assume he was a nephew?
I'm traveling at the moment and only have a couple of refs with me so I can't check this, but will do so in a day or two when I get back. Per PASE he is mentioned only in two charters, as "propinquus" of Coenwulf, so it looks like you're right. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't John of Worcester's chronicle call Coenwulf a saint? Or is that another Coenwulf? It might be worth a mention if the former. DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a copy of the Chronicon; do you know if there is one online? Even with a ref, though, I'm reluctant to cite directly to primary sources for something like this; I prefer to use what the historians of the period feel is worth writing about. However, the issue of sainthood (particularly if he was sainted later) is not something that would necessarily interest the historians much, so perhaps there is a later calendar of saints I could cite -- after all if he was made a saint then that's a definite fact and it should be mentioned. I did some googling for Coenwulf (or Cenwulf) as a saint, but couldn't turn anything up, so I think I'd like to leave this out unless you're aware of another source beyond John. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an ancient edition on Google Books entitled The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester. But to save you the bother, I already looked. At Ecgberht's death John calls Coenwulf "...a magnificent prince, who was blessed with a saintly offspring, ruled the kingdom with peace, justice and piety". The record of Coenwulf's death is equally glowing, "...after a life spent in good deeds, [Coenwulf] was translated to eternal bliss in heaven...". The history then recounts the story of Saint Kenelm, Coenwulf's saintly offspring. No sign of "Saint Coenwulf" there. Regarding Cyneberht and Coenwald, Keynes, "Mercia and Wessex in the Ninth Century", pp. 315–136, says Coenwald was "apparently" a son of Cuthred; Cyneberht, however, "may have been a brother" or another son of Cuthred. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, my mistake. DrKiernan (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Angus; I went ahead and added the question-mark, and added references to the image page. I do have Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms with me, and I did finally spot Cyneberht in the family tree Yorke gives on p. 119, so I reffed that too. She unambiguously makes Cyneberht a son of Cuthred but doesn't discuss it so I thought the question-mark was safer. Mike Christie (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:03, 21 February 2008.

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident[edit]

Respectfully nominate this article about an nuclear weapons incident in the United States for featured article consideration. The article has been through a peer review and passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: This article has a good topic to show on the homepage of Wikipedia because it has a significance with the Iraq War —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbus A350 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example,
    • "the DoD Bent Spear incident report reportedly contained" - repetition
    • "Richard Newton, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements" - capitals needed if this is a title
    • "...a limited number of airmen at both locations failed to follow procedures." - nbsp needed after ellipses, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses
    • "He didn't provide a timeline for " - contractions shouldn't be used
    • "issued a new policy directive regarding the handling of nuclear weapons and delivery systems which prohibits the storing of " - comma needed before which
    • "all nonnuclear munitions and missiles must be labled" - typo
    • Too many sentences begin with "Also", "Furthermore", "In addition", or "Additionally". Epbr123 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate the constructive feedback and believe I've made all the corrections you suggested except for one. According to the grammar guides I've looked at, such as this one [10], if a job title comes after a person's name, then it isn't supposed to be capitalized. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    • The en dash in the info box shouldn't be spaced
    • Full dates in the footnotes need linking
    • The wikicommons links belong in an external links section
    • In ref numbers 1 and 23, "GENERAL RONALD E. KEYS" should be contain the external link and the caps should be removed. Epbr123 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've gotten them all but, I'm not sure what you mean by "wikicommons links belong in an external links section". Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons links belong in an external links section. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, the Wikinews box was moved to the bottom. Cla68 (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is very well written, adheres to guidelines, and has many details about the incident. Hello32020 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I can't see any problems with this article, and am happy to support. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the external link checker (see top of FAC) returns a 404 on an LATimes article; they move their articles to archives, so you may need to search for a new link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • New link added, thank you. Apparently, anyone who now wants to read that article will need to pay to do so. Cla68 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only issue comes with dates. In the infobox, you have wikilinked the August 30 and August 29 dates, if you do it there, you need to repeat it in the lead for consistency. I also think that the dates in the references should be consistent. You use September 29, 2007 whilst also using 2007-09-29. Use one or the other for those whithout date preferences set, (the majority of readers). Woody (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the constructive feedback. I linked the lead dates. The reference template "access date" field, however, doesn't seem to allow date linking in the other format. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 20 February 2008.

Terra Nova Expedition[edit]

Self-Nominator Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been developed significantly during peer review, following its successful GA nomination, and I think now warrants FA status Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my comments at peer review. Another well structured, balanced, and thoroughly researched article. Yomanganitalk 13:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Single years shouldn't be linked.
    • There's incorrent date formatting in an image caption
    • En dashes are needed in page ranges
    • Page numbers should be consistently formatted
    • There's some incorrect dash usage within the prose and headings eg. Jan–March 1911 (and the months shouldn't be abbreviated)
    • Units in bracketed conversions should be abbreviated
    • Some dates within the prose need linking
    • The external link in the "see also" section should be removed
    • Logical quotation should be used. Epbr123 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reviewed this article for GA, and think it is very well written and thoroughly researched. But I have to also echo Epbr123's concerns regarding the manual of style and copyediting concerns. In reviewing for GA, I had done some minor copyedits to fix much of this (like removing month/day and single year wikilinks), as well as some external links. Although I see now that, in the recent editing to bring it up to FA status, that much of these wikilinks have made it back into the article. From the completeness and prose perspectives, I think can support this article; but until the article is in compliance with WP:MOS, I cannot support. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to deal with all the above points, I hope to your satisfaction Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sample edits might be helpful here; Brian is a somewhat new editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm learning slowly Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a good trawl through WP:MOS and am a bit embarrassed about the amount I had not absorbed before. I have been through the article again, and apart from one or two instances where I'm not sure, and possible oversights, I think it now complies with the style required.

My apologies for not doing this before Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want to give us the couple of instances you're not sure about Brian? See if we can help out? Carré (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. First, in the Cape Evans section, is the format of the hut measurements correct? I'm not sure about the spaces around the multiplication signs, but it looks ugly without them. Secondly, I've referred to "tons" as weights without specifying long tons or short tons in the text. I'm not familiar with this concept - imperial or metric, yes, but I've never come across long or short. What should I show? Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hokey dokey, let's see. Tons first: a long ton is an imperial ton. A short ton is the US standard ton (kinda the same as why an imperial pint is bigger than a US pint, I guess). Both are different from a metric tonne. In this context, I would imagine the "ton" in question is a long ton. For the multiplication sign, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Multiplication sign – use a spaced &times; There :) Hope that helps. Carré (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping hand, Carré ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Carré. The term "long ton" is unfamiliar in britain so I've specified by footnote which ton I mean. From what you say about the hut dimensions, these appear to be OK in the text. Thank you for your help Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article with impressive narrative structure. Very balanced and unbiased view of Scott's ill-fated expedition. I appreciate the way in which the article deals with criticism and support of Scott's decisions. Very well done. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – can you explain the difference between geographic mile and statute mile (here, I mean, not in the article)? Looking at statute mile (a redirect to mile), it seems statute mile was defined in the late 16th century as 5,280 ft, while the international mile was standardised also at 5,280 ft in 1959, but there's no mention of a geographic mile. Do you really mean nautical mile? Or something else? Ta. Carré (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind, I found geographical mile. Might be worth a wikilink there though, if you feel it necessary to keep that little used unit in. Carré (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"geographic" was a typo - should have been geographical. I have corrected and, as you suggest, linked Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose Comment Support. This is a fascinating article, but I think it needs copyediting work. I'll see if I can make a pass in a sandbox and communicate with the nominator directly; I started commenting on individual points but found there were too many for it to be economical. Mike Christie (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in discussion with Mike Christie over these points Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian and I have agreed on a copyedit, and I've reduced my oppose to a comment. I do have some other points I'd like to mention. (I'll outdent the list to simplify the edit formatting.)
  • I think a map is very desirable. Cherry-Garrard's map and the overall map of Antarctica are very useful, but a map showing more of the many landmarks and locations mentioned in the article would be really handy. Given the two maps in the article I would not oppose over this, but I think it would benefit the article. A non-exhaustive list of things mentioned in the article that aren't visible on either map: Hut Point, the expedition routes other than the polar Party, the Western Mountains/Transantarctic Mountains, Ross Island, the Skuary, Cape Evans. Not every location in the article needs to be findable on a map, though; many are described with reference to other points.
I think such a map might be hard to find, but I'll see what can be done - it may take a while Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnoted reference to Atkinson receiving a medal later should probably get the details of the source you drew that from; that's not something that is obviously going to be part of one of your overall references. You can't put a footnote in a footnote, so I'd suggest just giving the reference details directly inside the footnote.
I've extended the footnote to give the details Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Oates' sacrifice recognized as deliberate by Scott in his diary? I don't recall, and I think it's a detail worth noting.
I've added a reference here, to Scott's diary entry 17 March. Scott says: "We knew that poor Oates was walking to his death, but though we tried to dissuade him we knew it was the act of a brave man and an English gentleman". Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final entry from Scott's diary is a direct quote and needs a citation.
It now has it Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Scott's diary has been published in whole or in part, that would be a useful reference to add to the list (or to add to "Further Reading"). Or is that the Smith Elder book? If so, might be worth saying so.
Vol I of Scott's Last Expedition (SLE) is Scott's diary. I've added a note in the Sources section Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another place where a citation is probably worth adding is where you say that Cherry-Garrard was troubled for the rest of his life. I don't recall whether he explicitly says this in "Worst Journey".
He doesn't say it, but he wrote Worst Journey in 1921 and lived another 38 years. Others have said it and I have added a suitable citation from a choice of several Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a citation (you can probably get one out of Huntsford) for the paragraph starting "The loss of Scott and his party overshadowed all else", since it's opinion. It's not really controversial, so I'm not too concerned if you don't have an easy ref for this, but it would be good to have since it makes quite a general assertion.
I've cited this to Huntford. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found "calorific values were seriously over-estimated" is ambiguous -- did they over-estimate what was in the rations, or what was needed? I worked it out easily enough, but I'd suggest rephrasing.
I've rephrased: "the calorific values of the rations used were seriously over-estimated" Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hope I've answered your points. I'll start looking for a map. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything except the map has been addressed; switched to support above. I'll answer your note about the proposed map on my talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 20 February 2008.

Wii Sports[edit]

This article recently passed GA, and has been tweaked and expanded a bit since. I feel that it meets the FA criteria and would appreciate any comments or suggestions that could improve the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Since this article uses only one non-free image in the text some more could be included under fair-use; maybe a screenshot of each of the games? indopug (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is a bit sparse on images, but I think a screen shot of each game would be a bit much and clutter the gameplay section. I'll see what I can find. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There's already pictures of each sport in the cover art. --Mika1h (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a picture of Iwata at Nintendo's E3 press conference in the "Development" section. Hopefully that spruces up the article some. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments:

  • "Though it is bundled with the Wii system, it has also been commercially successful." Statement is confusing to me. It seems to suggest that the bundle should inhibit sales of the game, while the opposite may be true. I'm not sure whether you're referring to sales of the game itself or the bundle in regards to commercial success. Clarity may be needed
  • "It has also become a popular device for social gatherings and competitions among players of varying ages." I'd prefer it if there was a source here. I don't think the lead needs to be referenced, but best to be consistent as the rest is.
  • Try cut out some redundant alsos.
  • Caption: "Guest B preparing to throw a ball in Bowling". Maybe a pedantic one, but is there any need to refer to the Mii as GuestB? It would be like referring to a character in a caption as player 2 in a multiplayer game.
  • I think there's some inconsistency with the usage of capitalisation in Gameplay: some times the sports are capitalised while other times they're not.
  • The Reception section could do with some content from Japanese reviewers; this is hard to come by, but at least try to list Famitsu in the table.
  • Refs are inconsistent—some give the name in order, while other are *surname*,*forename*.
  • I'd cut both of the links to wikis as neither offer anything beyond what this article does.
  • Additional info for Development would be helpful—the largest paragraph just details this game's showing at E3
  • Just a suggestion this one, but maybe you can mention that many of the Wii Sports-related injuries were reported in newspapers multiple times in a set period.

I've done some minor copyediting—mainly grammar and punctuation. It's hard to find fault with this article. Anyway, I hope that this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copy editing, and for the helpful comments. I've done some copy editing in addition to some done by some other editors. I hope it solves everything.
  • In regard to your first one, Wii Sports was included free with the Wii in all territories except for Japan. I was trying to convey that even though it was a free game, it has seen commercial success. I've reworded the phrase to hopefully better convey this.
  • Statement in the lead has been cited.
  • That was a lot of extra alsos. I've removed a good chunk of them. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • Caption has been changed.
  • Capitalization has been addressed, please let me know if I missed any.
  • I couldn't find much in the way of reviews, I was hoping the Japanese sales info would apply to that. I found the famitsu score, but am looking for a suitable source.
  • I don't know when the names got switched up, but they should all be Surname, Forename now. Let me know otherwise.
  • I removed the gaming wiki link, but kept the strategy wiki link. Mainly because the strategy offers info on how to play. The article use to read like this and I suspect there are still people that will come to the article looking such info. If it's a real problem, I'll remove it. But I believe it is within WP:EL, though only barely.
  • The last development paragraph has been tweaked.
  • The injuries issue was worded the way it was because of the source material. If I had several newspaper articles about the issue, I probably would have done it that way. So I figured the current wording with ABC News and 1UP.com sources were sufficient. If I come across some more, I'll edit accordingly.
I hope that addresses most of your concerns. I'll post back later about the famitsu score. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I couldn't find a reliable source for the famitsu score. But I did find an award from them. I hope that along with the Japan Media Arts Festival award and the Japanese sales info will adequately cover the Japanese reception. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Support: All my concerns seem to have been addressed. I guess we can live with Startegy Wiki. Well done. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Some games do not calculate points during multiplayer games. This sentence is a bit vague. May you elaborate on it. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section has been copy edited some. I hope it is less vague. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The writing seems good, but there not enough images, and there seems to be too many references in the lede, which is supposed to be a overview of what the article already says. Juliancolton Talk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you approve of the writing, it's not my strong point. As far as images, I agree that an extra picture would help, but I haven't found any extra suitable image to add. Since the FA criteria doesn't stipulate an exact number of images for an article, I figured 4 would be enough. I sourced the content in the lead simply because I try to source as much as possible. I think the more something is sourced with reliable sources, the better the overall quality of the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment

Addressed comments by Buc
  • "that monitor player progress" not sure I quite understand this, player progress in what?
  • "Wii Sports has been well received by critics" what, every single one?
  • "controlled by the game" "controlled by the computer" which is it?
  • "Wii Sports was produced by Katsuya Eguchi, who managed Software Development Group 2 at Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development." try "Katsuya Eguchi, who managed Software Development Group 2 at Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development, produced Wii Sports."
  • "Wii Sports received positive reviews overall. Reviews complained about the game's graphics, but praised the ease of use." needs ref.
  • "baseball, golf and boxing were lacking" is that all they said? just that they were "lacking".
  • I think "Continuity" is a better section title for "Impact and legacy".
  • "Wii Sports has been well-received by reviewers" first of all this needs a ref, but then you talk about it's sale numbers and deal with it's reviews in the next section so why is it here?
  • There doesn't seem to be much detail in the Gameplay about what you do in each individual sport, only a brief mention of the training mode and no mention at all of the fitness mode.
  • "and was released in other territories the following month." by "other territories" do you mean worldwide? If so say that, otherwise specify exactly where.
  • "IGN commented on an exploit in the bowling game that removed the challenge and replay value. After the release, they stated that the exploit was not fixed." What was this exploit?


  • "1,911,520 units sold...Wii Sports sold 17.85 million copies worldwide" I thought it came free with the Wii?
  • "The sports included are" try "The game includes in the sports"
  • "Wii's message board" "Wii Message Board" again which is it?
  • "Wii Sports has been well-received by reviewers" this needs a ref

There might be more issues but that's it for now. Buc (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address the issues and questions you've brought up. Hopefully the changes will gain your support.
  • For the "territories" statement, I worded it that way because the game has only officially been released in North America, Japan, Europe and Australia. That and the release dates for each territory were different, but all in December. I figured with the release dates in the infobox, a general statement would suffice in the lead. Let me know if there is anything I can do to improve this.
    • Say the specific territories.
  • I've tweaked the "player progress" and "well received by critics" statements.
  • Wii Sports was included free with the Wii in all territories but Japan. They actually had to purchase it separately there. Also, the sold worldwide statement includes the copies that were bundled with the Wii. Nintendo counts those as sold copies and has so for other bundled versions like Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario World.
    • Seems like a flawed stat then. Trying to make it sound more popular than it really is. This definitely needs explaining.
  • I've tweaked the "sports include" statement and that whole paragraph in the lead to hopefully improve the flow.
    • Wording still doesn't do it for me.
  • I tried to exclude specifics about gameplay to avoid it from reading too much like a gameguide and avoid WP:GAMEGUIDE. I think you'll find most, if not all, VG Featured articles try to generalize the gameplay section as much as possible to make them readable for a general audience.
    • It doesn't need much. Just a brief description of what each game features.
  • I've tweaked the statements about "controlled by computer" and "Message Board" to make them consistent.
    • I still see "Wii" and "Wii's". I've also noticed "Wii's Mii Channel".
  • I've tweaked the "well received by reviewers" statement. I originally added it to give a general statement that would give the reader the main idea of the section. But I've separated it here to help the flow.
  • I've adjust the "Katsuya Eguchi" statement as you suggested.
  • I've also added a citation to the "positive reviews overall" statement using the Game Rankings and Metacritics sources. In regard to the "Reviews complained about the game's graphics, but praised the ease of use" statement, I did not find a source that explicitly stated this. It is another generalized statement I included to help give the main idea to the reader. However, the proceeding statements from reviews do back up this statement as specific examples were given.
  • I've tweaked the "baseball, golf and boxing were lacking" statement to better cover the idea.
  • I didn't go into detail on the exploit for the same reason as the specific gameplay details, to avoid WP:GAMEGUIDE.
    • Again, doesn't need much, just a mention of what the exploit was. Buc (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I renamed the "Impact and legacy" section to simply "Impact" because there is very little about its legacy. I hope that works well enough.
I hope this addresses any concerns you had with the article. If there are still some issues you have, please let me know. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hopefully this address the rest of the issues.
  • The specific territories have been included.
  • I agree the stat is not perfect, but that is how Nintendo has reported it. It was included in the article to give a worldwide perspective of the sales. As far as explaining it, each time it is mention it is also mentioned that the number includes bundled copies.
  • Regarding the statement, "The five sports included are..." Looking at it, I feel it adequately conveys the information. Can you suggest another wording?
  • I've added more content regarding the gameplay and exploit.
I hope that about covers it. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The "Wii/Wii's" issue should be fixed now. Nintendo refers to the message board as the "Wii Message Board" and the Mii creator simply as the "Mii Channel". I added the "Wii's" part in front to distinguish that it was part of the Wii system. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Addressed comments from Elcobbola
  • Comment Criterion 3 concerns regarding WiiSportsBowling.jpg:
    • Image does not appear to be low resolution, despite FU assertion to the contrary.
    • WP:NFCC#3A states “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.” Given that Wii Sports Europe.jpg is essentially a compilation of in-game scenes, use the bowling image does not appear to be supported. Does the bowling image really contribute significantly to our understanding above the contribution of the cover image (an NFCC#8 requirement)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point, I'm fine with removing it. There are a few other pictures I've found that show a player using the Wii Remote along with a corresponding screenshot of the game. Would that be better? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • It's certainly possible. Do you have links? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • IGN's image gallery. There are three such images, I was thinking either the baseball or golf one. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
            • Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with the general idea; an additional screenshot could contribute significantly to our outstanding if, and only if, it is used in direct conjunction with an image of a player manipulating the Wii remote (i.e. to depict cause and effect, so to speak). The wrinkle is the players depicted in those IGN images, as the policy allows use only “if there is no reasonable expectation that a free image does or ever could exist”. Free images of people swinging remotes, obviously, are a dime a dozen. Could NFCC#3B (minimal extent of use) require we replace the players with a free equivalent? I suppose I don’t know the answer; perhaps it would be best not to include a replacement image for the time being and bring the question to a FU talk page; I’m curious as to what consensus would be myself. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you recommend removing the image all together until a suitable free image can be found?
                Sandy, will the lack of that gameplay image be a problem in satisfying FA criteria? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
                • Image policy is a *real* weakness for me, and I have to rely on the consensus you all come up with; I suggest pinging Deckiller (talk · contribs) and Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) for another opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I recommend removing that image as I don't feel it meets the non-free criteria. For an article on the game itself, it would be acceptable. For the Wii, I don't think so. It certainly needs to be low-res. Woody (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and thoroughly sourced. I have one question, though: Shouldn't "well received" in the lead be hyphenated? Or am I missing something? The Prince (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen both in text before. So to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure. I'll defer to a more experienced copy editor than I on this one.
  • Support - looks good. Nice work on the article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I gave it a quick copyedit, fixing some stray grammar and punctuation problems. A few other issues:
Prose
  • "Wii Sports has been overall well received by critics" -> "Overall, Wii Sports has been well received by critics"
  • "Nintendo also wanted players to want to use the system daily" - repetitive verbs
  • "Sports were chosen as the theme because of the familiarity people have with them." - weak prose
  • "Bowling and boxing were revealed for the first time, as well as their inclusion in the sports package." - poor grammar
  • "Wii series" is italicized in the infobox, but plain text when used in the article.
Context
  • What on earth is Nunchuk?
  • Miis are not explained well; explicitly state what a Mii is, and give some context for Mii Parade and Mii Plaza.
  • Explain what E3 is.
  • Wii Motor Sports is mentioned without any context.
One last thing: it struck me as a bit weak to have the article end with the unofficial tournament stuff. Could that paragraph perhaps be moved up elsewhere within the section? Maralia (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the copy edit. Some of your comments have been addressed, and I am currently working on the others. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think your comments have all been addressed. I tried changing the content to better express the info lacking context. Let me know if this is sufficient. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 20 February 2008.

Dwarf planet[edit]

I have worked on the article for the past month and I think now it is ready to become an FA. It is now GA and recently passed a peer review. Feedback and comments are welcome. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I think the page looks good along with the correct imagerys and the lack of citation needed's is also good. The wording of the article seems informative so for now im going to show my support for it to be featured. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the note such that it won't require a reference. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the same sort of citation issues we just covered in the planet FAC, so I won't detail those again here. The citations need cleanup, and I left edit summaries of other issues (for example, contact Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to fix the dashes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I went through all of them. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object; prose needs work. "The IAU's initial draft proposal included not only Pluto, but its moon Charon, Eris and Ceres in the list of planets." Colloquial words/phrases like "end up", "guestimates", and "good cutoff" ought to be recast. "Very" is almost always a useless word; either eliminate it or be specific in magnitude. Make consistent the use or non-use of the serial comma. Make sure that the proper hyphens and dashes are used: hyphens are used in spelled-out fractions, ndashes go in number ranges, and mdashes mark explanatory notes—like this. Put &nbsp; between all numbers and abbreviated units (400&nbsp;km). There's no need to italicize quotes or abbreviations like et al. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I solved these issues. Let me know if I missed anything. Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but I'm not confident that all of the style problems have been addressed (just found a missing comma). I'll keep checking. Also, I marked a few citation needed tags for you; overall it looks well referenced. Not far to go! --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the tags. Anything else left to solve? Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article uses British English, and in the British scientific literature, a spaced en-dash is more common than an unspaced em-dash for what you call "explanatory notes". This is a valid alternative in WP:DASH Bluap (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - The table of comments looks awkward where it is. Is the fourth paragraph of the article supposed to be part of the lede, or not? If not, it should be moved into a section. Imperial units are needed in parenthesis, and non-breaking spaces are needed between all units, like so (see in edit window). 160 km (100 mi). Quick question. Do all of the statements in the lede also appear later in the article? If not, they should be, since the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article. If not, then I don't think the references are needed up there (though keeping them there wouldn't be controversial). I quickly noticed the word guesstimate in TNO candidates, which should be changed. I didn't check the rest of the article, but it should be checked to make sure the writing is up to par. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know that guesstimates was a word. I am pretty sure it was a typo. I dealt with the table and with the lead (as per below). Nergaal (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First, the lead is exsessively long. Second, the units need conversions. Finally, per Hurricanhink, The table of comments looks awkward where it is. Juliancolton Talk 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I feel that the paragraph talking about size limits for dwarf planets could be lost from the lead, and incorporated in the "Size and mass" section Bluap (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved that part. The lead now is 3 paragraphs. Dealt with the TOC. Nergaal (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the FAC requirements again and there is no suggestion for imperial units. Am I wrong? Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UNITS. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks to me that all of the issues have been addressed, and I believe it is very good now. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article needs to be more thoroughly sourced. Seddon69 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am really having a hard time understanding what exactly do you mean by this. It would be really helpful if you could be more specific and give a few examples. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are paragraphs which aren't sourced and im having difficulty knowing which paragraphs are being sourced by what, for example. This section is a good example of what i mean. There are sentences which seem to not be sourced and the sources which are there dont cover certain aspects of whats written. I can find 9 instances where the sources cannot be easily identified, shall i list the 9? Seddon69 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and place [citation needed] where you think it needs it. That yould be the easiest. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has Seddon69 been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see he has, several times, and there are still two cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done those too. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be nice if the sortable table (of planetary discriminants) would be able to take account of scientific notation. If this isn't possible, then I'd prefer the table to be non-sortable. Bluap (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this page but there, the version of this table works fine [11]. Wiki commons has a more features than en.wiki?Nergaal (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nergaal, it looks slightly better, but the writing is still not up to professional standards. Also, I would still like conversion units; for example,
Empirical observations suggest that the lower limit may vary according to the composition and history of the object. For example, in the asteroid belt, Ceres, with a diameter of slightly more than 900 km
I am not that familiar with kilometers, so if you could put square miles or something similar in parentheses, it would improve the article. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done this in the text but I left the tables like before (I think they would become too messy by adding miles too) Nergaal (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give more examples of "not up to professional standards"? Thanks! By the way, is your vote still oppose or comment? Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Potential problems I've found:
  • The diameter of Ceres is in the prose as 900 km but in the table as 975 km. These should agree.
  • Is "terrestrial planet" a real term? It seems like it would only include earth, but in the prose (section Orbital dominance) it appears to refer to all the planets. Found it.
  • The quote by Brown ("it takes less force to make an ice ball round") isn't clear—less force than what?
  • Information is repeated inconsistently in "Size and mass" and "TNO candidates". Personally, I'd drop the dwarf planet counts from the section on "Size and mass", and leave them in "TNO candidates".
  • Reference 39 is missing a word (slightly larger? slightly smaller?)
  • Did Julio Ángel Fernández define "planetesimal" in his definition of dwarf planet? If so, it might be helpful to include that definition rather than just linking to the general article.
Once these are addressed I should be ready to support. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Went through all of them except the last one. I will clarify that part a bit later. Nergaal (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the last issue: his proposal was not about platesimals but about planetoids. I could not find his official proposal but I added instead two references that are more clear about that proposal. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the unit conversion in the quote, along with the brackets. Also, I cut the quote by Brown (point 3 above), because I don't think it adds much. If the quote were an everyday analogy (like it's easier to make a round snowball than a round rock), then I'd say keep it, but it doesn't seem like it says anything other than ice bodies are less rigid and more easily made spherical by self-gravity. Reasonable? --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. It was also unnecessarly informal. What about the other points? Are there any more unsolved comments? Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ps: I did not know the [] notation is used for the unquoted units.[reply]
Switching to support. Nice job with this. --Spangineerws (háblame) 07:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref 43 has a dead link. Epbr123 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The link went dead recently but I found a backup for that pdf. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 18 February 2008.

Atom[edit]

Self-nomination. This vital article has been through an extensive expansion, editing and review process, so I believe it is ready to become an FA candidate. It is a lengthy article as the subject is broad and some of the concepts needed a careful explanation. (The topics raised during the article reviews also resulted in article expansion, as did the need for comprehensiveness.) Hopefully this article is reasonably accessible to the educated non-expert.

Most of the article treats atoms as individual particles, but there is some material about bulk properties. For the latter, however, it primarily relies on the main article links to fill in the details. (In some cases those articles are in need of more development, but I'll leave that for a later date.)

Please take a look and see if you believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. I'll attempt to address specific concerns, where they make sense. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have had this article on my watchlist for some months meaning to improve it. I never got around to it, but observed it being greatly improved. This is also a Core topic. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see no reason to oppose. The writing is good, and it is very well sourced. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article, but please take care of a few things:
  • "cooled to very low temperatures" in History section--how low? Be more specific than "very".
    • I added an approximate value.
  • Same as above with "although this can require very high energies" in section Nucleus. "Very" isn't a useful word; better to be specific.
    • I gave a specific example of the minimum energy needed for fusion at the Sun's core (a couple of lines down). The amount varies by isotope, so I can't give a single value there.
  • Confirm that anti-electron has a hyphen but antiproton doesn't.
    • The hyphen was removed.
  • Get someone to copyedit the whole article... I found a few significant grammatical errors, but can't keep looking for more.
    • It's been over several times by different people. Thanks for the catches. If anybody else would like to do a copyedit review, that would be appreciated.—RJH (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, nice job! --Spangineerws (háblame) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments: Just a very few comments; once those are addressed, I'll support - article looks very good and well-referenced, all in all.
  • "Meanwhile, physicist Niels Bohr in 1913 revised Rutherford's model by incorporating the principles of quantum mechanics." - sounds a bit misleading, as, at that time, what we now call quantum mechanics hadn't really been formulated.
    • Revised.
  • Quite generally, the history section reads as if describing atoms was more or less an application of quantum mechanics. What about the crucial roles that atoms played in the development of quantum theory? How come no mention of spectral lines in the history section?
    • It is a summary style section, so unfortunately I can't include everything. I agree that they are important topics, but perhaps it is satisfactory if they are covered on the linked main article page?
      • No question, summarizing is in order. But you're including so many details about quantum mechanics that it's odd there isn't a, well, summary statement about the overall role of quantum mechanics. And why equally important details (spectral lines) are left out. By all means, summarize at a higher level than you're doing at the moment.
        • Alas, the current bulk is partly the result of the PR process. I'm a little unsatisfied that is has become so lengthy. Perhaps the entire section should just be merged into the main article and only a link left behind?—RJH (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's kinetic gas theory? Or the statement that the key element that led to the general acceptance of the reality of atoms was the convergence of all the different ways to derive Avogadro's number?
    • The article has a low focus on bulk properties of atoms as they are covered in detail elsewhere. There is nothing in the Avogadro constant article about your statement, but it sounds like it may be worth mentioning.
      • I came across this during the Einstein year, in discussions of Einstein's contributions to the acceptance of the reality of atoms. Sounds to me like an important aspect, but at least brief googling hasn't brought forth any ready references. Sorry.
  • "The component particles of an atom consist of" - awkward, when talking about composition. How about "The constituent particles of an atom are"?
    • Done.
  • Binding energy and mass-energy: This paragraph looks a little disorganized - first the mass deficite, then the binding energy, and only later the mass-energy-equivalence needed to understand why the first two are related in the first place.
    • Re-org'd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be picky, but wouldn't it make more sense the other way around? Binding energy first (that's where this comes from - interaction), then the fact that it's equivalent to a mass difference.
        • So you essentially want to say... once the nucleus has fused, it would require energy to pull it apart—the binding energy. This energy was emitted during the fusion process and it was converted from a change in mass, per Einstein. The is because the combined mass of the individual components is greater than the mass of the nucleus. Sorry but the direction of this explanation seems awkward to me.—RJH (talk)
  • "Each atomic orbital corresponds to a particular energy level of the electron." - well, yes and no. As far as I can see, given the length of the article, something like the difference between quantum-number energy levels and fine structure should at least be mentioned, even if they are not explained in detail. Otherwise, someone looking at the image showing the different orbitals might just come to the false conclusion that each corresponds to a different energy quantum number.
    • I added a couple of sentences about fine structure.
      • I think it would also be good to address this (at least implicitly) in the "Electron cloud" section.
        • What would that add, besides redundancy?—RJH (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of electrons in an atom can easily change. This is because the amount of energy needed to add or remove an electron (the electron binding energy) is far less than the binding energy of nucleons." - does this make sense? Couldn't there be a world in which chemical binding energies are much less than nuclear binding energies, but still higher than your typical photon energy or, equivalently, typical energy scales (temperature), so that nobody would ever get the idea of describing ionization as "easy"? The comparison shows why it's easier, not why it's easy.
    • I replaced the first sentence with an example (following the second sentence).—RJH (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Any two atoms with an identical number of protons in their nuclei will be the same chemical element. Atoms with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons will be different isotopes of the same element." - I think it should be made clearer that this isn't some physical insight, but a matter of definition: "Any two atoms...represent the same chemical element. Atoms with... are called different isotopes of the same element."
    • I added "by definition", although it seemd clear already. =)
  • "mass of an atom at rest" - since a number of readers will wonder why "at rest" is important, please wikify.
    • Done.
      • Oops, my bad - I meant that there should be a wiki-link to rest mass (which, as I see, re-directs to invariant mass). I have no doubt that readers will know what "at rest" means, just not that all of them will know why this is important here.
  • "On the periodic table of the elements, atom size tends to increase when moving down columns, but decrease when moving across rows." - even though there's an earlier reference, it would be good to wikify "periodic table" here.
    • Done.
  • Energy levels: Why not a single word about emission lines? From reading this, many readers are in danger of jumping to the conclusion that "spectral line" and "absorption line" are synonymous. Also, this would be a good place to at least mention fine structure.
    • I added a sentence about emission lines. Since it's a summary article, I'm not sure how much detail should be added. Perhaps it would be sufficient to expand on fine structure on the Atomic spectral line article?
      • I think it's fine (finely structured?) now!
  • "Atoms tend to chemically react with each other in a manner that will fill their outer valence shells." - on reading this, few readers who aren't already in the know will realize that shedding electron, so what was once an inner shell now becomes the new, fully-filled outer shell, also counts.
    • Fixed.
  • "The first nuclei of elements one through five" - this sounds as if there weren't any hydrogen nuclei before the 3 minute mark (and, incidentally, will leave some readers wondering why elements one through five is followed by a list of six).
    • Addressed.
  • "Some atoms such as lithium-6" -> some atomic nuclei? some isotopes?
    • Fixed.
  • Random search of references: ISBN 0-618-34342-3 appears to be wrong (five others were alright; is there a Wikipedia tool which checks for this kind thing?).
    • Are you sure you're looking at the right edition?[12]
      • I wasn't at any particular edition - just following the link and then using the link provided there to find the book in the Library of Congress and COPAC. Coming up dry in both (which is highly unusual for English language books), I thought there might be a problem with the ISBN.
All the best, Markus Poessel (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments.—RJH (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. -Markus Poessel (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is very well written and pretty informative. I made a few minor copyediting changes, but overall I think the article meets the FA criteria. I would recommend one minor change, though: I noticed that several masses are specified in kilograms, which seems a bit odd when referring to small things such as atoms -- the gram, not the kilogram, is the standard unit of mass in the metric system, and should be used here (a kilogram is simply 1000 grams). Dr. Cash (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I changed all instances of kg to g and scaled the values accordingly.—RJH (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support simply impressive, good to see the chemistry articles are improving. (some of the element ones are still underdeveloped) igordebraga ≠ 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At a quick look this is an FA article. The only minor concern is that the see also section might be a bit long. Make sure the stuff there is not allready in the article. If it was me, I would move the ionization into the article, maybe close to the valence section. Otherwise this looks good. Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ionization is covered briefly by the last section of "Electron cloud". I thought it was important to have at least a tie-in to the chemical properties of atoms, so that's the reason for the brief valence section. (It has been trimmed down quite a bit.) I'll work on trimming the "See also" section. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just one question: where it says "...atoms forms about 10% of the mass of the galaxy", what's the other 90%? Dark matter? If so, perhaps it would be worth mentioning and linking so that interested readers can learn more. (The reference for that statement is a book, which is not that easily accessible.) --Itub (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I inserted a brief note about this. (I was concerned that mention of dark matter might require an off-topic explanation, but perhaps not.) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a double read-through didn't find any concerns not already mentioned, and those seem quite minor. This certainly meets the featured article criteria. Nihiltres{t.l} 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I passed this article to GA status last week and felt it was practically at FA then. Kudos to all the editors who've worked on it! --jwandersTalk 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I'm not sure all the sources are top-class reliable, there are quite a number of newspapers and online teaching, an e-mail, and some research institute homepages. Narayanese (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you seeing the e-mail? I think that for some of the references I chose links that would also provide some "additional reading" for interested viewers. I certainly don't see a problem with using university course material from solid institutions. Where the reference seemed a little soft I usually looked for a second.—RJH (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The e-mail refernce is for the number of atoms in the universe. You're right that the dual book/journal+online lesson references are a nice touch. The muonic atom paragraph could use another ref, as does the 1 fm strong force distance.Narayanese (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Fixed (I realise the strong force cite was higher up) Narayanese (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment It would be useful if all the printed references were collected & presented in the form of an alphabetical bibliography. This would make it a lot easier to find that interesting quotation from, say, Feynmann. As it stands, the References section is too long & unwieldy: I suggest renaming it Notes, & calling the new bibliography References.

  • Support Apart from this quibble, though, I think it's an excellent & clearly written article. The lead is especially good. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. There is little or no re-use of references in the list, so I don't believe that presenting it in an alphabetical bibliography would shorten it in the least. In fact I expect it would double the length as you'd have to then reference the bibliography. As for the current length, well it is as long as it needs to be. It's far from the longest on wikipedia. So... all I can say is I'm sorry you don't like it. =)—RJH (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::I don't think it's just a matter of personal preference, so I'm not letting you off the hook that easily! The article would become so much more useful & user-friendly if it had a proper bibliography rather than a large number of references hidden away in the notes. A quick count suggests there are over 30 books in there trying to get out.

Done.—RJH (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! A great improvement IMO. I added a couple of page references (Liang & H, & Teresi) in the footnotes that had disappeared in the process. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Overall, my suggestion might make the article marginally longer; but the Notes section (ie the current References) would be shortened, since several entries would simply be of the form Harrison (2003). But if other editors are as happy with the present format as you seem to be, I'm not going to oppose. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you're getting at. I mean, the point of current reference is to give sources for all facts given in the article—is what you're looking for is more of a "Further Reading" section that would give direction to readers seeking more information? If so, this sounds like a good idea, but I don't think it needs to include every book the article references. Maybe if 5 or so books were listed? --jwandersTalk 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The definition of half-life in Atom#Radioactive_decay is of course correct. I wonder, though, whether it might not be useful to spell out the fact that after 2 half-lives a quarter of the original isotope remains. Not every reader will be familiar with exponential decay! Just a suggestion ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: looking good. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an excellent article, certainly one of the best I've read.--GrahamColmTalk 16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - prose balances succinct plain-english word usage without losing meaning well. fulfils other criteria cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I participated in the peer review of this article and I think that in the current form it satisfies FA criteria. Ruslik (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 18 February 2008.

History of Ipswich Town F.C.[edit]

This shall be the last time I burden your doorsteps with my pleas of your time and energy! The History of ITFC is the final piece of my featured topic jigsaw puzzle and I'll do anything to get the article up to the standard required by the community in order to assure its place as a featured article. As ever, I've had a peer review which has received considerable detailed scrutiny from a few WP:FOOTBALL editors, notably ChrisTheDude, Dweller and, with a half-term magnifying glass, Kevin McE, all three of whom I offer my sincerest thanks on getting the article to where it is.

As an Ipswich fan it's impossible for me to write this article on my own without veering off into bias and desperate POV so I'm hoping the PR and this WP:FAC will iron out any remaining creases. My thanks as always to any editor prepared to contribute to, comment upon, support or oppose this article's candidacy. I will work relentlessly (apart from when I'm asleep) to get onto suggestions as soon as they're offered. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support - Everything looks OK and referenced, but this part looks unreferenced:
he led Ipswich to third place in the 1937–38 season.
  • Apart from that, looks good. D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on dates – I think the main problem with this article is the dates, and the Easter egg links hidden behind some of the years ([[1907-08 in English football|1907]], for example). At the moment, why should a drive-by user click on that 1907, as opposed to a 1907 linked via [[1 January]] [[1907]]? On top of that, the way you've done it has broken auto-formatting for we few, we happy few, who have our date preferences set – UK format dates don't have the comma between the month and the year – where you have the "normal" date linked, the comma isn't there for me (a UK user), but where you have the "Easter egg" links, the comma is there. I suspect the best way to sort this out would be to just ditch the auto-formatted dates completely, and leave the linked years for the relevant [[<year> in <whatever>]] high-value links. More reason to sort out that horrible date-auto-formatting-and-linking-blue-splodge-nastiness. Carré (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, well this kind of linking is typical in football history articles, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. I thought I was in compliance with WP:DATE with these piped links out to seasons. Is this a problem that transcends this article alone (i.e. is it something the WP:MOS should cover), or do you believe this article should lead the way, with dates per your suggestions? I don't think the linkage of seasons is really Easter egg-esque, it's really a very common device. I don't want to lose the links to the relevant seasons. How can we solve this? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" (if it is one) is certainly not limited to this article - there's loads of [[<year> in <whatever>|<year>]] links out there. To be honest, I don't know what the solution is :) There was a long and convoluted discussion about it at one of the MOS talk pages recently, but I wasn't interested enough to follow it to its conclusion (ahh, here it is). The links to the seasons are what I'd call high-value links, while those to just the year (as caused by autoformatting) are, more often than not, no-value-at-all links, hence the suggestion of removing normal date autoformatting (I think that's supported these days, in MOS). I certainly agree you shouldn't lose the links to the season articles - that would just be cutting your nose off to spite your face. Sandy and Raul are both sensible enough to know this isn't an oppose that would prevent the article's promotion (and scupper your FT!), and as such maybe this isn't the best place to discuss it.
In short, the problem isn't with the article, nor in the "Year in Topic" links, but in the autoformatting. (edit conflict there, but I think this answers the message on my talk too) Carré (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved those MOS discussions and specifically requested that the football seasons be taken into account. The ambiguous nature of the guideline is that these links are allowed. I agree that the issue needs sorting out as users will not really click on links such as [[1907-08 in English football|1907]]. I try to write it as [[1907-08 in English football|1907 season]] where possible which is a better compromise in my opinion. Woody (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some minor points:
Addressed comments by Epbr123
    • "In the top flight for the first time, Ipswich became champions of the Football League at the first attempt" - repetition of "first"
    • "to win the Southern League at the first time of asking" - in my opinion, this seems too informal
      • Not sure I agree, but fixed anyway. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "before the club's would qualify for Europe again" - typo
      • Yup. That sentence has been fiddled with a fair bit; I guess it may have been me that broke it! --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...helped put Ipswich on the map..." - space needed before "helped" and after "map" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ellipses
      • Done. I used non breaking spaces. Hope that's OK. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During his 13 year tenure" - hyphen needed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done "13-year" now. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Epbr123, I'm just off out but will do my best in the next 24 hours or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written and comprehensive. Epbr123 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have already suggested that the Cobbold family's history of involvement with the club might be worth including. To make this truly a history of ITFC, rather than a playing history of the team, info about changes in ownership and major backroom figures (Sheepshanks?)might be beneficial. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I sympathise with this sentiment. It'll have to wait for TRM's return for now. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added some details on the Cobbolds throughout the article having chanced upon a delightful article from the Cobbold Family Trust. Please let me know if you think it's sufficient. I'm also after some decent meat on Sheepshanks as well, since he's probably the only other high profile director, as you have identified. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noticed one more "iffy" sentence: "Matteo Sereni and Finidi George arrived before the 2001–02 season saw to boost the squad for its foray into Europe"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I feel too involved with the article to support it (it's in the top 10 on my edit count, not that I edit count. Well, not that I edit count very often. Ahem.) TRM's out of touch for a bit, and I'll be babysitting for him. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written, seems complete to this Ipswich fan as I read it this evening. Fixed a typo or two though. - JVG (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support All my concerns have been addressed, happy to support now ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: external link checker is indicating one dead link. Please review WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBOLD regarding bolding of alternate names in the lead and bolding elsewhere in the text. Please see WP:MOSNUM regarding spelling out vs. use of digits ( ... margin of just 2 votes, ... ). Please see WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation or not of complete sentences vs. sentence fragments in image captions. Pls see WP:MOSDATE regarding consistent linking of dates ( ... On 7 July 2006, Robson was named ...). Perhaps ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to run through one more time to make sure these MOS issues are cleared up. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Sandy. The date linking is still a bigger issue than this article alone. I'm not sure it can be solved here. But hopefully we can address your concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes ... but if you link some, you've got to link them all, and you did link some :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now there's no bolded title in the lead? (WP:MOSBOLD, WP:LEAD). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed - I would wikilink all dates until advised otherwise, some of my more diligent copyeditors have removed some of them. As for the boldness, ask Epbr123! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incidentally, thanks for your links out to the various MOS policies. One day I'll know them off by heart...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LEAD states, "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive ... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface". Epbr123 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing you reviewed :-) And glad that is sorted out now at WP:LEAD, because it's been a source of confusion on many articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I went with "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." from MOSDATE. No dates in this article would therefore need to be linked, only seasons/cup campaigns etc. I'm not sure what additional understanding is gained from 7 July or 2006. Frankly, I don't really care, so long as it's consistent. I think MOSDATE is a mess though. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: My only remaining wish ould be an aestheteic one: the last section has such long paragraphs, with so much blue text and reference numbers, that it is uncomfortable to look at. Not sure how one gets around that. But content seems highly worthy of promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Kevin, thanks so much for all your efforts, here and at the PR, I very much appreciate it. As for the blue text in the final section, perhaps I'm guilty of overlinking or over-referencing, but I suspect that obvious links if left unlinked will soon be linked and claims without reference will find a {{cn}} template whacked on... damned if you do, damned if you don't! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written and referenced, adequately illustrated, no obvious omissions, style remarkably neutral for a fan writing about their club. Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article needs some copy editing. For example see: [13]--GrahamColmTalk 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)--GrahamColmTalk 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh. This always comes up at football club articles. See discretionary plurals. I'm never going to be able to please all the people all the time with this issue, it's undergone at least two thorough copyedits. As soon as someone changes from plural to singular, someone changes it back to plural again. There doesn't seem to be a correct answer, just opinion.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support I'm not a football fan but I found the article interesting and not bogged down with trivial minutae. There is a minor issue with the linked dates, some of which don't link to anything to do with football. I think I have most of them: 30th May 1938, 1 May 1936, 10th November, July 1982, July 2006, 5 June 2006, 11 May 2006. I have checked the links in the references and they are all live. On the whole, a fine contribution. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this in addition to the discussion about dates above? If I unlink complete dates (and I'm not sure if WP:DATE mandates or simply recommends not linking dates like this) then it's just a matter of time (and will become a perpetual fight) before they become linked. And funnily enough, there's been some comment as to whether "easter egg" links should be used as well. This article candidacy seems to have become a battleground for a number of Wikipedia-wide outstanding manual of style issues! The MOS says "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." I could (could) argue that linking to those dates should go to pages which say what also happened on that day and that year to provide context. But that's tenuous. In the history of this article we have this which seems to suggest wikilinking is ok (or, at least, consistency in the article should be maintained) and this edit (amongst a number by Dweller) which seems to suggest no dates should really be linked to unless they're piped to other "easter eggs" (which is disliked by other editors). I wonder if it's another damned if I do, damned if I don't issue. I'm happy to go with the consensus, no matter what it is, but in this matter there really doesn't seem to be one, so consistency within the article really seems to be the most important approach in my opinion... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've de-linked the non-football ones. I think the policy is quite clear on not linking years, but check with Sandy and I won't be offended if you revert me. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 18 February 2008.

    Tropical Storm Alberto (2006)[edit]

    previous FAC (16:18, 9 February 2008)

    After getting the OK from SandyGeorgia, I'm re-nominating this. The prose has been refined, and I've asked for another copyedit to make sure the prose is top-notch. FYI, This was a tropical storm that hit Florida from two years ago. Self-nom. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, leaving some comments here, because people are complaining of lack of reviewing. ;) Feel free to strike out when you think they're done:
      • On the Storm history section:
        • "...and an upper-level low to its west increased outflow over the system.[3] It moved slowly north-northwestward, and development was initially inhibited ..." - I can't figure out what the antecedent for "it" and "its" is there. Is it the precursor low, the upper-level low, or the tropical wave?
        • "The system gradually organized,[5] and by June 10 a circulation formed with sufficiently organized convection for the National Hurricane Center to classify it Tropical Depression One." - Add relevant links to "organization" there. I'm trying to think of which link would be the best in this case.
        • "The winds were not considered indicative of its intensity, which delayed the upgrade in classification for several hours" - What does that even mean? The NHC delayed upgrading the depression to a tropical storm operationally? It's not very clear here.
        • "However, deep convection developed and built westward against the wind shear as the overall organization improved, and at the same time Alberto turned northeastward under the influence of an approaching trough.[9]" - split sentence, or God kills a kitten. You have two different subjects and predicates here, so there's no need to mash them into one sentence.
        • "The storm maintained a well-organized structure[14] and persistent banding features over land,[15]..." - most people don't know what persistent banding features are. A link would be awesome here.
        • "...about six hours after weakening to a tropical depression it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone.[1]" - Where did this occur? Where was it heading?
      • On the Preparations section:
        • "The Cuban government evacuated over 27,000 people in the western portion of the country due to the threat of flooding.[20]" - When was this?
        • "In northwestern Florida, officials issued a mandatory evacuation order..." - Again, when?
        • "Due to the threat for precipitation, the Atlantic Storm Prediction Center posted rainfall warnings for all Atlantic coastal regions of Nova Scotia.[28]" - Two things here: Is there a relevant wikilink for the ASPC? And also, do you mean the threat of *heavy* precipitation? Because rainfall doesn't sound too threatening...
      • On the Caribbean impact section:
        • "Early in its duration, the tropical depression which later became Alberto produced heavy rainfall across the western Caribbean Sea." - Something is wrong with "its duration" there. It is not readily apparent what it means, nor it sounds like the proper way to phrase it. I'd write "early in Alberto's lifespan" or the actual date when Alberto caused the rainfall.
      • On the Florida impact section:
        • "At Egmont Key State Park, a woman fell overboard when a band of showers and surging currents made navigation difficult; her husband and a friend drowned after jumping in to save her without life jackets, though the woman returned safely to the boat.[24]" - You may want to mention that the woman was on a boat before saying she went overboard; I had to re-read that sentence to understand what was going on.
        • "The rainfall caused some temporary road flooding, though it was mostly beneficial in alleviating drought conditions." - Wait... road flooding is beneficial in alleviating drought? There's an unclear antecedent here.
        • "... the United States Coast Guard began searching off of Boynton Beach for a missing boat ..." - Um, off of?
        • "After searching for about 24 hours[35] at a cost of $278,000,[36] officials determined it to be a hoax, and imprisoned the man responsible for 30 months.[37]" - What was he charged with?
      • On the Southeastern U.S. section:
        • "Alberto produced tropical storm force winds along the South Carolina coastline;" - Do you need a hyphen in "tropical storm force winds"? I'm not 100% sure.
        • "While in the process of becoming extratropical, the rainbands of Alberto spawned seven confirmed tornadoes in the state, all of which but one rated F0;[1]" - So the other one was an F1? Be more explicit about this.
        • "Near the coast, the storm produced several waterspouts, some of which moved ashore in Dare and Carteret counties;[43] an F0 tornado struck Morehead City.[44]" - So, was the Morehead City tornado originally a waterspout? It is unclear due to the way the sentence is rearranged.
      • On the Canada impact section:
        • "According to a press report, the passage of the storm left four sailors missing about 230 miles (370 km) south of Nova Scotia.[1]" - Do you know what happened with them? Are they still missing? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, I also have a few questions. I saw a lot of times where there was a unit of measurement spelled out, with the corresponding converted unit abbreviated; I thought that both of them need to be either abbreviated or spelled out? I think this is more a question for Sandy and her plethora of MOS knowledge, but that rather stood out to me. What also stood out was that there were a lot of "reached", "peak" and "officially" in the article; more variety would be nice. You know, spice it up a little bit. :P Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:MOSNUM – "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; for example, a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." – there ya go :) Carre (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Carre! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I got everything, except for a few things. You commented about the Coast Guard searching off of Boyton Beach, but I don't see the problem with that sentence. Also, regarding the missing sailors, I can only find the press reports that the NHC mentions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, if you can't find it, then you can't find it. But about the Boyton Beach sentence: "off of" sounds awkward somehow. There's two very-similar-sounding words right next to each other, and the combination could be easily replaced with something like "The United States Coast Guard began search operations off the coast of Boynton Beach for a missing boat..." or something like that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Accurate, complete, and easy to understand, this article definitely deserves to be an FA. It's easily comparable to the other hurricane and tropical storm Featured Articles, and there's no real reason to deny it that status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support After being copyeditd and tweaked, I think it now meets all criteria for a featured article. Juliancolton (Talk) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:05, 18 February 2008.

    Hockey Hall of Fame[edit]

    Oh boy, my first FAC that doesn't relate to The Simpsons. Anyway, I've been working on this page for about a month, and rewrote it from a form that contained a lot of POV and propaganda. I feel it meets the MOS, and is fully sourced. Special thanks to Maxim for copyediting it. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've copyedited it a bit as well (thanks, Scorpion, for the thanks! :-p), and I've just checked the external links. I got a bunch of 111 Connection refused problems with any site from the Hall of Fame (ie all primary sources have "errors"). The websites, actually, are perfectly fine. It's the relation between the script that analyses the links and how the site is built. A similar issue happened in the Calgary Flames FAC, for reference. Maxim(talk) 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some measurements are missing conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are conversions really needed? -- Scorpion0422 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added the two conversion that Epbr123 asked for; it's not a big deal, IMHO, and I understand stuff better in metric than imperial. :-) Maxim(talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. GREAT WORK! But, some additional work is needed: Support, my concerns have been fixed or addressed - thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that the article has undergone some copyediting, but it needs more fit and finish. There are several awkward sentences, at least one spelling error (I corrected), and misc grammar issues. I called out many of them below, but please have a fresh pair of eyes look this over again.
        • Done
      • "New honourees are selected annually by a committee of 18 people that meets in June, which mainly consists of former players and coaches." Reads like it is June that consists of former players and coaches. Maybe say, "A committee of 18 people, mostly players and coaches, meets annually in June to select new honourees."
        • Done
      • "Honourees are inducted in..." I don't think you are "inducted in"; you are just "inducted".
        • Done
      • Why is the Gil Stein incident mentioned so prominently in the lead? Are there sources stating that it is the most significant controversy in HHOF history? If not, it does not belong in the lead - it would suffice to say that there has been controversy and criticism.
        • That is a remnant of when the contoversy had its own section. It has been removed. -- Scorpion0422 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Sutherland died ten years later, and thus Kingston had lost its most influential advocate to permanently put the Hall there." Grammar.
        • Done
      • "In 1966, the induction ceremony was a 'stag affair'..." Colloquial, reword for general audience.
        • Done
      • "By 1986, the Hall of Fame was quickly expanding and running out of room in its building, and it was decided that a new home was needed." Who decided? Reword using active voice to identify subject.
        • Done
      • I'm not sure why the "haunting" of Brookfield Place is mentioned here.. it seems out of place. How does it relate to the HHOF? I'm reading the history of the HHOF and suddenly I'm reading about ghosts.
        • Removed
      • There is no discussion of why various exhibits seemingly have corporate sponsorship attached to them.. MCI, Panasonic, Lay's, etc. How were these sold and established? How are the proceeds used, considering the Hall's current non-profit status?
        • I'm assuming that they need the sponsorship funds to help maintain the exhibits, but there is no source for it.
      • How else does the Hall earn revenue aside from admissions? Do they solicit donations in other ways?
        • I couldn't find anything that says this. -- Scorpion0422 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The "TSN/RDS Broadcast Zone" provides a look at how hockey broadcasting works and allows users to record messages which can be displayed..." Use "that" instead of "which".
        • Done
      • "Six member's terms expire every year..." Check apostrophe use.
        • Done
      • At the beginning of the "Criticism" section, you mention that there were controversies over the retirement period, but you have not written about those controversies. You wrote that the period was waived and then brought back, but not that is was a controversy.
      • "The Hall of Fame has alternatively been criticised for inducting several lacklustre candidates in the early 2000s due to "a shortage of true greatness," but has since been claimed that the Hall of Fame is too exclusive." Grammar.
        • Done
      • "The Hall of Fame has also been criticised for its lack of international players and has been far too focused on the National Hockey League with a common statement being that it is not the "NHL Hall of Fame"." Grammar.
        • Done
      • "One of the most debated possibilities is Paul Henderson, who scored one of the most famous goals in hockey and Canadian sports history when he scored the winning goal in the final moments of the deciding eighth game of the 1972 Summit Series between Canada and the Soviet Union." Grammar. Also, consider using "potential honouree" or similar instead of "possibility".
        • Done
      • "However, Stein would also admit that to becoming obsessed with his own election to the Hall of Fame..." Grammar.
        • Done
      • Did Eagleson's crimes involve the hockey business? You don't really say why the other players wanted him expelled. Was it just because he was a criminal?
        • Done
      • The "See also" heading should not contain wikilinks to articles that are already linked in the main text.
        • Removed
      • The book Honoured members: the Hockey Hall of Fame needs to have an author listed to be a proper Reference. Amazon lists the author as "Hockey Hall of Fame" but this may need some research. --Laser brain (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've searched the book back to front and I can't find anyone that even comes close to being an author. It is an official poblication of the Hall of Fame and unfortunately, that book is the only source for several of the things mentioned in the articl, so I really don't want to remove all of the uses of it. -- Scorpion0422 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I think the prose still needs a bit of work. While it isn't awful, there are a lot of instances where it could be tightened, which would make it more readable. I've listed a few of those here, but this is not comprehensive.
      • Need nonbreaking spaces between numerals and their units or qualifiers (ex, 238 players, 18 people, etc)
        • Done
      • Prose issues:
        • "The first eleven inductees were inducted on April 30, 1945, despite not having a permanent home" -> the inductees didn't have a permanent home? where was it located at the time if it didn't have a permanent home?
          • Done
            • That sentence actually reads the same. It makes it sound like the inductees did not have a home, and I think the article means that the Museum did not have a permanent home. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Sutherland died ten years later, and thus Kingston had lost its most influential advocate" Perhaps, "When Sutherland died ten years later, Kingston lost its most influential advocate"
          • Done
        • "would visit it " - shouldn't that just be "visited it"
          • Done
        • "The Hall would be visited by 750,000 people in its inaugural year" -> again, this should be "was visited by" instead of "would be visited" (or, even, better, "Over 75,000 people visited the Hall in its inaugural year"
          • Done
        • "since renamed to " -> since renamed
          • Done
        • "designed by the partnership of"-> why not just "designed by"
          • Done
      • This sentence is too long and should probably be split "Partially in response to these claims, the Hall of Fame recently opened an International Hockey exhibit and has said it will start looking at more international players for induction and inducted Valeri Kharlamov in 2005, who is one of the few modern-day inductees to never play in the NHL"
        • Done
      • "agreement that a new Hall of Fame" - does this mean that there would be a new building or that a new organization would be created? I'm wondering what happened to those who had been inducted
        • Done
      • What does it mean by "builders"? People who built hockey rinks?
        • I added a small definition of the types of people that are inducted into the category. -- Scorpion0422 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I saw the addition in the lead, but it should also be noted in the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done
      • "The induction ceremony would be made open to all members of an honouree's family the next year." -> does this mean it wasn't open to all members before or that they made changes so that it was more appropriate to visit your kids?
        • I've had a hard time with that sentence, so I just removed it. It really isn't that important anyway. -- Scorpion0422 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be wise to explain very very briefly what the Original Six era is, since I think most of us who don't follow hockey have never heard the term.
        • Well, it is linked, but Done
      • Was Henderson not inducted? It doesn't really say.
        • It does describe him as a "potential honouree" and it also says "If Henderson was inducted". Saying "Henderson has not been inducted" kind of interrupts the flow of the paragraph. -- 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further note, I like the article. I don't think the prose is bad enough to object, but it isn't quite tight enough for me to support yet. Karanacs (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support But try moving some of the refs in the middle of a sentence to the end. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check all of the links per the link checker at the top of this page; it indicates three 404s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done... Strange, they all worked a week ago. This isn't good, because I use Canoe a lot to find good columns to use as sources... -- Scorpion0422 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Neutral. 1a, but has potential if fixed throughout by a copy-editor. Can you find someone strange to the text to do this?

    • The opening is "... Hall of Fame is a hall of fame ...". Not a good start. Can you remove "located"?
      • You have to explain exactly what it is and while it seems a little awkward, it is a Hall of Fame and museum. -- Scorpion0422 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV creeping into the grammar: "The Hockey Hall of Fame was established in large part thanks to the efforts of James T. Sutherland"—No, "through the efforts of".
      • Done
    • " it contains exhibits that feature interactive displays, players, teams, NHL records, memorabilia and NHL trophies, including the Stanley Cup"—First, "it features interactive ...". Second, are the players and teams housed behind glass? Is there a feeding time? Or do you mean "images" of them?
    • Done
    • MOS breach: "The new location has 51,000 sq ft (4,700 m²)"—nope; Canada-related articles must use metrics as main units. Tony (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done
    • "outside of North America"—pick the redundant word.
    • Hi Tony, I'll try to search for a copyeditor how has no clue what the HHOF is... would that be good? :-) Maxim(talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bit of copyediting on the article tonight and will continue tomorrow evening. While I have a general familiarity with the subject matter, I've never read the article before, so I'll have fresh eyes. Risker (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I copy-edited the article and made some minor corrections here and there. I had a couple of small quips that Maxim covered. And, also, I agree with Rlvese (sp) that some of the refs could be shifted to the end of sentences/paragraphs. But other than that I think it's a decent read. ScarianCall me Pat 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, part of the reason is that sometimes a sentence uses two completely different sources and I want to make sure each statement has a proper citation. As well, several quotes are used and I made sure each one had a source as well. -- Scorpion0422 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed that even though I quite involved in this FAC and article, I haven't supported. :D Support. Maxim(talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things to do before I can support I have done a copy edit of the article up to the end of the "Exhibits" section, mainly to improve prose. I've made some small changes to overall structure; however, there are some significant article structure issues that would best be handled with the source materials close at hand. (I will finish up tomorrow after a bit of sleep.)
      • The second paragraph of the lead discusses the method by which people are nominated and selected for membership in the HHOF. This level of detail I think would be better later in the article, in the "Hall of Fame" section. Instead, I suggest a simpler sentence saying that inductees are selected by a committee appointed by the HHOF board of directors. Keep the sentences about the annual ceremony, number of inductees and the exclusiveness criticism. Add more about the HHOF's mission and internal structure (charity, board of directors), keeping things fairly general. (Note: I have not made many edits to this paragraph, since I'm suggesting much of it should be moved around.)
      • More detail about JT Sutherland and why he believed that Kingston was the birthplace of hockey would be useful, if you can find it.
        • That belongs more in the article about Sutherland than here, but if you really think it's necessary I'll see what I can find. -- Scorpion0422 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, although it would be helpful to have some explanation of why Sutherland or anyone else thought Kingston was the birthplace of hockey. It's a controversial subject. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Include discussion of the split between the HHOF and the International HHOF. I think this is quite a significant part of the history. The IHHOF continued to exist separately in Kingston. Did the HHOF mission/mandate change when the NHL took over?
        • There really isn't much to discuss. The hockey hall of fame WAS the IHHOF before 1958 and eventually moved to Toronto and renamed itself. The IHHOF was restarted years later.-- Scorpion0422 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please verify that 350,000 people visited the temporary HHOF in 1958; that number sounds more like the total number of people who attended the CNE, especially given that later in the paragraph you indicate an annual attendance of 75,000 (which would have included visitors during that year's CNE).
      • "Due to the success of the exhibit, it was agreed that a permanent home in the Exhibition Place was needed."
        • Who were the parties to the agreement? Active voice would be useful here, as well (e.g., "Due to the success of the temporary exhibit, the NHL and the CNE agreed that...")
          • Done
      • Third para of "History" is standing alone, now that I have moved the part about admission prices up to the second para, where it fits better. I suggest developing that into a full paragraph in the "Hall of Fame" section.
        • Done
      • Adjust the size/positioning of the "World of Hockey Zone" image so that it doesn't affect the positioning of the heading for the next section.
        • Done
      • "...former NHL referee-in-chief Scotty Morrison, who was the president since 1986,..."
        • President of what?
          • Done by Maxim
      • The curators are named, but some description of how they shaped the HHOF would improve the article. We have an article about Lefty Reid, maybe touch base with the primary editor of that article to see if he still has the source material. What challenges did Morrison face with closing down the old location and developing exhibits in the new location? Did he supervise development? Is he still the curator, or did someone else take over (or is there a curator at all now)?
        • We used to have something like that, but everything came off as sounding too much like an advertisement so it was removed. -- Scorpion0422 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I can see how that would give the curators undue weight, although it would be useful to add any curators after Morrison. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The next section talks about current governance of the HHOF. I'd suggest developing this further to talk about the changes in governance from the time of its creation to when it became a not-for-profit. How does the NHL fit into the governance over time?
        • There aren't any sources for it. -- Scorpion0422 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might want to consider some less obvious sources, e.g. biographies of Clarence Campbell, as I get the impression from the article that the NHL essentially took over the HHOF for many years, and only recently has it become an independent charity. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the Exhibits section, I found the quotation marks around the names of the various exhibits to be somewhat confusing because there are also actual quotes within that section as well; I haven't changed them, though. Consider italics if that is acceptable under the MOS. Whichever you do, be consistent in the usage.
        • Done
      • "...equipment worn by players during special performances."
        • I assume you meant special games, and have changed the wording; revert if I was wrong.
      • Re the 'Dynasties' section - I've reworked the quote you used; it is a direct quote from the source material, but the source material is not particularly well worded, so better to smooth it over.
        • When describing the Canadiens' dressing room mockup, consider including the line of poetry ("To you from failing hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high"), which is from In Flanders Fields. I recall reading in one of Ken Dryden's books how deeply that line was ingrained into every player on the team, and there is obviously a special element of Canadian content there.

    Sorry to hit you with so much, and to admit there will be more coming. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you don't agree with the copy edits I have made, go ahead and revert them. --Risker (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No problem, FACs aren't supposed to be easy. -- Scorpion0422 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for for Risker's sake... Scorpion has most of the sources, and I'm also kinda Wikibonked, so expect to see more of Scorpion, less of me, but I'm wathing. Maxim(talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Maxim, no worries. I see you and Scorpion have already been working on part I of my epic. Sorry to have had to break this up into two parts. There are fewer concerns in the last third of the article, so this should be shorter.

      • The HHOF nominating committee section lists all current members. Consider whether either of these might work better: a) cutting the list to five or six people, one each from media, players, builders, international and amateur hockey, plus the chair, or b) grouping the list of members by category (e.g., former players Lanny McDonald, John Davidson... hockey executives Harry Sinden and Bill Torrey...etc). It will give the membership list a bit more context and relate the members to the appointment criteria you have mentioned earlier.
      • I've rearranged the information in the nominating and voting paragraph to put the voting threshold together with the rest of the voting parameters; I think it matches the reference source correctly, but please verify.
      • Consider reducing the list of players for whom the waiting period was waived; the list is in your references, and it will improve readability. You could edit it to "The waiting period was waived for ten players deemed exceptionally notable; most recently, Wayne Gretzky was inducted in 1999, months after his retirement. Following Gretzky's induction...."
        • Done
      • I'm unclear who makes the nominations and votes for the media honourees. Can that be fleshed out a bit more? I haven't edited that paragraph for fear of improperly organising the information.
        • Done
          • Thanks, I've done a bit of copy editing of that section now. Risker (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Selke had refused to allow such a bad role model to be honoured and had even tried to block his induction."
        • This sentence needs a bit of work, perhaps "Selke would not condone the induction, as he considered Jackson a poor role model..." - but please verify against the source material.
      • Edit down and compress the section on Gil Stein to one paragraph to avoid WP:UNDUE - the Eagleson controversy was far more serious (with many members threatening to resign) but is not given as much attention. Note that I think the Eagleson controversy gets the appropriate amount of "space."
        • The Gil Stein controversy was pretty big too, but I did trim it down. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed even more. Feel free to rv. me. Maxim(talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somewhere along the line, consider describing how the HHOF comes into possession of its enormous collection of artifacts....bequests, donations, acquisitions (do they buy anything?).
        • I think a lot of it is donated. I'll try to find a source. -- Scorpion0422 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has a good solid base, and you've obviously done your research and pulled together diverse reference sources. You're definitely on the right path. --Risker (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like most of my questions/suggestions have been addressed satisfactorily, and the remainder may be very difficult to source, so I can now change to Support. Risker (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... honourees. Honourees ...". Why not a comma plus who, particularly given the short sentence that follows? Exposed at the top ... Tony (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. - must have missed that one, thanks Tony. Risker (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • *sigh*. I got edit-conflicted. For the second time today trying to fix the article per FAC. :-| Maxim(talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. I was just fixing something else... Risker (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just one of those days... Maxim(talk) 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 17 February 2008.

    Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll[edit]

    Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been reviewed extensively against the FA criteria by DrKiernan, Karanacs and The Rambling Man and I believe it now meets the criteria. All comments will be addressed as swiftly as possible. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not time to read it through right now, but it looks good. However, from the lead:

    • "She was also a supporter of the women's movement" - can we be a little more specific? That links to feminism, are we talking about the suffragettes?
      • Feminism. Though she later regretted it when she became a Reactionist. It's now more specific.
    • "and was known to Josephine Butler and Elizabeth Garrett" - royalty tends to be known to everyone at the time. Can we find a more precise verb? "associated" "admired"??
      • Indeed. She visited one and corresponded with the other, so I thought I'd sum up with "known to". I've now made it more specific. PeterSymonds | talk 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Docg 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support It looks good. Juliancolton (Talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support There's a few places where it would benefit from slight reordering of material, but in the round a good, thorough and well researched piece.--Docg 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support glad to be of help at the extensive peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very good :-) jskellj (msg) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, I removed {{British princesses}} from this as a)Drop-down templates are ugly and apparently don't work in certain browsers/skins. b)The template is quite incoherent - it refers to princesses by numbered generations (1-11) without any hint as to what it is numbering from. I've been reverted, with the explanation as to the meaning of the generation in the edit summary? As this template seems to depreciate this otherwise excellent candidate, I'd like some views here.--Docg 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who generally dislikes too many infoboxes/templates in an article, I completely agree. Does the British princesses template really add anything to the article anyway? There is a category for (see Category:English and British princesses) so why the extra need for a template? PeterSymonds | talk 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Collapsing Ancestry templates and Template:British princesses[reply]
    • Support with some comments Excellent article:
      • It says Louise was Victoria's "seventh pregnancy". I wasn't aware Victoria had lost any children. Indeed her DNB entry says "The queen suffered no miscarriage or stillbirth, and all her children survived to adulthood, a situation unusual even among the Victorian upper classes." Could you check please?
        • Addressed. For some reason someone changed all the "sixths" to "sevenths" earlier on, and I changed them all back, but missed that one. I've made it clear.
      • The sentence "Louise was bored by the court, and by fulfilling her duties...she had more responsibility than she had before." is a little unwieldy.
        • Addressed.
      • "When Queen Victoria had visited the house before her husband became the Duke...By the time of her brother's accession" Confusing pronouns: Queen Victoria's husband wasn't the Duke and her brother wasn't King! DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ooh, what a mess. Addressed. Thanks for spotting these problems. PeterSymonds | talk 10:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 17 February 2008.

    Edward VII[edit]

    • Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think the bolding in the Titles and Styles section is necessary. Epbr123 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the sentence, Edward was born at 10:48 a.m. on 9 November 1841 in Buckingham Palace., what time zone was 10:48 a.m.? Juliancolton (Talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, but the difference between local time and GMT would have been slight. According to my notes, this comes from Bentley-Cranch, but I think I should re-check it as, now that you've pointed it out, the precision of the time seems odd. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't think of that in particular, but it does indeed seem odd how percise the timeing is. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Queen Victoria wrote in her journal: "at last, at 12 m[inutes] to 11, I gave birth to a fine large Boy". (Magnus, 1) The precise timing came from Victoria herself. PeterSymonds | talk 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah. That seems like a reliable source. Support now I see nothing else wrong. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not a timezone in 1841; presumably a standing clock (supposedly) keeping local time. I doubt we will ever know how accurate it was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Article is in a much better state now thanks to DrKiernan's efforts. PeterSymonds | talk 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For now, after a quick glance, these issues with the sources:
      • footnote 3 is "Magnus p. 1" . No Magnus in the References section
      • A couple of sources are in the footnotes, but not in the References section
        • So what? If they're cited for incidental points, they should not be in the references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ashley's got four footnotes to him, and the Duke of Windsor's got five. I can see the one offs not needing to be in the References (although I'd put them there myself) but something that gets four or five footnotes is getting to more important matters. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a bit concerned that you're using a synopsis of a work from Amazon.com as a source.
    • I also have concerns about the short paragraphs in the lede, they give the prose a choppy feel. I didn't read the article itself closely, so haven't addressed any prose/MOS issues in the body of the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)issues.[reply]
      • I've redrafted [15]. The lead is deliberately split into four paragraphs: 1. why he's notable 2. life as Prince of Wales 3. life as King 4. what happened after his death. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks better. I'd prefer it if it was a bit longer in the lede, but it feels a bit less choppy now. Thanks! Changing to support now.Ealdgyth | Talk 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Very interesting, fairly well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. There are some unreferenced areas that need to be addressed. The prose is fairly good, and it was a very interesting article.
      • Need a citation for " The war marked the end of the Edwardian way of life."
      • The Legacy section is completely unreferenced, and there are statements in this section that need references.
        • "foremost teaching and medical care providing institutions in India"
        • "the largest maternity hospital in the Perth metropolitan area. "
        • That the schools are named for him, not for another of the Edwards
        • " latter a rare example of an Edwardian Theatre"
        • "The only medical school in the former British colony of Singapore"
        • ". The series was actually based on the story of Rosa Lewis, an Edwardian society cook who had risen from the ranks of a scullery maid to own the famous Cavendish Hotel"
        • " However, there is no evidence that Edward had an affair with Rosa."
      • Probably the best thing to do here is to move the list of institutions named after Edward VII to a list of its own. Rosa Lewis contains a source on Rosa Lewis and Edward VII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've redrafted [16]. Can the quote from Tuchman's Guns of August be taken as a reference to the end of the Edwardian way of life? The schools are called "King Edward VII School". DrKiernan (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would think so; other standard references include her The Proud Tower, chapter 1, and The Strange Death of Liberal England by Dangerfield, passim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why Duchess of Duke Street need go out entirely. Edward does appear, and the semi-fictional aspects are rightly explained in its own article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. Leaning to support. A thorough, well-organised and balanced article.

    • I agree with the comment above about the "named after" section (for me, "Legacy" is rather too weighty a title for a section about statues and so forth). "Portrayals" also seems to me lightweight and unnecessary. "Titles, styles, honours and arms" contains jargon, such as "differenced": why we have all been mesmerised into accepting unexplained jargon in this category of section and no other, I don't know (I am a reasonably educated person, but "differenced by a label argent, of three blank points" means nothing to me). It's a shame that such a good article picks up bits and pieces of fluff at the end; I don't blame DrKiernan, but the tradition by which bitty sections have become tolerated over time at the end of articles.
    • The article says that he was denied a career in the army and that his military ranks were honorary, but later we hear about him and his fellow officers on manoeuvres in Ireland. OK, with a girl in his tent, perhaps he wasn't taking them seriously, but is it possible to smooth over the apparent disjunction?
    • She wrote, "I never can, or shall, look at him without a shudder". / The Prince wrote, complaining of the treatment of the native Indians by the British officials, "Because a man has a black face and a different religion from our own, there is no reason why he should be treated as a brute." Perhaps it's just me, but I like to know where (diary/speech/letter, etc.) people say things—to give context.
    • After the couple's marriage, she expressed anxiety about their lifestyle. I felt the need for specifics here: what was there to annoy her about their lifestyle?
    • The number VII was occasionally omitted in Scotland, in protest at his use of a name carried by English kings who had "been excluded from Scotland by battle" Omitted by whom? He would still be called Edward, even without the number. I felt the need for an explanation here.
    • Jewish financier friends. Perhaps the "Jewish" could be dropped. I daresay he had non-Jewish financier friends, and Jewish non-financier friends, so I feel the distinction isn't necessary.
    • Picture of family: I can't quite tell if that's a photo or perhaps a lithograph, or something, made from a photo. Might it be indicated what medium we are looking at, as in some of the other images?
    • In 1870, republican sentiment in Britain was given a boost when the French Emperor, Napoleon III, was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and the French Third Republic was declared.[27] However, in the winter of 1871, while staying at Londesborough Lodge, near Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Edward contracted typhoid, the disease that had killed his father. There is no immediate connection between these two sentences. One emerges later in the paragraph, but readers may need their way smoothed here.
    • At the end of the tour, his mother was given the title Empress of India, in part as a result of the tour's success. Who by?

    • In 1900, Persimmon's brother, Diamond Jubilee, won all five classic races (Derby, St Leger, Two Thousand Guineas, Newmarket Stakes and Eclipse Stakes) Well, the five classics are the One Thousand Guineas, Two Thousand Guineas, Derby, Oaks, and St Leger; and they were the same then. The One Thousand and the Oaks are only open to fillies, so since Diamond Jubilee, as a brother, was a colt, he couldn't have won five classics in a year. I suspect he probably just won the five races named: it would, I think, be neat if they could be written in the order they occur (I am not sure when the Newmarket Stakes was run in those days, but I suspect it would have been first, followed by the Two Thousand, the Derby, the Eclipse, and the St Leger).
    • [he]pioneered the pressing of trouser legs from side to side in preference to the now normal front and back creases. Is "pioneered" quite the right word for preferences in ironing trousers? Especially as in this case, it didn't really catch on. Checking the picture of the four kings, it certainly looks as if little George is laterally pressed, but unless my eyes deceive me, our pioneer is wearing frontally pressed trousers. Obviously no Jim Bowie.

    Support. Another very impressive article from DrKiernan. qp10qp (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What do others think? I would be interested to hear the view of other reviewers on these sections. My argument would be that an FA article has to reflect the best scholarship, and works of scholarship do not contain "portrayals" sections or trivialise legacy. These lists should go on other pages, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind "Legacy" sections, where you cover information in a semi-formal way. From my medieval bishops, that's where I put things like "They had an awful reputation for unchastity" or "They were canonized." It's a good catchall place for things like the fashion influences for Edward VII. What I object to is the listing of every time a person's name is used in video games or mentioned in passing in some TV show. Many biographies have a chapter or two on things the subject was known for that carried on past their death. Good luck keeping the trivia lists out though!Ealdgyth | Talk 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to keep Jewish in. The point is that high society was generally anti-Semitic but Edward ignored prejudice and attracted criticism for openly socialising with Jews. I don't want to state this explicitly because his (relative) lack of prejudice is already covered elsewhere in the article but just highlighting it here reinforces that. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But that point is not clear from the article at all and perhaps should be made explicit. As it stands, for me, the passing identification of his financiers as Jewish is not luminous. qp10qp (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It should. He also created several Jewish peers. It was assumed at the time that this was gratitude for handling his debts, and was widely commented on. (The Rothschilds were first, in 1885; I'm not sure how much was his influence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was particularly impressed with the quality of the prose and the flow of the article. Most interesting. --GrahamColmTalk 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 17 February 2008.

    Halo Graphic Novel[edit]

    Minimal plot, long on background and behind the scenes of the book. Here it is... David Fuchs (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, noobish mistake. It's fixed. David Fuchs (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Check Newsarama.com and PublishersWeekly.com for sales/retailer orders information. Publisher's Weekly for instance has a column that analyzes sales of Marvel publications every month. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added in the sales info to the last paragraph of reception. David Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments from James086
      • Is the article written with British or American English? It doesn't matter which is used but it should be consistent throughout. In the section Armor Testing: "...pencils by W. Andrew Robinson and colors by Ed Lee. and in the section Gallery and supplemental: "A full-colour poster featuring the book's cover art was also released... For this article I would recommend American English to be consistent with the section title "Armor Testing" but British English could be used.
      • Perhaps rename the "Background" section to "Background and development" because the second paragraph seem to be more development related than background. Possibly split into 2 sections but I like the way the text flows at the moment so I would prefer that they stay as 1 section.
      • Nice work and support assuming that these will be addressed by the conclusion of the FAC. I'm watching this FAC so I can respond to queries here. James086Talk | Email 10:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The previous support is very hard for me to see; please follow the standard format given in the instructions at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All concerns above addressed. David Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - my concerns were addressed (this separated support is to make it clearer for Raul or Sandy). I will help out with the points raised by Maralia and any others, but I haven't contributed to the article otherwise. I am an active contributer to the Halo Wikiproject however which could be considered a COI but that's not for me to decide. James086Talk | Email 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, from a quick glance it doesn't seem like this article is following the graphic novels MOS. Any particular reason? I presume stories = plot section, but who are the characters? Unless you are familiar with the Halo universe, the article seems a little confusing. Gallery and supplemental seems like it should be a discussion under an overall discussion of the publication of the novel. With it having a main heading, it seems out of place. Has the article been copyedited? There are several sentences with references floating in the middle when they don't seem to need to be. Collectonian (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of any format for graphic novels. It doesn't contain a character section because there are not full plot summaries and all the characters are wikilinked to List of Halo characters which contains all series characters. Would you prefer the supplementals section to go under the background? As for copyediting, I plan on running through it once more over this weekend. (�US EST) David Fuchs (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think having a brief character section for the major characters in the novel, with a synopsis of their role in the novel and links to their main section would be good. Without such a section, a person would really have to be familiar with Halo already to get some aspects of the article. A character section would help with that. I think the supplements should be incorporated into a section discussing its publication, or baring that the background section should work. I'd also strongly recommend applying the graphic novel MOS to the article, especially for the headings and organization. Collectonian (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oppose, as it still presume too much familiarity with Halo, and earlier concerns remain unaddressed except for the moving of the supplemental stuff. Collectonian (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll address your issues on your talk page. David Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved copyedit issues from Maralia
    • Oppose for now. This article needs a thorough copyedit (as I see you've mentioned above); some examples follow:
    • "Halo Graphic Novel is a single issue graphic novel published by Marvel Comics in partnership with Bungie Studios, and was released on July 19, 2006." - differential in verb tense makes this awkward; you could easily work the date into the later sentence that begins "Upon release"

    |:*The first instance of "Halo universe" is not linked in the lead, although the second is

    • Italics are inconsistent on the word 'Halo' ('Halo universe' in the lead but 'Halo universe' elsewhere)
      • I think I found them all (it should always be italicised). James086Talk | Email 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This also allowed the studio greater access to various artists whom they hoped to contribute;" - the phrase 'they hoped to contribute' is nonsensical here; it's meant to describe the studio's hope for the artists to contribute, but as written it describes the studio's hope to contribute
    • In the infobox, the image caption "Halo Graphic Novel Front Cover" should have italics on the book title and should use sentence case
      • Changed to "The front cover of the Halo Graphic Novel." James086Talk | Email 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's better; now drop the full stop please, since it's not a complete sentence. Maralia (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What was described as a "dream team" roster of writers and artists Bungie admired was created by lead designer Maria Cabardo" - passive voice is killing this sentence
    • "humanities struggle for survival" - should be the possessive humanity's
    • The formatting of story titles indiscriminately switches from double quotes to italics
    • Fixed in first two story sections; italics remain in latter two stories, and in Reception. Maralia (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A distress call brings the Elite Special Operations Commander, Rtas 'Vadumee to a" - either no comma at all, or commas before and after the name
    • "Like Breaking Quarantine" - at this point in the article, Breaking Quarantine has never been mentioned; this phrase draws a comparison to it, but one has no idea what it is
    • "A test run on SPARTAN II MJOLNIR Mark VI battle armor that proves to be a challenging endeavor for all involved as the limits of the armor's abilities are put to the test by both its SPARTAN user, Maria-062, and UNSC special forces during an intense wargame exercise." - nonsensical; subject verb disagreement (a test run...are), and poor prose (a test run...put to the test)
    • "Initially a minor, background character in the first game his expanded role in Halo 2" - comma needed after game
    • "Both art and story was provided by" - subject verb disagreement
    • "The material was also praised for the diverse range of storytelling and art styles that lent the novel the feel of an anthology yet still retaining a cohesive whole." - disparity between past tense verb 'lent' and present participle 'retaining'
    • "Due to the success of the novel, Marvel Comics and Bungie Studios announced at San Diego Comic-Con 2006, Halo: Uprising a four-issue monthly Halo comic book mini-series to launch Summer 2007." - this sentence needs a complete rewrite
    • The section header "Footnotes and References" should be in sentence case
      • Did you mean that "references" shouldn't be capitalised? I de-capitalised it. James086Talk | Email 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, this suffers from a presumption of audience. The lead does not describe the genre or basic story arc of Halo in general or of these stories in specific. Mentions of bits of Halo lore are sometimes presented with no context whatsoever (see first instance of "The Covenant"). I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion above about adding a character section, but additional storyline context would make this a much more compelling read to those of us who are somewhat deficient in Halo lore :) Maralia (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've struck out completed issues on my list. As the story sections have been rewritten for context/plot, I'll reread them in full before further comment. Maralia (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hidden my issues that have been resolved. I remain opposed, though, for the following reasons:
    • The lead still contains exactly nothing about the story arc, universe, or even the genre of the work. This is just crucial. At present, the lead merely tells us that this is a book based on a computer game.
    • The context elsewhere in the article has been improved by the rewrite of the individual story sections, but that rewrite has introduced new copyedit issues:
    • "but also features an appearance by the future Arbiter, before he is stripped of his rank for his failures in Halo: Combat Evolved" - it's not clear whether 'the future Arbiter' is 'Vadumee or someone else; also missing full stop at end of sentence.
    • "Elite Special Operations Commander Rtas 'Vadumee and his team respond to a distress call, and board the supply craft Infinite Succor hanging crippled in the outer reaches of a star system. " - 'hanging crippled' is, well, hanging crippled in this sentence :) It needs a definitive object.
    • "but 'Vadumee learns that some other creatures have killed or infected the crew of the Succor. 'Vadumee learns from the Prophet on board the ship that the Succor has been infested by the Flood..." - awkward phrasing (killed or infected), repetitive language ('Vadumee learned..'Vadumee learned).
    • "Lee Hammock described the process of writing the story as a "heady task", in particular the importance of respecting the Halo fanbases' active involvement in the storyline and that the "characters that they know as a part of themselves are portrayed aptly"" - the second half of the sentence has no grammatical connection to the first half yet is not a complete sentence in itself either.
    • "as the UNSC demoes a new version" - this is incorrect usage of 'demo'; they were testing the armor, not demonstrating it.
    • "launched a directed attack" - as opposed to an undirected attack? or is this meant to be 'direct attack'?
    • "The story is a human drama told through the eyes of a reporter" - the phrase 'human drama' confusingly mixes POV (human) with genre (drama); 'told through the eyes of' is sort of mixed metaphors.
    • "Jean Giraud explained his draw to the project was influenced by his son's enjoyment of the game series which ultimately compelled him to accept an invitation to contribute his art" - lots of extra words in this sentence. Perhaps 'Jean Giraud explained that his son's enjoyment of the game series ultimately compelled...'
    • In the references, is it really necessary to link to the book's ISBN 7 times?
    Barring any significant new content, I should be able to support once these issues are addressed. I offer an apology in advance if any snark crept through in my explanations above; I have a terrible headache at the moment, but felt I owed you a quick response. Maralia (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken. I'll get to working on those issues. David Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based on criteria 1a and 1c as follows: Support. --Laser brain (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • General style concern (1a): Pervasive use of passive voice affects readability throughout. An example is: "What was described as a "dream team" roster of writers and artists Bungie admired was created by lead designer Maria Cabardo, and through a period of negotiation Bungie was able to gain contributions from many of those named on the list." Almost every sentence in the article is in the passive voice, which obscures or in some cases eliminates the subject of the sentence.
      • General concern that secondary sources are not offered in the "Stories" plot summaries (1c).
        • This is still a concern but it is not enough for me to oppose. I did a cursory search and it didn't look promising that any secondary academic sources would be available for the plot summaries. However, if there are any magazine articles (maybe a comics journal?) that summarizes the plots, it would be great to add it as a source. --Laser brain (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minor issues:
    I've rewritten some of the sentences where the structure made it unclear, added more to the FUR, and fixed the first sentence. David Fuchs (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from indopug
    • The cover of the book tells me it is The Halo Graphic Novel - why does the article's name not have a "The"?
    • the article assumes the reader already knows about Halo; I think a line in the lead and a paragraph in the "Background" section that explain it for noobs is necessary: "Halo is a video-games series created by Bungie... it was very popular..."
    • Whats an "art lead"?
    • "The original concept of expanding the Halo series into new media beyond that of video games began early in the development of the Halo franchise, as a method of adding new stories to the Halo mythos outside of the main story line of the games; sequential art was to be the main focus." - can this sentence be simplified/shortened - you seem to be saying the same thing twice. Also, who exactly are we talking about in these initial sentences - Bungie?
    • A "dream team" - is that right?
    • Bungie announced the partnership on March 17, 2006 - is that necessary? A specific date like that really adds nothing.
    • created solely for the book - didn't see what this added/meant - removed it myself.
    • "A few promotional pieces were created ... preview pages of the material." - Ack, should be rewritten; a lot of stuff is being said twice (the preview for example)
    • The novel's material - can you find another word other that "material"? - Wouldn't just "The novel" suffice?
    • Can the plot for the first book be shortened? the others seem shorter.
    • "citing the wealth of contributions from recognized artists and the strength of the material in fleshing out the Halo fictional world." - rewrite; doesn't seem grammatically correct right now.
    • "praised for the diverse range of storytelling" - you might want to attribute that to a reviewer: "Jon Smith praised Halo for its 'diverse range of storytelling...'"
    • Does this new monthly series have a name?
    • Bookscan and Diamond sales charts - any wikilinks?
    • A word other than "guts"? Not done: "moxie"? huh? maybe "daring" or "being brave enough to". Further Succinct though it may be, surely there is a more common word than "moxie". I'm sure most common-folk don't know this word.
    • August '06 newsarama has no mention of Halo... one of its links does though; change the cite.
    Fix these, and i will have no problem in supporting. indopug (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: USA Today did an article on this that you may be able to use: [19] maclean 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've integrated some of the content into the background. Good find, thanks! David Fuchs (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Concerns have been addressed. Good job indopug (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Bungie Studios is singular. Make sure this is fixed throughout the article; I did a few edits to demonstrate how the company should be referred to. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Contingent support presuming nom is okay with my unusually heavy copyedit-verging-on-rewrite tonight. David: please especially review what I've done with the lead, "Last Voyage", and "Second Sunrise", to make sure I haven't bungled the plot summary or misrepresented your sources. I've hidden all my prior concerns, as they were addressed by either your edits or mine. I was really hesitant to muck with it myself because I'm no Halo expert, but copy/pasting sentences here for fixes was getting tedious (probably for you too). Maralia (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks fine, and you didn't misrepresent anything. Thanks a bunch, David Fuchs (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear I didn't botch anything; (unfamiliar subject) + (text I've read too many times) + (copyediting after midnight) is not the best recipe for success. Maralia (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:03, 15 February 2008.

    Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow[edit]

    previous FAC (02:20, 1 February 2008)

    Renominating for a try at featured status as I feel it meets all the criteria. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - As with the previous FAC, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive, and well sourced. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support User:Krator (t c) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - impressive, I've seen only one GBA article that detailed before. igordebraga ≠ 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, well-sourced, well referenced, and fits the VG MOS standards. So nice to see a video game article that isn't full of game guide stuff, but actual real world content! Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Review scores
    Publication Score
    Eurogamer 9 of 10 (review)
    • Comment I'm not crazy about the way the review links are presented. My first choice would be to link to the review in a footnote, so that date and author information are presented to the reader without the need to go to another site. However, if that isn't acceptable, the example on the right would be an improvement over the current display. In addition, not all of the review links link to a review. For example, the Famitsu link links to rpggamer.com and not the Famitsu review. This is another reason why the footnote approach might be more appropriate—you're using that link as verification, but it's not the actual review. Pagrashtak 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. Prose is just not good enough. There is still lots of work to be done to remove redundancies, improve flow, eliminate unnecessary repetitions. (see for instance my minor copyediting) There's a sentence about character design repeated almost verbatim twice. This is what I picked up after a brief look, so I'm quite sure similar problems occur throughout the article. Pichpich (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOCE can be very backlogged; you may need to be more proactive in finding a copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a shot at copy editing the article, I hope the prose meets the requirements now. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oh, these game articles are becoming SO standardised in content and style. Makes for a predictable read. I suppose it passes 1a. Tony (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have WP:NFCC concerns:
      • NFCC#8 for "Soma Cruz (Castlevania character).gif". Soma is depicted in three other images in the article (box covers and in-game screenshot). Does seeing his torso/lower body truly "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"?
      • NFCC#3A for "AoSJuliusMode.png‎" and "AriaofSorrowGameplay.jpg". Both appear to show a character, ability, enemy and general gameplay. It doesn't appear that both are necessary to increase our understanding. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Soma Cruz image is concept art by the character designer, Ayami Kojima, and provides a visual identification of her art style, which cannot be done adequately and fully by the box art or the in-game image (especially considering the latter is just a sprite). The Julius Mode image depicts a different mode using a different character than the primary character, but I'm more ambivalent on its inclusion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reasoning may make the Soma image appropriate for the Ayami Kojima article, but I don't see discussion of her style in this article (indeed, it's not particularly relevant given that the game is sprite-based). AriaofSorrowCover.jpg appears to provide a better image of his face, which, as I implied earlier, is all we really need to get an understanding of the character. Remember, the criterion is that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The full body doesn't add anything significant and the topic is Aria of Sorrow, not Soma or Kojima.
    • Keep the Julius Mode image, not "AriaofSorrowGameplay.jpg". As Soma is depicted in the other images, his gameplay image doesn't provide unique insight. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎

    • I've removed the Soma image. In any case, I would prefer that the primary gameplay image stays, as it depicts the gameplay that is present for the grand majority of the game. It is more than merely depicting Soma - it is what is actually featured to the player throughout the game and thus is central for a reader understanding of the article. The Julius Mode image depicts a different mode, but it can be removed if you feel fair use concerns are still prevalent. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose my concern is not being able to determine what is so visually different as to warrant a second fair use gameplay image. My understanding from the text is that the only real visual difference is the sprite used. If there are other differences, it would be helpful to articulate them in the article. Otherwise, the concern is again with the "significantly" verbiage. If you feel, however, that it really is essential to our understanding, I'll strike the concern. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond the sprite, the similarities are great enough that it likely does not meet the "significant" guideline you are stipulating. I've cut the image. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:03, 15 February 2008.

    Glorious First of June[edit]

    Been working on this article over the last couple of months and feel that the time is right to try my hand at FAC. The article has had a peer review and has been copyedited numerous times to straighten out the prose, so hopefully it will meet FA criteria. The article is 62kb, and has been shortened by the creation of two daughter articles: Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (which is a GA and will hopefully appear here soon) and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June (which is now a featured list). Any and all comments welcomed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also want to thank User:Rama, who did some extremely helpful investigation into contradictory French and British sources and also turned a great many of the red links blue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To reassure the people who have commented, I am not ignoring you but a)I'm not very well right now and consequently my editing time is limited (just a cold, will be gone in a couple of days) and b) User:EyeSerene is conducting a copyedit of the article and I want to wait for him to finish before I go through it thoroughly myself. This will probably be around wednesday night or thursday, and I will incorporate the suggestions below when I do my review. Thankyou veyr much to everyone who has commented or contributed to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear all, feeling much better today and had some time this evening to go over the article carefully with another copyedit and to run through all comments on the talk page and here. I have addressed all those issues remaining; mostly in the article, some here where I didn't quite agree or required more information. I will drop a message on all those who commented, and hopefully the article is now of a standard that people feel merits support. Thankyou very much to all who commented and special thanks to User:Carre and User:EyeSerene for their detailed copyedits and to User:Ruhrfisch for his excellent map.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support...

    • Royal Navy section, para 3. "In the spring of 1794, with the convoy's arrival in European waters imminent..." and "Peter Rainier in HMS Suffolk and commanding six other ships was to escort the convoys for the rest of their passage." What convoys are being referred to here? The only mention of convoys up to this point has been the French food convoys. A little confusing.
    I have added the prefix "French" to the first mention of the convoy, as for the latter, the sentance before the one you mentioned explains what those convoys were: "British convoys to the East Indies, West Indies and Newfoundland". I have added the prefix British for greater clarity.
    • There are too many redlinks throughout.
    I have been working on this with the help of User:Rama, and between us we have created at least 25 new articles to fill red links here. This is an ongoing process, but I have now exhausted most of my sources and am loath to create very short stubs without context just to fill a red link. If you think this would be adviseable or whether this problem can be addressed simply by delinking the red links, let me know.
    • Last para in French Navy section contains a confusingly long sentence - can it be fragmented? Also - "American Eastern Seaboard"? Why is this capitalised?
    I assumed eastern seaboard was a proper noun. This has now been changed. I think the sentance is more readble now, let me know what you think.
    • May 1794 section; "The American convoy..." reads like it was a convoy belonging to the Americans. Is that right? The phrase also appears in the section "The convoy arrives".
    American was used as the convoy was coming from America. I have now changed it to French for greater clarity.
    • First of June section - "Howe unleashed his prepared and unexpected battleplan". "Unexpected" doesn't read right to me - wouldn't "unusual" be a better word?
    Changed to unusual.
    • The only glaring omission from this article is a map to illustrate the battle - any chance of getting one?
    This was raised at peer review, but the only map I have been able to find, on or off line is this German one. This map is not only very confusing, but has a number of glaring errors which make me very reluctant to use it (for example, several ships are mislabelled including a French name on a British ship, many of the tracks are wrong, the distance between the first and second French lines is too far and too confusingly rendered etc etc.). I know MapMaster is a good person to speak to if I can find a reliable map for him to work from, but until I do there is nothing more I can do with this, I wish there was.

    Drop me a line when you have fixed/responded to these and I'll take another look. --FactotEm (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou very much for your copyedit and your review here. I hope I have addressed the problems you had with the article above and that it meets your approval. If you have any further comments please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that one or two redlinks necessarily disqualify a FAC, but too many become a problem. I would suggest delinking those that cannot be created.
    Shame about the map. As an aside, weren't ships around this period often confusingly named? I had to take a few attempts to understand that the Northumberland was actually a French ship, and I believe that there were one or two ships at the Battle of Trafalgar with names that were duplicated on both sides. Anyway, irrelevant. Supporting now - I enjoyed the article, and I hope that it both succeeds this FAC and that, irrespective of the outcome you continue your attempts to get a map for it. --FactotEm (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou very much. Yes, ship names of the period were immensely confusing because ships which were captured in battle were frequently recommissioned into the Navy which captured them with the same name. When these ships were broken up, their replacements continued the name, hence Northumberland. In addition, the French at this period constantly renamed their ships based on the poltical faction which was then in power. As a result, most of the navy changed names every few months, making deducing what ships were where at a particular time enormously difficult. Sometimes ships would simply switch names with one another and as a result, all British sources list a ship as being present at the action on the 28th May which didn't exist (see footnote about Mont Blanc at the order of battle page). Thankyou again for your attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - well written and well referenced with nice explanatory notes, relatively few but good illustrations. I agree a map or two would help - I found these two on GoogleBooks, pp. 282-283, here. Would that work? I have a few comments / questions (below) and will make a few copyedits next, but support now.

    • Royal Navy section - This should be painfully obvious, but would it help to add "British" here in the first or second sentence? The first sentence in the next section is In contrast to their British counterparts, the French Navy was in a state of confusion.
    Done.
    • Convoy section - This conglomeration of ships was said to be over 350 strong, although contemporary historian William James disputes this, citing the number as 117 (in addition to the French warships).[27] Who said there were over 350 ships in the convoy? This claim should be referenced too.
    The reference for 350 is the same as the 117 - James is commenting on the rumours that the convoy was 350 strong and contradicting it with his own figure. Is it necessary to source this twice?
    • I think the problem is that by giving Williams James' in the second part of the sentence, it makes it less clear about source of the rumors. How about this instead: Although contemporary historian William James notes that this conglomeration of ships was said to be over 350 strong, he disputes this, citing the number as 117 (in addition to the French warships).[27] This is a suggestion and the wording could probably still be made better, but hope it makes my uncertainty with the original clearer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of June section - Two "however"s in a row: Howe however was counting on the professionalism of his captains and crews combined with the advantage of the weather gage to attack the French directly, driving through their line.[16] He did not however plan to manoeuvre in the manner he had on the two previous encounters;...
    Done in CE by another user.
    • Van squadron - This sentence seems to be missing a word: Defence was not however the only ship of the van squadron under Admiral Graves to break the French line, HMS Marlborough following her minutes later.[47] perhaps add "with" before HMS Marlborough, or make it "as HMS Marlborough followed her"?
    Rephrased by other user in CE.
    • Melee - I think it might help here to introduce some ship names with their nationalities (perhaps add HMS or British or Royal Navy In the van, the [HMS] Caesar had finally attempted to join the fight...) Generally, I think only one ship per battle need be identified, and only when the names are not obvious i.e. Ceasar and Trajan. This is done already in the friendly fire incident, and helps clarify it: Queen Charlotte also took fire during the engagement from HMS Gibraltar...
    This is a little tricky as I don't want to overload the text. I will look at it and see if I can clear it up. All Royal Navy ships should have HMS at start the first time they are mentioned however.
    • French recovery - could the names of the seven French ships sunk or captured be given at the end of this section, with the casualties? This total is mentioned two sections later, but I think specifics on the lost ships belong with the casualties too.:Overall nice work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point here, but I think that mentioning the details of all seven of the ships here, where they have already been discussed in the text and are discussed in aftermath might be excessive. I'll think about it and take opinions from other people on this issue.
    I struck all my comments - in general I think they reflect someone who has read the article once or twice and is not as clear with information that is there, but could be clearer (is this ship British or French? Which ships sank / were captured? etc.). I trust your judgment here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou very much for the comments and support. The article is currently undergoing a copyedit from another user. Once he is finished I will review the article again and implement the changes you have suggested. Thanks again.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not do any copyedits since another user was making them. I just added a map I made showing the general location of the battle based on the source I gave above. Let me know if it needs any corrections - the maps of all the ships in the source are (sadly) too much for me to make free versions of. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That map seems great, I have moved it slightly but otherwise it is fine. The ships map on the source you linked to is problematic. Basically for some reason it has been drawn upside down and few ships are labelled, making it probably more confusing than explanatory. For the moment I think the article will have to do without a tactical map until a clearer one emerges. Thankyou for your work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The maps label the Royal Navy ships with numbers and French ships with letters - the key is on the next page. If for some reason it is not available, I can send you the info for whoever could make a map based on it. I did not know why North was down instead of up either. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite right, I missed that (sorry). Bizarrely and frustratingly however, the French order of battle here is not the same as the one I gathered from other sources for the Order of Battle article above. Crap. The French ships at this battle (and therefore their order) have never been satisfactorily idenntified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem and glad my map is OK. I have a question - could Map I in the book above still be used as a basis for a similar map here, showing the two lines of ships at the start of battle, but following the sources you used for the list for the names of the French ships? Also is Map II (the melee) accurate enough to serve as the basis for a melee map? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Provided the map is turned so north is up, I don't see any reason why the lines of battle map is inappropriate. I think that the melee map, whilst possibly accurate (allowing for the possible mislabelling of ships) is probably too confusing to be of much help to the reader. The complexity of this battle means that after the British broke the French line the article would need five or six maps to demonstrate the action at any one time, if we try to show action over even a short period of time, the interweaving ship tracks will become hopelessly entangled.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have run through your comments and made some revisions to the article and some counter-comments above. Thankyou very much for your interest in the article and for the brillant maps you provided. They were extremely appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - this is an excellent article; very well-written and engaging. I only found a few issues, but none of them are deal breakers. Otherwise, full support. Support, everything addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The British Channel Fleet under Lord Howe attempted to interdict the passage of a vitally important..." The words "vitally" and "important" seem redundant.
    Dealt with in CE.
      • Suggest wikilinking some unfamiliar terms such as "promontory". Except I'm not sure Ushant is a promontory. Maybe it doesn't matter. Later, you write about the ships "wearing" but I don't believe that is a familiar term to most readers. Link to jibe on first mention.
    Linked & corrected.
      • Check hyphen use where there should be em dashes.
    I think this is sorted now, but I get very confused when dealing with the hyphen issue.
      • "Gathering sufficient manpower proved problematic, and was never satisfactorily accomplished throughout the entire 23 years of war." What 23 years of war? Please explain in the text.
    Shortened.
      • What is the proper way to refer to Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse? In the lead you call him "Joyeuse", later you call him "Villaret", and you also call him "de Joyeuse".
    The correct usage is Villaret. Villaret de Joyeuse is actually the full surname of Louis Thomas Villaret de Joyeuse. All the sources avaliable refer to him as Villaret after the first mention.
      • "...many of the ships which did obey Howe's order and attacked the French directly arrived in action without significant damage." This is an awkward phrase that mixes verb tenses (did obey and attacked).
    Dealt with in CE.
      • There are a few places where "which" is used and where "that" is proper. The above is actually one example. However, I'm aware that the matter is subjective and British use might be different from the American English I am accustomed to. --Laser brain (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these have been dealt with during CE.
    Thankyou very much for your comments. As noted above, the article is undergoing a copyedit from another editor. Once he is finished I will review it again myself and implement your suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have thoroughly reviewed the article today and hopefully dealt with all issues to your satisfaction.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I found this a very interesting and well-written article on the whole, and I appreciate Jackyd101's work despite his illness. Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comments'. I found this a very interesting and well-written article on the whole. However, there are a few places that I feel need citations, and a few phrases that I didn't understand.
      • Per WP:MOSDASH, unspaced mdashes should be used instead of spaced ndashes (or hyphens) when you are adding parenthetical information. In some cases, you should also consider using commas to offset a clause instead of dashes.
        • WP:MOSDASH says that spaced ndashes can be used instead of unspaced mdashes, as long as it's used consistently. Epbr123 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has been sorted now, although I get easilyconfused when dealing with hyphens.
      • Need a citation for "largest French ships were three-decker first rates, carrying 110 or even 120 guns, compared with 100 guns on the largest British vessels"
    Sourced.
      • Need a citation for "the only remaining problem was that of manning the several hundred ships on the Navy list."
    Sourced.
      • Need a nonbreaking space between a numberal and its unit/qualifiers (for example, 23 years, 26 battleships)
    Will get on this ASAP.
    I think this is done but I might have missed some. Let me know if you spot any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got the ones you missed. Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Hundreds more were imprisoned, banished or dismissed from naval service" -> hundreds more officers or hundreds more sailors?
    Both, I'm not sure how to make this clearer without causing problems with the prose here. Any ideas?
    How about "hundreds more officers and sailors"? (If you don't like that, you can revert my changes.) Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure what this means: "This first rate was at various times engaged "; I've always heard first-rate as an adjective, but not sure its meaning here.
    I have linked first rate, it was already linked further up the page, but I have linked it again to avoid confusion.
      • What does this mean? "each ship wearing in turn"
    Now linked to jibe.
      • <s.Need a citation for "but overall British casualties are generally given as around 1,200."
    Sourced.

    Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks well-written, but ...
      • "No such excuses exist defending Captain Anthony Molloy of Caesar"—not both excuses and defending. The exist is clumsy too.
        • Changed to "There were no such excuses, however, for Captain Anthony Molloy of Caesar," – that better Tony? Carre (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Much better. Tony (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The map caption should not have a final period. I find the tiny print in some of the captions hard to read; is it necessary to reduce the font size further?
        • Full-stop gone. Not done the font shrinkage, will leave that up to Jacky. Carre (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiny font is no more.
      • I see that the author(s) get a charge out of referring to both ships and countries as women. It's not only sexist—it's often laboured: "As she did so, she also became briefly entangled with the next in line, Jacobin, and exchanged fire with her too,..".
    I know there is a guideline which recommends that ships be referred to as "she" buecause I read it on an unrelated matter af ew days a ago but now of course I cannot find it anywhere. I have dealt with the instance above, and hopefully squished any other problematic examples in copyedit. If there are further problems please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "other ships of the centre division also struck the French line"—"Also" is redundant in the light of "other". Tony (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "also" gone. Those examples sorted, but I think the copy-edit is still on-going. Carre (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Epbr123 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with disclaimer: Jacky asked me to look at the prose, and I gave it a bash, but quickly decided that I wasn't any good at copy-editing. Carré (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:11, 14 February 2008.

    Operation Camargue[edit]

    This article is about a little-known operation of the First Indochina War fought between the French Expeditionary Force and the Viet Minh in 1953. This war is under-represented on Wikipedia perhaps because of the scarcity of decent English-language sources. Much of the work for this article was done by SGGH and it has had a Milhist peer review. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The background section should probably be heavily trimmed with the remainder merged with the prelude section. It is important that the article provide adequate leadup to the actual battle, but there is no need to quickly summarize French colonialism and the entire course of the war, that is what the First Indochina War article is for. Our featured articles on Omaha Beach and the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal do not start with the invasion of Poland or the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. I'll look closely at the text in the morning. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the older, more trimmed version of the background section. Perhaps insert this? SGGH speak! 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think the shorter one is better. Indrian (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SGGH has written it nicely, hasn't he?
    In response to your earlier comments, I think we may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    Chinese and American involvement dramatically increased in the months immediately preceding Operation Camargue. This is what distinguishes it from a colonial policing exercise (which is what it could be mistaken for). It was the first stage of a Chinese/American proxy war that would drag on for decades. This aspect is not covered in Fall (who died in 1967, when much remained secret) but is it an important part of recent scholarship. To put this into perspective:
    • Operation Camargue was phase 1 of the 3-phase 3-year strategy, jointly devised by Paris and Washington. The French Union assaulted in US-supplied landing craft, jumped from US-supplied Dakotas, rode in US-supplied armor, carried US-supplied weapons and fired US-supplied rounds. (US-supplied parachutes caused problems during the drop: they were designed for much bigger heavier men than the Vietnamese troops who were blown far away by the wind.)
    • The Viet Minh were supplied by the PRC, were trained and directed by Chinese staff officers (combat veterans of the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War), provided with Chinese intelligence, and given ideological support.
    The solution, I think, is to have a brief background section, more or less based on SGGH's diff above; followed by a new section – Strategical overview, Chinese and American involvement or similar – containing the international dimension content, particularly focussed on late 1952/early 1953. How does this sound? --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have to see the end results of course, but that sounds fine. Indrian (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, go for it. I will re-add the original background section. SGGH speak! 09:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have transcluded the replaced background onto the talk page. Hopefully Roger Davis can create the new section as per his vision quickly :) SGGH speak! 09:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Anyhow, done it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. An interesting read and solid summary of the engagement that also puts the battle into the larger context of the war. Indrian (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Can't see any problems. Epbr123 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as nominator. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support obviously, as the writer, but not sure if my support counts! SGGH speak! 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Although I know very little about this period of history, I was able to follow this article easily. It is well-written and appears to be comprehensive (but I am ill-qualified to judge that). The sources are reliable and all of its images are in the public domain. I just have a few little suggestions:
    • I would mention the First Indochina War in the first paragraph of the lead. That way the reader knows what war the operation was part of.
    • The French used the lessons learned – strong ground bases, versatile air support, and a model based on the British Burma campaign – as the basis for their new strategy. - list lacks parallel structure
    • Similarly, the US "released from its heavy burden in the Korean conflict ... dramatically increased its military and financial support" - Might be best to repeat to whom they were giving support. Some readers might forget.
    • From a straight 100-meter (109 yd) deep coastline of "hard sand" the French landing forces were to advance through a series of dunes up to 20 meters (22 yd) high and interspersed with precipices, ditches and a handful of small villages. - This sentence is a little hard to follow, particularly the first part - what does "straight" mean here? I wasn't exactly sure.
    • The editors might consider a different color for the background of the quote boxes. Right now, they kind of blend into the rest of the text.
    • Many of the captions have the phrase "such as this one". Is there any way to reduce the use of that phrase? It seems a bit unnecessary.
    • The citations listed in the "References" section aren't in a standard or consistent style, such as MLA, Chicago, or APA. It looks a tad unprofessional. Awadewit | talk 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the support and the tweaks. I've done all the above list, except the quote boxes (I don't know the color switch parameter).--ROGER DAVIES talk 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't even aware you could do that, I just saw them once on another article and thought they were very nifty. SGGH speak! 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm not sure that they can be changed. I don't mind them being nifty and unobtrusive either.--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:11, 14 February 2008.

    Lost: Missing Pieces[edit]

    Self-nominate This article is about a series of thirteen short installments referred to as mobisodes and webisodes spun-off from the television show Lost. I began work on this in my sandbox on December 17 and published it in the article namespace on January 28. It was promoted to good article status by Will/Sceptre on January 29. It appeared in the did you know? section on the main page on February 2. It was listed at peer review, however, it received no comments (not counting the semi-automated suggestions). External links can be checked here and the relevant WikiProject's page can be viewed here. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose, the intro section is too short for the article length (see WP:LEAD). The way the reception section is grouped by source seems odd, and I'm not sure it works well the way it gives a bit of review from only three sites on every episode. Why not a reception section discussion the reception of the webisodes as a whole, and a greater variety of critical responses? The episode table needs a formatting fix so the date doesn't wrap. Why are there two links above the column of references? Why haven't the references been changed to 2 column format? Why no external link to the webisode page (presuming there is an official site to view them)? Collectonian (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead manages to mention all key points, but I will expand it. There are more than three sources in the reception section. Those three each get their own section because they reviewed each mobisode. Other publications that reviewed the series as a whole instead are mentioned in the opening of the reception section. Keep in mind that these are mobisodes and not Lost, so there are not that many critical reviews; I am unable to find any more. I'm not sure what you mean by "date doesn't wrap" because I cannot see this problem. I did not change the references table to the two column format because I use Internet Explorer, which displays one column of references no matter what. I changed it, but that is a minor problem that probably falls under WP:SOFIXIT. There is no external links section because the official website is already listed in the references section and the infobox. It is one of the two links included in the references section, but not in the reflist. I did this because it can be used as a source for the whole episode list section. I think it looks better the way it is now, instead of having "a b c d e f g h i j k l m" before it. The reason for the other link above the reference section is similar to the one for the official website. Thanks for reviewing it, as you have already made this a greater success than the peer review. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize ref|2 doesn't show in IE...wonder why no one has fixed that (or is it just not fixable?) In the table of episodes, the final column, the date wraps to two lines. The column needs to be widen. I made the edit so you can see what I mean. Is the character column necessary when its already shown in the webisode summary? I also did an edit to change the references to use the same kind of system we've used in some other FAs with a similar issue. What do you think? Collectonian (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead has been expanded. I see that you edited the episode list section. Is the problem still there? The changes to the references section is good and I have also seen this done elsewhere. The character column is not necessary, but it makes List of Lost episodes more consistent. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead is much improved and nope, problem cleared up with the edit. I think, for this one, the character column could be lost, but would be find with keeping it to remain consistent. One minor nitpick: the dark green in the infobox is hard to read black text on, especially for those with bad eyes. ;-) Can that be changed to something more readable, and maybe change the episode box to use a more complimentary color?
    Support, can't see any other issues, and the article is well referenced and seems to be as comprehensive as it can be. Collectonian (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support while not as polished as the other Lost FAs (it doesn't even have an external links section) seems good enough to pass.igordebraga ≠ 14:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An external links section is unnecessary because it would be duplicate of portions of the references section and infobox. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    External links sections are not a requirement, in fact, minimizing ELs is desired. See WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, and suggest a concurrent supplemental nomination to the featured topic. Will (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How do others feel about adding this to the featured topic Seasons of Lost? I am on the fence about this one. It is not really a season, although it does contain episodes. Perhaps it is better as part of the eventual/potential topic for main Lost articles. This topic would include all articles of the Lost WikiProject, with the exceptions of the season, episode and character pages. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: apparently this FAC missed the pre-load. Please check the dead links identified here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the preloaded text when I started the nomination and instead integrated a link into the opening paragraph. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The refs aren't consistently formatted. Some have the publisher before the title, and others after. Epbr123 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The ones that have the publisher before are primarily press releases that give no author. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:11, 14 February 2008.

    Battlefield Earth (film)[edit]

    This article has already been rated as an Arts Good Article for some time, but in recent weeks has undergone a major expansion by Cirt and myself. Many people will remember how notoriously bad Battlefield Earth was. The article doesn't dwell on the film's artistic merits, because frankly it doesn't have any; however, the back story of its development and aftermath provides an interesting insight into Hollywood's politics and behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings. ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Co-nomination - It's been a pleasure working with ChrisO (talk · contribs) on this article and I will do my best to address any comments that crop up during this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which criteria specifically? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the image to the Production section, where costume/makeup is discussed. Now it serves to provide an illustrative image to show what Travolta is talking about. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That helps. It was just decorative use in it's original location. Garion96 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, thanks for pointing that out. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - comprehensive, well-written and illustrated (including that great parody poster). Looks like bad movies can turn into great articles.igordebraga ≠ 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per igordebraga. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - The final part of the Production section mentions that there were large cuts in the DVD version from the theater version. Unless I missed an explanation, but could you elaborate on how or why this was so? xihix(talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: - I wasn't able to access the link to that cite, so I removed it (the info also seemed inaccurate) and instead added some info on the DVD from a few other sources. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The cast section doesn't seem relevant. If it's simply restating plot information then just link the actor's full names in the plot section with their respective characters and ditch the cast section. The plot section should contain all the in-universe information, unless accompanied by real world information. There doesn't appear to be any real world information in the cast section (i.e. like casting info, or actor's interpretations of their roles) so it seems really unecessary to have. Cast sections are not required, and if they are only going to list their actors then IMDb covers that well enough already. Nothing from IMDb is acceptable, which includes their user rated worst films list. The citation template says "staff" but that "Bottom 100" list is based on user ratings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Done. - Removed cast section, wikilinked actors' names after first appearance of character names in plot section, as suggested above by Bignole (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Done. - Removed the "Bottom 100" list info and accompanying IMDb cite. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Actually Battlefield Earth was a disambig page - I just thought it was better to have just these 2 and no disambig page as there are only 2 articles w/ this title. But if you think it's best, I'll add back the disambig page (which is what I did just now pending feedback on this). Cirt (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My own opinion would be to go w/ your first option. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a third option would be to make Battlefield Earth (novel) the "main" article, since I don't think it's a truly obscure novel. You can then have a dab link to point to the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well I think the simplest option for now is to leave it as is (I restored the disambig page). Cirt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There appears to be a neutrality issue with the critical reception. The readers get it, the movie sucked, but there needs to be a balance of positive and negative reviews to keep Wikipedia's neutral stance. From what I gathered skimming the critical reception section, the entire thing is about how horrible this movie is. I couldn't find any positive reviews, except that bit about Travolta talking to Lucus and Tarantino. There may be a couple in there, but since it's so blatantly negative when you read it, it's clear that if there are some positive reviews then there aren't nearly enough. This is where Rotten Tomatoes comes in handy, because we can present a neutral section, with balanced prose of pos. and neg. criticisms, but cite Rotten Tomatoes as an aggregate site that keeps a percentage of the positive to negative reviews (in this case, it was 3%, which should speak for itself). It may not be possible to get an equal number, given the films notoriety, but the section could use a bit more positive and a cut back on the negative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: If Rotten Tomatoes shows 3% positive reviews, then that should be the weighting given in the critical reception section. I will try to find a few positive reviews and add them to that section. I'd rather not cut anything out, rather add some more to reflect the general consensus of the 115 aggregated reviews. Cirt (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The weighting of the article should reflect neutrality, and the lack of things positive suggests that the article is heavily biased.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "neutrality" ? My point is that if 3% of 115 reviewers, which is a good sample size, gave the film positive reviews, than the reception section should reflect that. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: In the process of trying to find some positive reviews or at least positive comments made about the film, and adding them to the reception section. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:NPOV:"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." -- The article just needs to present both sides of the spectrum. It's clear the article will favor the negative criticism, because of the almost unanimous despise the film has received, but we still need to show that some people did actually like the film. (which I see you've added some more positive criticisms).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In essence of course I agree with your quote from WP:NPOV from above. Tell you what, allow me a chance to add some more positive comments into the critical reception section and perhaps trim out some phrasing for NPOV, and then tell me what you think after that? Cirt (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent)Okay, from WP:UNDUE:

    NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

    We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

    This seems to say that we should have less emphasis on a minority viewpoint, not more. Especially this bit about: "should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Cirt (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You got plenty of time, I haven't gotten that far in the review. That was something that just crossed my mind when I was reading the lead, and decided to check the reception real quick.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is especially difficult because when going through the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes which the site actually calls "positive" - even from those few "positive" reviews there actually isn't much positive stuff to glean from them - because the "positive" reviews are pretty much all relatively negative, as well. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, as Rotten Tomatoes decides if an article in positive or negative in odd ways. For example, I was reading a review that was positive on the site for Meet the Spartans (in anger, how could anyone give it a positive review?), and the overall review was pretty much negative, with him giving it a 2 our of 4 stars. How thats positive, I'm not sure. Cirt, if you have trouble finding anything on Rotten Tomatoes, try using Newsbank. xihix(talk) 16:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, I added all the "positive" reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, will look elsewhere for more. But given that a second review aggregator, Metacritic, has a rating of 9/100 which it characterizes as "extreme dislike or disgust" - I think that the critical reception section is a fair representation of the aggregate of reviews. Cirt (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Okay, counting the "worst ever" awards, there are about (15) total review sources in the Critical reception section. That includes the (4) I added for some positive balance, 3 of those were gleaned from Rotten Tomatoes where they were rated as "positive" reviews, and one from a review at Metacritic that was deemed "positive". So at present over 26% of the Critical reception section is "positive" - which is much higher than the aggregate review consensus reflected at either Rotten Tomatoes, or at Metacritic. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can the "Development" section be subsectioned in any way? It's rather long and monotonous. Perhaps quoteboxes could be used in some instances? In addition, I would suggest reviewing WP:PUNC to fix punctuation in relation to quotations. Here's the difference between the two ways:
    • Reviewer John Smith considered Battlefield Earth "the worst film ever made".
    • Reviewer John Smith said, "Battlefield Earth is the worst film ever made."
    • Hope the distinction is understandable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I'll take a look at punctuation and the Development section. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Split up the Development section into 2 subsections. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Added 2 quoteboxes using {{quotebox}} to the Development section (one in each new subsection). Cirt (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Will next soon take a look at WP:PUNC as related to quotations. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Following some improvements made to the article since my comment, I believe this article deserves to be featured. Good job to all the editors! xihix(talk) 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes:

    • I believe there are still problems with WP:PUNC (example: Explaining his motivation, Travolta stated "I have a special affection for this book. Hubbard was a great writer, and I had an idea of the movie's potential, a fantasy in my mind that lasted for years".)
    • Found missing WP:NBSPs
    • Please clear out empty parameters on cite templates, they unnecessarily chunk up the article size and make it harder to edit (this is preference, courtesy to other editors, good editing practice, not a MOS requirement). They also affect our readers by increasing load time.
    • Some use of %, other use of percent, please be consistent. Also, see WP:MOSNUM, this is incorrect us of % on range (... but ended up paying for between 60%–90% of the costs instead. )
    • Why the use of pp on single pages? Use page in the cite template instead of pages. (June 15, 2001, pp. A2. )
    • Please see MOS:CAPS#All caps, Staff. "It's Official: ‘BATTLEFIELD EARTH’ Is Tied With ‘SHOWGIRLS’ as RAZZIES’ All-Time WORST!",

    Please ping me when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I will take a look at these above issues and note them here. (And then ping SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) when done, as asked. :) ) Cirt (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where have all the editors gone? I worked on some of this myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Sandy, but it's only been 48 hours, and I've been quite busy with other things, IRL. Thanks so much for your edits. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob, I did a few; wanted to make sure you weren't run over by a truck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha ha, thank you. No truck, just IRL personal stuff. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Epbr123 (talk · contribs) for the recent nbsp & percentages changes. Of course also thanks to SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) for the other above-mentioned edits as well. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Sandy's issues have been fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I left her a note on her talk page to come have another look. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "With my movies, the movie stars are my partners. If you give them 25 per cent of the profits (while reducing their upfront payments), they get out of the trailer faster." - I can't find this quotation in the source provided. Epbr123 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where that quote came from, but I know it came from some secondary source... Oh well, I replaced it with a quote from the cited source. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:11, 14 February 2008.

    Ray Emery[edit]

    I've worked on this article quite a bit, and I feel it meets all of the criteria. It's a little short compared to other FAs, as Emery's career has been quite short, yet, but the article is comprehensive. --Maxim(talk) 02:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment All links are good, but two 111 connection refused occurred. That always happens for some reason with all websites from the Hockey Hall of Fame, but all the pages are fine. See this FAC and this one for more explanations on this issue. Maxim(talk) 02:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • En dashes are used for scores. Epbr123 (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
      • "As of May 10, 2007, his mask still features Chuvalo." - can this be updated?
      • "which was involved in a minor fender-bender" - I don't think "fender-bender" is an encyclopedic term
      • "Emery claims that the man" "The man claims to eventually sue" - better to say "Therien" or "he" instead of "the man"
      • "Emery was born to Charlene and Paul Emery, the oldest of three brothers, Andrew and Nicholas." - reads as though Paul Emery was the oldest of three brothers
      • "He was suspended for 3 games" - 3 should be spelled out. This also occurs elsewhere
      • "Emery was named rookie of the year." - capitals may be needed
      • "for slashing Montreal Canadiens forward Maxim Lapierre" - what does slashing mean?
      • "Due to his recent tardiness, Emery will be fined the maximum amount allowed under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement." - date needed or this will become outdated. Epbr123 (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fixed. Maxim(talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found that there are multiple wikilinks that link to redirect pages, and even some to dab pages. Some I found included the 2008 NHL All-Star Game, New York (link was to refer to the city, not state), Las Vegas, CHEO, and enforcer. Although annoying and tedious, perhaps a thourough link clicking should be performed so to link readers to the actual Wikipedia articles instead of these redirect and dab pages. – Nurmsook! (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • Lead is too short. Maybe summarize his awards/records, or mention his flamboyant lifestyle that you talk about later.
      • After reading the source in the lead about his getting in fights, I am not getting that it is because he is a boxing fan, as the sentence implies. The article cited doesn't even mention his being boxing fan.
      • You imply throughout the article that getting in fights is rare for a goalie but you don't ever really say it. You should say it, and source it, for those who are ignorant of ice hockey.
      • Why does "OHL" have an underscore after it in the lead?
        • Error, was fixed.
      • "Emery starred for the Ottawa Senators..." Use of the word "starred" seems more suited to films than sports teams. Unless we're talking about Gretzky.
      • "He played many other sports other than hockey..." Redundant use of "other".
      • "...tried out for eight different junior teams, for which he was cut." I'm sure you mean "from which he was cut."
      • "Emery was suspended twice for on-ice incidents the same season, and this similar behavior..." Choose "this" or "similar", not both.
      • "...he was involved in an altercation with Denis Hamel of the Rochester Americans, after a racial slur was said to Emery, for which he was suspended for three games." Did Hamel make the slur? Reword to active voice to specify who did. Also, I can't tell if it was Hamel or Emery who was suspended.
      • "He and Sabres' goaltender Martin Biron each left their creases to fight each other." No apostrophe after Sabres. The first "each" is not needed.
      • "On January 28, 2008, Emery showed up late at another practice after in Long Island, New York. It is being speculated that Emery either mistakenly thought the session was held at the New York Islanders arena, the Nassau Coliseum, but was instead held at the Farmingdale Iceworks." A bit of recentism here - is it still being speculated, and by who? Also, there is an "either" statement here but no "or".
      • "Due to his recent tardiness, Emery was fined 1/187 of his salary per this year, which was $14,705.88, which he donated to CHEO." How did he donate money he was fined? After reading the source I see that he asked if he could "turn his fine into a donation" but that should be in the article if you are going to mention it.
      • "Emery is most known for his flamboyant lifestyle." He's not most known for his hockey playing? --Laser brain (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to address these concerns in time, but I'll need maybe a day, I'm quite busy. Maxim(talk) 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed the smaller issues (wording, basically), but the first three (boxing issue, goalies fighting, and size of lead) remain to be addressed. I was actually hard-pressed to find what to add to the lead, but a paragraph related to 'em 5000$ suits might do fine. :-) Maxim(talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - the second point has been addressed, I'm thinking about the first one, but for the third one... it's tough to find a reliable source for that because it's so accepted. My results are mostly getting "unreliable" sources, but as an avid hockey fan, I know that goalie fight are very rare, the same way that the sky is (usually) blue. Maxim(talk) 13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues fixed but size of lead. Maxim(talk) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, thank you. This really is a great article. I was looking at Wayne Gretzky and even his lead is not that long. Maybe it's okay as is - we certainly wouldn't want to force material into it just for the sake of length. --Laser brain (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Good article on whats becoming a controversial figure in ice hockey. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes:

    • WP:PUNC logical quotes.
    • Recheck all endashes (He would wear the Tyson mask for only one game, a 5-0 loss against the Boston Bruins ... )

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 01:11, 14 February 2008.

    Free Association of German Trade Unions[edit]

    This article covers a rather minor episode in the history of the German labor movement. This union federation is mostly known for having spawned the FAUD, which is mentioned at the end of the article. The article is based only on academic sources, both German and English. I've tried to use English ones as much as possible, but relying mostly on German sources is just inevitable, because not many people have written about this organization in English. All of this article was written by me, but I'd like to thank both User:Tim1965 for his copyediting, and User:Awadewit for her GA review, her feedback on the article's talk page, and the copyediting she did. I am certain this article meets all FA criteria. I hope you will excuse the large number of red links in the article. Wikipedia's coverage of the German labor movement before 1933 is almost non-existent, so red links are inevitable. I will be filling in many of them over the next months.Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - well-sourced, wide coverage, excellent set of supporting images. Red links don't bother me, nor do extensive sources in a non-English language (frankly, I'm pleased when someone takes the time to get this information into an English format for ignorant Americans like me). --JerryOrr (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncertain - It is well-presented but I have a concern with the sources: while 57 citations are listed, most of them come from only 4 sources. The pie chart in the second half of the page is not very clear, either. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is based on pretty much all post-WWII scholarly works on this topic. You have to consider that this just isn't a very major topic, so finding a lot of sources is nearly impossible. Many articles have a lot more sources, but they aren't always as reliable - academic sources being the most reliable ones there are. Could you explain why that pie chart is unclear? It is supposed to demonstrate the fact that before WWI most of the FVdG membership was from Berlin and the rest of Prussia, while afterwards most members were from the Ruhr region, i.e. Rhineland and Westphalia.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is not that much information available for this topic then fair enough - it's just that some people are real sticklers for having lots of sources when it comes to FA nominations. For the charts, it is clear what information you are trying to present, but the 3-D format that you use is IMO not the optimal way to present this information. To make the comparison clearer maybe a different format (eg. like Image:2002 federal german result.svg) might be better. Another problem is that while your point is clear to me, the two plots compare two slightly different things - 1912 talks about Berlin, Prussia excluding Berlin, Saxony and the rest of Germany; 1921 talks about Berlin / Brandenburg, Rhineland / Westphalia, Silesia (which were all parts of Prussia), Saar (which was part of Prussia in 1912) plus a number of regions where it is unclear if they are Prussian or not. If the same type of information is available for both times (or at least 1912 numbers for the Rhineland and Westphalia) then the information presented would be a lot stronger - although I appreciate that this is probably not the case, given the scarcity of information about this topic. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't found any numbers for Rhineland and Westphalia before WWI. If you think the charts are two confusing as they are, I could just remove them.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be best to remove the chart image and just make the shift in membership clear in the text. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - one of the first things that came to mind when I looked at the article was "wow, there are an awful number of red links." If stub articles can't be created, those should be delinked. Quite a few sections appear to be unsourced, the second paragraph of the Pre-war period section, for example, only notes one footnote. Is the whole paragraph sourced from that one reference or are references missing? Some other paragraphs seem to be the same way. Has the article been given a once over by a copyeditor? Some of those issues would likely have been caught during that process. Collectonian (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every paragraph is sourced. That paragraph in the "Pre-war period" section, for example, is all based on the paper by Wayne Westergard-Thorpe cited in the footnote. Stubs could be created to fill in those red links, but stubs are generally more or less useless. It makes more sense to create full articles on those topics, which I will be doing over the next couple of months, as I mentioned in my nomination. I also mentioned in my nomination that the article has been gone through by both User:Awadewit and User:Tim1965, so yes, it has been copyedited.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but a stub would get rid of the red. Still, I know the feeling. I had a few in my last FA, so I delinked rather than create stubs, so maybe just remove the links and keep a note in your user pages that you will created and relink later. What about the references in the middle of sentences? Collectonian (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the MOS, references should go at the end of the sentence unless there is a very compelling reason to put them within it.Collectonian (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did you find that rule? The only thing close to that I could find is the following sentence on WP:CITE: "Some material must be referenced mid-sentence, but footnotes are usually placed at the end of a sentence or paragraph." This wording clearly allows mid-sentence footnotes where it's necessary. The article uses such footnotes three or four times because one source only covers a part of a sentence. I think that is a compelling reason.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redlinks are not a valid objection at FAC; they are only a problem if this article's comprehensiveness is affected. If a source covers an entire sentence, it is placed at the end of the sentence or after the punctuation of the portion it sources; if it covers only part of a sentence, it may be placed mid-sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found Image:Change in geographic distrution of FVdG and FAUD members.PNG very unintuitive. Same colours seem to be used for different things, making comparison 100% misleading. This for me is the gravest error possible when presenting a pair of statistical elements for the reader to compare. Furthermore, the systems of regionalising differ, which compounds the problem. Now it could be that through my lack of understanding of German geography, I've made an error here. In which case, some explanation is either missing or less up-front than it should be. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • I think I'd reorder the first paragraph of Background section. "According to Angela...This claim is based on....Many of the later...Hans Manfred Bock, on the other hand...."
      • What year(s) was Carl Hillman active? Since there is a redlink on his name, I'd appreciate the brief background here.
      • "After the laws were sunset " -> this may be confusing for non-English speakers (and likely some native speakers). I would either wikilink to sunset provision or rephrase
      • "The localists" seems like an odd way to refer to the local labor unions. Is that what the scholarly works use?
      • I've only seen avant garde as an adjective. Is it commonly used as a noun too?
      • "congress was originally supposed to take place a year earlier, but a lack of interest forced it to be postponed" -> since lack of interest had been a factor, did they have a fair representation when it was actually held? I think the article needs perspective on whether a large number of the "localists" attended or whether a small group pushed through the formation of the new organization.
        • Okay, I see that this was actually mentioned later in the article. I think the statistics need to be moved up to the first paragraph.
      • "A newspaper, Solidarität (Solidarity), was founded, whose name was changed to Einigkeit (Unity) the following year. "-> This sentence is ungainly; the clauses aren't ordered properly, which makes it not read well.
      • If one number in a sentence is not spelled out, the other number should not be either (22 to eight is wrong, 22 to 8 is correct)

    Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments, Karanacs. I'll address them in the same order.
      • Done
      • He's best known for the work he did in the 1870s. I've added that. If you think more information would be appropriate, please say so.
      • I didn't include a link at first, because the term is already linked in the lead, but I've added it now.
      • Yes, it is. The term localism describes not only the local structure of the unions, but also the ideology behind them, which claims that large, centralized unions are ineffective and undemocratic.
      • According to webster.com, it is a noun meaning "an intelligentsia that develops new or experimental concepts especially in the arts".
      • I'll do that tomorrow.
      • Done
      • I've changed it to "A newspaper, Solidarität (Solidarity), was founded, but the name was changed to Einigkeit (Unity) the following year."--Carabinieri (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "twenty-two to eight".--Carabinieri (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Looks good on a fairly quick reading. Tony (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:54, 13 February 2008.

    Ross Sea party[edit]

    Nominator Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because, after amendments following a generally favourable peer review and further changes in response to the review of house style issues, I feel it now meets the FA criteria Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support a very through and well-researched article. My few small niggles were all addressed at Peer Review. Brianboulton has been doing some excellent work on Antarctic exploration and I look forward to seeing more of his work. Yomanganitalk 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment seemingly on the grounds that he was " prepared to "do anything". - problem with the quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected - sorry Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done this. The three cited websites give general information in support of the article, rather than validation of specific points, and I have changed the in-text references to reflect this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement at WP:WIAFA to use cite templates; there is a requirement for consistent formatting of citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't realise. I'll stop throwing that propaganda around. Surely, though, it should be encouraged as the most comprehensive, consistent and informative method of doing so? Seegoon (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—Overall it seemed pretty good. I'd say it's close to FA-worthy. Only a few small issues caught my eye:
      • There are a pair of what seem to be excessively long sentences that can readily be split into two smaller sentences:
        • Believing that Shackleton might attempt a crossing during the first season, Mackintosh decided that depots had to be laid without delay, the first in the vicinity of Minna Bluff, a prominent Barrier landmark at 78°30′S, 169°00′E, and another at 80°S, these being, in his view, the minimum that would enable Shackleton to survive.
        • Fortunately, the sledging rations intended for Shackleton's depots had been landed, but because Mackintosh had intended to use Aurora as the party's main headquarters, with only the scientific staff resident in the Cape Evans hut, most of the shore party's personal gear, food, equipment and fuel was still aboard, leaving the ten men stranded ashore with "only the clothes on their backs".
    I've dealt with both of the above by dividing them, & also with another long sentence at the start of the "Drift" section Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sentence could perhaps be revisited:
        • When Mackintosh and the nucleus of the party arrived in Sydney, Australia late in October 1914 to prepare their expedition, they were faced with an unexpectedly chaotic lack of preparedness.
      Wouldn't it stand to reason that, if they were there for the purpose of preparation, then initially the said preparation would be lacking? So what is it saying?
    The chaos they found was due to Shackleton's neglect of groundwork. The sentence has been amended to read: "....faced with an unexpectedly chaotic set of circumstances, bequeathed by Shackleton". This is what I meant to indicate, but I agree that the earlier version was inadequate Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It looks good, although there could be better wikilinking. Juliancolton Talk 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've added about a dozen new links. Also a couple of redlinks, for Hayward and Lionel Hooke. Both deserve articles, & perhaps someone will write one? Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well written, well researched, informative. Citing is bullet proof. Excellent work! Strong, strong support for this great article. Congratulations to the editors. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Epbr123 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment color-coding the first image text would be nice. gren グレン 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:54, 13 February 2008.

    Joseph Szigeti[edit]

    I've been working on this article for a while now with the intention of getting it featured. It's been through two peer reviews (neither of which generated much commentary) and I've had positive comments on it from some wiki-colleagues of mine, so I figured that now is as good a time as any to take the plunge and put it up here on FAC. K. Lásztocskatalk 05:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm a bit concerned about the heavy reliance of the article on Szigeti's autobiography, although I guess if there are no good biographies out there, this can't really be helped. The references though are inconsistently formatted. Also, is there a reason why two versions of Grove are used as references? Presumably, the online one is the most up to date and accurate version, so perhaps that one should be used? BuddingJournalist 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a reminder: don't forget the page number for the reference for the Joachim anecdote. :) BuddingJournalist 05:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's precisely the problem I encountered: not much has been written about him. (I noticed with some irritation in the conservatory library yesterday that there are at least three thick books on every other great violinist of that era...) As for the two versions of Grove--no, no reason. I just happened to be in the library the time I used the paper copy, and browsing the electronic version from my laptop when I used the online. I'll fix it...K. Lásztocskatalk 05:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As long as the refs get cleaned up. Some further comments: Could the "American debut" section be expanded a bit to discuss his actual debut? :) When, where, what he played, the reception, etc. Any references for the last two paragraphs of "Szigeti and new music"? The article is very well written. The prose flows beautifully, and I'm especially impressed with the way the quotations are seamlessly woven into the text. All too often, Wiki articles relying on quotations stick them in the text awkwardly without transitions. This article definitely meets the 1a requirement of WP:WIAFA in my opinion. Glad to see more high quality articles on classical music. BuddingJournalist 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • p.s. I never knew Kyung-Wha Chung studied with him. Learn something new every day on Wikipedia! The statement could use a citation though. BuddingJournalist 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mild oppose refs 19 and 45 need cleaned up. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the admitted sloppiness of the references your only objection? I'll work on cleaning up the refs this weekend but as I'm a full-time student with very limited spare time it might be somewhat slow-going... K. Lásztocskatalk 15:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm by no means familiar with the subject of the article, but the text seems to leave nothing to be desired. The article could use some MOS-based copyedits - for some missing internal links, for not using italics in names of publications etc., but these can be handled at any point. Minor concerns: some paragraphs and specifically-worded pieces of information do not seem to have any references, and I can only presume this was because the info is sourced, but the editor forgot to add the specific sources. For example, I presume the information "The reasons for his detention remain unclear", which is in reference to his temporary departure from the States, is backed by the preceding citation; in this case, the citation should be moved to the second sentence or kept in both sentences - since, as it is, it may imply that the editor does not know the reasons rather than that researchers have struggled to find them out and failed etc. Paragraphs such as those in the final section also look like they would need a citation or two, and so do statements about other his influence on other musicians. I presume the citations are readily available from sources used in the rest of the article. The references do need some copyediting. Also: he is included in categories for Jewish people, and he probably was, but this info is not part of the text. Other than that, the article is near to perfection, and I'm looking forward to giving it a support vote. Dahn (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - refs 19 and 45 do need a bit of a cleanup, but nothing that merits an oppose. If possible, it might be nice to see the reception section a little bit bigger, but still, doesn't merit an oppose. Will (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pending the minor fixes suggested above. A fine treatment of a notable subject into which the author put a lot of heart. Biruitorul (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – please clean up your blockquotes. The MOS, if memory serves, says no quotation marks around blockquotes. Regardless of that, some of them in the article have them, some don't, and there's even one without an opening one but with a closing one. Consistency, one way or the other. Carre (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This article has become the premier source to begin research on the subject. Especially appreciated are the sound clips of the artist's recordings through the years. Take a stroll through peer articles - other classical violinists (some very good ones) and one can see that this article stands out. It meets FA criteria, AND I would come here before Britannica. István (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The "Family life" section is logically a part of "Biography" and should be a subsection thereof. I would like to see his American debut itself described (rather than just the circumstances surrounding it). The prose is very well done. Maralia (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to above note On my settings, this is not really a problem, but, if it is seen as one, I would suggest removing the photo of Bartok and the landscape. Neither is especially relevant to the article - I don't picture that Bartok's looks illustrate something in a biographical article about another person, and the landscape, though beautiful, is not connected to Szigeti - it is not a picture of his home, a monument dedicated to him, an image of the place made around the time of his birth etc. (consider, say, a random picture of some place in South Africa in the article on Nelson Mandela, or a random picture of Provence in an article on Mistral - in all cases, they tend to give the impression of a primer rather than the impression of an encyclopedic article). Dahn (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Well done. The only thing I notice: Can you put the final dots for quotes that start within WP sentences after the closing quotes? There are several. Tony (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:54, 13 February 2008.

    Domestic sheep[edit]

    I've been working very steadily on this, and after 700 edits or so I can say that this is one of the best livestock articles, and is a substantial, verified and MOS compliant work on a vital subject. It's now GA, but for sure surpasses GA requirements. VanTucky 04:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Could you provide specific page numbers for each of your book references? It seems you used a ref ID to source material coming from one particular book, without stating what page the relevant material came from. The article would look much better if these page numbers were provided. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think page numbers are possible with the <ref name> syntax? If they are, I'm happy to add them. But if not, I'm not willing to change my entire referencing system. Page numbers aren't an absolute requirement of the policy to my knowledge. VanTucky 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm asking for <ref name="Ensmingerp6">Ensminger and Parker, p6.</ref>, instead of generically referencing using <ref name="sheep and goat">{{cite book |title= Sheep and Goat Science, Fifth Edition|last=Ensminger |first=Dr. M.E. |coauthors= Dr. R.O. Parker |year=1986 |publisher=The Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc |location=Danville, Illinois |isbn=0-8134-2464-X }}</ref>. I don't have any major issues with your style of referencing, but I prefer specific page numbers for the sake of the reader's convenience. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't know you could format it like that (your first example). I'll get on it for the book references. I assume that for less-used books that have only a couple pages applicable, adding that to the first template rather than (the same ones) every time is acceptable? VanTucky 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use the latter style for the first book reference (don't forget to add the page number), and then you can use the former for all successive references. Alternatively, you can use {{cite book}} in a separate section entitled "References" (title your current references section as "Notes"), which lets you start off all book references with the former referencing style. By the way, graphical checkmarks are things you should avoid using in FACs. It's listed somewhere on the main FAC page. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't going to work. I only own two or three of book sources I used. I simply can't now: the majority of them are books I bought personally and then sold when no longer in use. I mean, I could guess the chapters, but I think that would be disingenuous and not very helpful to readers. VanTucky 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check Google Books or Amazon's "search inside" feature; you may find the books there. — Dulcem (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't really solve the problem. Example: my most-used source (Storey's Guide to Raising Sheep) Amazon only shows the first five pages or so, and Google Books only a snippet (no page views at all). The truth is, considering how many citations the five or so main book sources use, this is a huge pain in the butt. I don't see anywhere in WP:V or WP:CITE that requires page numbers (if you know otherwise please point me to the right place), so I don't think it's necessary. The citations include all other details for verification. VanTucky 00:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be part of the manual of style: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Check the "Provide page numbers" section. — Dulcem (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if that requires that I do things are A: impossible right now, and B: annoying and time consuming, then I'll just withdraw the nomination. VanTucky 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: All of the images seem to be from Western countries. Might some images from Asia, Africa, or South America be found to better represent the global spread of this species and its importance in various cultures? — Dulcem (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons doesn't seem to have any sheep picture from outside Europe/US/Australia/NZ. Narayanese (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons does seem to have a few pictures of something called a "Cameroon sheep" (see this, this, this, and this), but I'm unsure if that is just another breed in the West, albeit one with African roots. Aside from that, have you tried searching any public domain image resources? Also, never rule out Flickr's Creative Commons images. Here are a few that might be useful: [20][21], [22], careful, this one's gross, [23], [24], [25], this one's gross too, [26], [27], [28]). That's quite a few, I know, but I hope some of these can be used to broaden the article's scope. — Dulcem (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly, the article goes into (IMO) unnecessary detail about the history of sheep in the Western world but entirely neglects the history of sheep elsewhere. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for images, Cameroon sheep are so minor a breed (even in Africa) that I am uncomfortable with adding an image of them. But there is a non-Western image I know that is good to add, it's of an Awassi lamb in Israel: Awassis are an important Middle Eastern breed. As for the detail on Wester n, this is because sheep are more important to countries such as Aus, NZ and the UK. Only South Africa is a major African sheep country, and while Asia has large numbers of sheep, it's mainly for local or regional trade at most. The fastest and most intense development of the animal has occured in the countries where I focus on. Though I would be happy to strip some of the U.S. history. It's too detailed really, and sheep aren't important today in this country. VanTucky 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the linked ones are pretty bad, as far as composition and usefullness. But the first Tunisian one is good, it would be even useful for husbandry (he's demonstrating one common way of holding a sheep: lifting the head under the chin). I'll make some changes, tell me what you think. VanTucky 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an Awassi image, could you add it to Awassi (sheep)? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to seeing the changes. The article ranks China as the country with the largest sheep stocks, so perhaps an image from there would be in order (though I'd love to see the Tunisian shepherd image included as well). Here are some Creative Commons images from Flickr that might prove useful: [29]. — Dulcem (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two non-Western images added - the Tunisian and Israeli one. I have a Chinese one that would be good to add too, will do. VanTucky 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Chinese image added. With three new non-Western images, I think it's appropriate to call this one done? VanTucky 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good. Please don't check things "done" yourself, however. Let the original commentator be the judge of whether something is done or not. — Dulcem (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Global Sheep stock
    in 2004
    Number in millions
    1.  People's Republic of China157.9 (0%)
    2.  Australia101.3 (0%)
    3.  India62.5 (0%)
    4.  Iran54 (0%)
    5.  Sudan48 (0%)
    6.  New Zealand39.2 (0%)
    7.  United Kingdom35.8 (0%)
    8.  South Africa25.3 (0%)
    World total1,059,810,132
    Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization
    Given the chart to the right (from the article), I'm not sure how you can justify that sheep are so much more important to Western countries than other countries. I still think there must be more information that should be added -- five of the top eight sheep countries are in Asia or Africa. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheer numbers circa one year do not convey overall historical and global impact. Countries with large numbers today like China and India export very little sheep products, have not been instrumental in developing any breeds of import, and have little to no impact on the rest of the history of the animal. You should read the history in the article. Spain for instance, has very little sheep today comparatively but was instrumental in the development of the most important sheep breed ever. Thus, its relevant history merits coverage. You can't view an organism and write an accurate and informative article without placing it in context, historical or otherwise. Numbers alone do not convey meaning. VanTucky 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think they still could have some explanation. Western Asia was obviously important in sheep early on, but we don't find anything out about it after that. Readers won't know intuitively that nothing was going on there later, as you say--this should be explained. And Africa should at least be mentioned somewhat. How did sheep get there? Did it spread from Western Asia? Did it arise independently? Etc. Even if the coverage is not as extensive as with Europe, and even if it says it's not as important as Europe, the article would ideally let readers know why we care about the places that are discussed and implicitly reassure them that they're not missing anything. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple truth is, none of the major book source available on domestic sheep give any significant coverage of Africa beyond South Africa. I talk some in the article on South Africa, but it's the only African country covered. Also in FAO stats, it's the only African country that's in the top 20 producers. Believe me, I've hunted down every reliable book on domestic sheep still in print. As for the rest of Asia (other than Aus, NZ etc.), again, same problem. I'm sure there's something there to be said, but none of the currently available sources on sheep in English are covering it. The real trouble is that most of the books on sheep are primarily aimed at the farmer, not a comprehensive history of the animal. Makes me want to write one :) VanTucky 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at the book The Origins and Development of African Livestock? It's searchable online via google and appears to be at least one resource on the subject. This book also appears to have some coverage of the history of sheep in Africa. I'm not sure if either of these give any more recent information, or if it's all prehistoric. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First farmers didn't have much, but the other one was good. I've added a small Africa subsection to History. Thanks! VanTucky 05:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - prose is great. Tweaked it a bit myself. I concede it is long but it is a huge topic and I can't see where any cuts would come in. Many sections have subarticles already. I agree about some page numbers or chapters in the very least, I'll strike the conditional once this task is done. Given the circumstances I don't feel it is a deal-breaker. The comprehensiveness and the prose are great. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object because of size. It's 72kb of text and over 12,000 words. This is much too long for an introductory article about sheep. See WP:SIZE and WP:SS. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on cutting as we speak, but I feel this is unfair. The FA Lion article is also of comparable size, just for one example. VanTucky 21:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lion is 52KB prose and 8700 words; I'm not opining, just giving you the data from Dr pda's prose size script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't have the same script you have, but I've cut it down a little bit (I'm showing 107 kilobytes in the edit window). VanTucky 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, I was kind of borderline about Bird and might have objected to Lion if I had been around. I think that FAs are often way too long--articles should be readable in one sitting. (Links to in-depth articles give readers more information if they care enough.) If articles are too big, no one will make it to the bottom. I may try to go through and do some WP:SS myself to see what you think. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now condensed to less than 100KB in total. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a reply/explanation to Calliopejen, the reason the lead is supposed to summarise all really salient points is for those who d not wish to read the article in its entirety. I like the idea of the use of the lead, and the table of contents, in this way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First off, this rampant removal of content I have worked extremely hard on for months is tough, so I would ask that you be considerate of that. Second, if you're going to create subarticles (i.e. Domestic sheep reproduction), please find the full book cite and use it, so there aren't a bunch of ref errors caused by <ref name>'s with full cites. You could at least take the time to do that. VanTucky 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Tim, means a lot to me. VanTucky 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry about that, I don't mean to be flip. If you think there are important facts being taken out that I don't appreciate the importance of, feel free to put them back. I am just trying to make suggestions as a neutral observer who knows pretty little about sheep what seems important/interesting to me, in accordance with trying to get the article at least within a reasonable distance of the 32kb recommended maximum. I figured being bold would make more sense than discussing extensively, and I also feel strongly that it's better to make subarticles that preserve all the research here rather than just trimming and having it all go into a black hole. I planned to get to the subarticles in a bit after working on the main one more. Anyways another suggestion: how about moving sheep in science to a see also? Sheep really aren't very important in science (one thing I knew about sheep!), as the article suggests, and people who don't read about these tangential facts probably won't feel like they're missing anything. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, reading it in detail you've done a great job. But I don't think 32 kb is our goal. Quite a few FA and non-FA animal articles are larger than that, and WP:SIZE very clearly states that 32KB is not a hard and fast place to be splitting. I don't think In science should go anywhere. I can try and trim it to be more concise. VanTucky 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With only 61KB of readable text in the current version (excluding references, captions and external links), that seems a perfectly acceptable size. The guideline says 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The ability to survive solely on pasture (even without hay) varies with breed, but all sheep are capable of doing so. - if all can survive, how can this ability vary? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this is a little confusing, it's hard to explain. Basically, all sheep can live on pasture alone. But it depends on breed - some are better foragers than others. The word choice is key: all sheep can survive on pasture, but some cannot thrive (produce good wool and large lamb crops) on it without supplementation. Feel free to clarify this if you want. VanTucky 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I've fixed my one concern, an excellent and very thorough article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I tried to format the images in the article to conform to the manual of style, but my edits were reverted with the comment that I made things "ugly". I counter by saying that by specifying image sizes (and not specifying whether an image floats left or right), you break the screen for users with low-resolution monitors. Also, the "upright" marker, also part of the MOS, prevents portrait-style images from overwhelming the screen in relation to landscape-oriented ones. It would be nice to see the article conform to the manual of style in this regard. — Dulcem (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The frank truth is, if being FA means having no ability to manip image size, so the article has thumbs placed all over that you can't make out, then I don't want it. WP:MOS#Images is a guideline, and doesn't need to be applied the same in every article. Exceptions can be made. Nowhere in MOS does it say that upright syntax should be used all over, in fact, I've never seen anyone actually use it before in more than one image. The point of images is to illuminate the text and make it enjoyable to read. MOS#Images should not be stuck to 100% when it makes images not accomplish this as well. That's perfectly in-line with the spirit of IAR, which is policy. VanTucky 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you being so combattive? I didn't object to your article, I merely asked for some clarification as to why the MOS is being ignored on images. If leaving images at thumbnail size makes them too small for you, that simply means you need to specify a larger size in your personal preferences. We need to be cognizant of our non-logged-in users, especially those with low-resolution monitors and slow connection speeds. That is why the MOS recommends leaving things at thumbnail size. I don't find your arguments against following this sober advice to be compelling. — Dulcem (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, this is just a lot of stuff to deal with. I've basically been editing alone at the article for a while, so I apologize if I'm being difficult. The main point of including images is to enhance informativeness. If the regular thumb size without forcing makes it so an image is hard to make out and unattractive, then the point of having the image has been defeated. Making sure images do their job in the article is more important than accounting for slow and low-res computers, which are catching up all the time. A difference of a couple hundred pixels is not going to make a huge difference. It's a longer article, so people with bad connections are going to have trouble whatever the case. VanTucky 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've specified left/right for all the images and moved one up a bit in the health section, to avoid overlap. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that images should be default-sized. For those of us with large monitors, it is easy to change image preferences to make them larger (that is what I have done). I think it is important to use default sizes so that users can decide for themselves how big images should be; it's hard to judge what will be informative for other readers when monitor sizes and formats are so varied. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still couldn't disagree more strongly, but I guess with multiple people requesting it, it's time to compromise. I've removed the forced thumb size from all but one image. The first image in Reproduction really is completely useless unless made larger. You can't see the point of the image (the lamb being born) otherwise. I showed the article to three people (off-wiki), and I had to point out the birth at a smaller size. There's no point in having the image without it being large enough to see what's going on. VanTucky 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a cropped version of the birth image, but even with that change, the new-born lamb would be invisible at thumbnail size. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's noticeability, not visibility, that I was concerned with. But cropping seems to have solved the issue. VanTucky 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I found this a well-researched, informative and well-written article about a topic where previous knowledge was limited to how to roast. I'm old enough to have an attention span of more than five minutes, so length no problem either. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For all those who touched on requiring page numbers, through Calliopejen's work and very little of my own, the article is steadily being converted to footnotes with page numbers. VanTucky 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: Missing publishers on citations (examples: Shulaw, Dr. William P. (2006). "Sheep Care Guide". Retrieved on November 27, 2007. and ^ Sheeppoopaper.com. Retrieved on December 1, 2007. ), something is wrong with this ISBN (Thirsk, Joan; H. E. Hallam, Stuart Piggott, et al. (2000). The Agrarian History of England and Wales. Cambridge University Press. ISBN v=0521200741. ); lots of work needed on missing page numbers; page numbers need to be standardized, is it p6 or p.6, is it p.6 or p. 6, pls be consistent; image captions need to be reviewed throughout per WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation on full sentences vs. fragments, I fixed a few as samples); I found many mixups between WP:DASHes and WP:HYPHENs, pls review, sample edits left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page number consistency, dashes, the ISBN and the captions have been fixed. Publishers and page numbers are still to be added. Epbr123 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although the writing in general is very good, there is an abuse of – in the prose itself. It's ok in units, but I found it more difficult to read than with other FAs because of those. If possible, I think it would improve the article if you would replace as many as you can with commas rathern than dashes. Juliancolton Talk 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed several, but the ones I noticed and left in are the grammatically correct usage of them. In general, people tend to overuse commas at the expense of other, usually more grammatically correct punctuation, so I hesitate to do a lot of filling with commas. VanTucky 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks better in my main areas of concern, and a couple of dashes are fine where they are. Support now Juliancolton Talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This citation needs to be fixed, there is no Ekarius source:
    • ^ Ekarius et al p. 127.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is a source, it just should say "Simmons & Ekarius", as she is a coauthor (Storey's Guide to Sheep). I've fixed it. VanTucky 18:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a very informative read. I have some points, none of which are enough to make my support conditional:
    • I'm not enlightened by the link to agouti. It links to a disambiguation page. Is it a colouration? It's not (directly) listed on that page.
    • A little inconsistency in range descriptions: eg "Ewes typically weigh 100–225 pounds... the larger rams between 100 and 350 pounds"; dash in one range, but a "between... and... " range in the same sentence.
    • The link to the UK Rare Breeds Survival Trust isn't to a page which lists the statistic of 25 native breeds with 3,000 registered animals. Also, does this mean '25 breeds each with fewer than 3,000 animals'?
    • "The abomasum is the only one of the three chambers analogous to the mammalian stomach". Sheep are of course mammals, so a finer distinction may need to be made here.
    • "By that span of the Bronze Age" does this mean "by the end of the Bronze Age", or "by the span of the Bronze Age"?
    • You probably want to separate your reference texts from your numbered citations; perhaps by calling the texts "Bibliography", or the citations "Footnotes"
    — BillC talk 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed on the agouti thing.
    • Fixed the range.
    • The RBST thing is tricky. I linked to the listing of sheep breeds that are on their watchlist. The explanation of what "critical" or "vulnerable" exactly means is on the main watchlist page. The key thing that needs verification (to me) is the number of breeds threatened (25 at 3,000 each), so I linked to the appropriate page for that. Make sense?
    • I didn't write it that way, it was more nuanced before. I'll fix it: what it really means is that all the other chambers ferment and break down the food, and the abomasum is the only one that actually absorbs the nutrients (like our stomachs).
    Probably my fault that one, changed "mammalian" to "human" Tim Vickers (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means two-three thousands years after 6,000BC. It's a reference to the dates of the sentence immediately preceding it.
    • Done.
    • Hope that addresses your needs, thanks for participating. VanTucky 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:54, 13 February 2008.

    Transformers (film)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is written really well, referenced throughtout, and I ensured that every image in Transformers (film) are properly used. --Healthykid (talk) 17:30, 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nom restarted, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NB, since it was nominated JimDunning (talk · contribs) started a copyedit, which Tony1 (talk · contribs) found a bit too clever for a general reader. Various issues over WP:MOSBOLD, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE and WP:PUNC have been fixed thanks to Sandy and Tony's advice. Alientraveller (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NB, article stats:
    • Alientraveller 690
    • Bignole 108
    • JediLofty 33
    • JimDunning 30
    • Mathewignash
    • EEMeltonIV 23
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In the lead, I think it still needs to be made clear, earlier, what Autobots and Decepticons actually are. There's also an issue with two different tenses used for listing the cast members. I suggest altering the first few lines to read:

      Transformers is a 2007 live action film adaptation of the Transformers franchise. The film stars Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky, a teenager involved in a war between two races of alien robots: the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons. The Decepticons desire control of the All Spark, the object that created their race, with the intention of using it to build an army by giving life to the machines of Earth. Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Jon Voight and John Turturro also star […]

      I might also be inclined to explicitly mention that these alien robots are able to transform into other vehicles and objects; it's the central idea of the entire franchise, but this isn't made clear until the plot section. Steve T • C 11:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll oblige even though many comic book movie articles suffice by saying "based upon the [fictional character]". Take your pick: "who can disguise themselves by rearranging their bodies to resemble common machinery", or just plain old "transform into vehicles, aircraft or other types of machines". Alientraveller (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, don't go altering it simply because I brought it up. :) Others might disagree; that's what this process is for, I guess. If pushed, I'd go for something simpler: "...who can disguise themselves by transforming into everyday machinery." - Steve T • C 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's worth incorporating. While I as a Transformers fan understand the basic concept, not everyone else necessarily would. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Something similar has now been incorporated. Steve T • C 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per previous comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningclean (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I notice the term "G1" a lot in the article. Although the term Generation 1 is introduced in the prose, reduce its usage as much as possible because it's jargon that has little importance to those who aren't hardcore Transformers fans. I changed some references to the original cartoon series to refer to it by its title (The Transformers) rather than "G1" or "the cartoon" for frame of reference and clarity's sake. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this ridiculously comprehensive article. Any lingering MOS issues appear to have been rectified, and I especially like the reception section, which features strong content from many non-US sources; an absolute must for a film which was a truly international blockbuster. Steve T • C 14:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:53, 11 February 2008.

    Aldfrith of Northumbria[edit]

    Co-nomination with Angus McLellan. For comparison, the only other Northumbrian FA is Eardwulf of Northumbria, who is rather later; FAs of contemporaries and near-contemporaries of Aldfrith include Wulfhere of Mercia, Cædwalla of Wessex, Ine of Wessex and Wihtred of Kent. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is obviously a well-researched article, but the prose seems to me far from compelling. It tends to clunk a bit, and assume an awful amount. The lead could particularly do with a good re-write. Sentences appear disconnected, Bede is mentioned three times, and "The Northumbrian Golden Age, which saw the creation of works of Hiberno-Saxon art such as the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Codex Amiatinus, began in Aldfrith's time." sounds like something out of 1066 and all that. I suggest a good copyedit is needed. However, this is a good, balanced and informative article.--Docg 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a go at rewriting the lead; could you take a look and let me know if this is movement in the right direction? If so I'll make another pass at the rest of the article. I left the "1066" sentence in -- I'm not sure what the problem is (though I read the book years ago so I understand the sort of point you're making). Could you clarify a bit? It's accurate factually; is it pompous? Hard to parse? Does it mention too many unfamiliar terms in too short a space? Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support This is an interesting article, but I was left feeling that I knew less about Aldfrith than I wanted to. Is this because there isn't much known about Aldfrith? If that is the case, perhaps more could be said in the article about the dearth of knowledge we have on Aldfrith?
    There really isn't much known, and what is known is here. I think perhaps the problems with organization, which you comment on below, contribute to this feeling. Let me know if it persists after the other points are addressed. I'm hesitant to add more "not much is known"; as you know from the other Anglo-Saxon king articles, that's true for almost any king or any topic of the period. Still, if it needs it, we can add it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reread the article and I think this feeling comes from the article being "background heavy". The Aldfrith-centered material, where, for example, Aldfrith is the actor in the events, seems to be scarce, particularly at the beginning of the article. I don't think there is any way around this, but I think that is how I got the impression that not much is known about Aldfrith. Awadewit | talk 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like the first paragraph of the lead should address Aldfrith's importance more directly. Currently, it focuses on his genealogy.
    Reorganized a little to make the first paragraph more directly about Aldfrith. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aldfrith was on Iona shortly before the battle, according to a near-contemporary chronicle; he was recalled to Northumbria at about that time and became king. - Could we link Iona or explain where it is?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Bede's account of his reign, written in the early eighth century, Aldfrith "ably restored the shattered fortunes of the kingdom, though within smaller boundaries". - Needs a citation, since it is a quotation
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentences and paragraphs in the lead feel disconnected - they don't flow into each other as well as they could. There is no arc or overarching narrative that the reader remembers.
    I've made a stab at this; let me know if more work is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His name sometimes appears as Aldfrid and as the Latin Aldfridus, while in Classical Irish sources he is known as Flann Fína mac Ossu. - This sentence still feels tacked on.
    • Oswiu eventually succeeded to the throne of Northumbria and reigned until 670, while Aldfrith, who had been educated for a career in the church, became a scholar. - It is jarring to the reader to talk about Oswiu's reign at the beginning of this paragraph when the previous paragraph ended talking about Aldfrith. Perhaps invert this sentence? Discuss Aldfrith the scholar first and then his father's reign?
    • In 685, Oswiu's son, king Ecgfrith, was killed at the battle of Nechtansmere. - This is jarring because the reader may not know Oswiu even has another son (I didn't). You may need to introduce the son earlier or say something like "Oswiu's eldest son" - anything to contextualize the sentence in terms of Aldfrith's story more.
    • Aldfrith was on the Hebridean island of Iona shortly before the battle, according to a near-contemporary chronicle; he was recalled to Northumbria at about that time and became king. - Was this because Ecgfrith was killed? If so, it might be good to explicitly state that - this is the lead, after all. :)
    • The Northumbrian Golden Age, which saw the creation of works of Hiberno-Saxon art such as the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Codex Amiatinus, began in Aldfrith's time. - "began in Aldfrith's time"? Surely we can say something more exciting than that! Note that the sentence subordinates the exciting art and gospels. Awadewit | talk 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was slightly confused as to why the places mentioned in the first paragraph of "Background and early life" were not labeled on the map in that section (I know the map is the late century, but it would be helpful!)
    I added Lindisfarne, and the rivers Forth, Mersey, Ouse and Humber. The Don is really too small to add. The only other places that could be added would be Bernicia and Deira, but that would be difficult because they're the north and south half (respectively) of Northumbria, and there's really nowhere for those labels to go. I was hoping to not put them on, since during Aldfrith's reign it was a single kingdom. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is sufficient - the rivers are now marked and Northumbria is marked. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The details of the early Middle Ages in north west England and south west Scotland are more obscure - "northwest" and "southwest", perhaps, or is this BE?
    I'm not sure if it's BE, but I changed it to "northwest" etc. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Northumbria's southern frontier with Mercia ran across England, from the Humber in the east, following the River Ouse and the River Don, to the Mersey in the west. - It would be nice if these places were on a map somewhere in the article.
    See above -- I hope the Ouse and Mersey are enough. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Don is a border, it would be nice to include, but if it is too small, it is too small. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraphs in the "Reign" section have no transitions between them - they need to flow a little bit better.
    I've done a bit of moving around of material to try to improve this. This section was a bit of a grab-bag of everything left over; I split a "death and succession" section out at the end, which is reasonably coherent. There's a paragraph on his wife and sons, and I added that to the last section too, on the grounds that his sons are a natural connection when talking about succession. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another major ecclesiastic figure in Aldfrith's reign was Wilfrid, the bishop of York, who had been exiled by Ecgfrith. - "Another" is a weak transition because it can be used additively (and another, and another, and another...). Can you come up with something stronger?
    • The last three paragraphs of "Reign" have no transitions at all. This creates a "list" or "bullet-point" feeling in the writing.
    • I think that the new section works well. Awadewit | talk 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done quite a bit of rework on this section; take a look. One problem is that I need the coin image where it is, but I can't get the text to flow around it -- it acts as though there's a paragraph break at "8th century. ¶ This was marked by" I'll see if I can figure out how to fix that, but if you happen to know, please tell me what to do about it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have just really joined the paragraphs together - now it seems like all of these elements are supposed to be part of one large argument (I don't think that is the case). The smaller paragraphs were fine - you just needed to add linguistic connectors. I would take a two or three days to work on this section - it is a tricky problem to fix. Awadewit | talk 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is proving tricky. I've had another go now; take a look. Summary: there's now a "Relations with the Church" section, which serves to tie together the comments about Wilfrid with the initial support Aldfrith received from other churchmen. I left the note about Aldfrith being a scholar in that section, and tried to connect it via an introductory sentence pointing out that Aldfrith's interest in the writings of Aldhelm and Adomnan differentiates him from the typical Anglo-Saxon warrior king of the day. The material on the Golden Age has been expanded by Angus and is now in its own section; I think that the paragraph on coins belongs here as naturally as anywhere else, since it relates to the cultural and economic state of the kingdom. I didn't really want to create a separate "Coinage" section just for that paragraph, though that would be a possibility. I moved the paragraph about "rival claimants" to the end of the "Background and early life" section, since that already talked about his accession; I renamed that section "Background and accession" to reflect that change. Since that paragraph ended with Moisl's speculation about the Picts supporting Aldfrith, it seemed a natural place to put in the note about the battle with the Picts too. I think that covers most of the disconnectedness -- let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is wonderful! It flows so much better. The only suggestion I would make would be to add any scholarly speculation as to why a "Golden Age" started at this time. Also, this sentence sounds a bit odd: Few architectural or monumental remains from the period remain. Awadewit | talk 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll drop a note to Angus about the Golden Age question; not sure what the answer will be on that one. I've tweaked the awkward sentence. Er, can I check that this is the only outstanding point now? I have scanned up and down and I see some unstruck comments, but I think everything's addressed except this issue -- let me know if not. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I had struck everything else - this is it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked with Angus and he hasn't found anything that would be useful to cite on the reasons for the Golden Age starting at this time. He said he'll keep looking, but since his current reading matter is a book entitled "Northumbria's Golden Age", I wouldn't be confident anything on this will turn up. Mike Christie (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's the way the Golden Age crumbles. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph on the "Golden Age" in the "Reign" section could be expanded a little for readers unfamiliar with Anglo-Saxon history. A couple of sentences describing the texts, the art, and the missions would help.
    Angus is going to take a crack at this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why most of the "References" are in MLA style and a few are in something like Chicago style.
    Angus fixed these, I believe. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I see that they are all now in some sort of APA style. Here is a helpful site listing the rules for APA. (There should be periods instead of commas and other small details.) Sorry to be picky, but I do think we want to look as professional as possible. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. They all use the {{citation}} template; typically I use {{cite book}}. I would assume that the "citation" template is MOS-compliant, but I'm happy to change them all to "cite book" and "cite web" if you feel they look more professional. I don't want to hand-code the references, though; the templates do have the benefit of encouraging consistency. Let me know if you feel "cite book" looks better. Mike Christie (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I don't like those templates and I type all my references by hand. I don't actually think that the templates are necessarily MOS compliant, as the MOS doesn't dictate one referencing style over another (too bad, really). However, it does state (somewhere) that the style should be a generally accepted style. That's all I'm saying here - choose one. I won't endorse any of the templates because I happen to know that they all have problems and none of them are consistent with Chicago, MLA, or APA (I most unhappily know many of the rules for all of these styles.) It is possible to fiddle with the templates to make them work, but it is much easier to just type the entries in by hand. I'll do it if you want. Awadewit | talk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be great if you could fix them as you see fit. However, just a word of warning for possible wasted effort: I've sometimes had editors come to the articles I've worked on and re-organized the references, regularizing them all to use the same form of citation template. I think there's some risk that if you do change these, someone will eventually change them back. That's why I don't worry about it too much. But if you'd like to make the changes, please do; and thank you. Mike Christie (talk)
    Will do. I usually add a hidden note - it usually keeps the templaters at bay. :) Awadewit | talk 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Awadewit | talk 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- I know this was a lot of work. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another fine Anglo-Saxon article, which I look forward to supporting soon. Awadewit | talk 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • An excellent article, which the editors have only improved over the past few days. I am happy to support it. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been a little Bold with the lead. I was trying to relate it directly to the subject and remove all but the most important facts. What do you think? --Docg 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's quite a coincidence: your edits and Awadewit's notes came at almost exactly the same time, and your edits were prescient in addressing Awadewit's concerns. I am happy with your rewrite of the lead. Awadewit, it seems to me that Doc glasgow's version addresses most of your points; would you agree? Perhaps only that last one about the golden age could still be looked at, and that might be addressed when Angus has a chance to update that section of the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I think those edits were an improvement - the lead now has the narrative arc I think it needs for the reader unfamiliar with the topic. Awadewit | talk 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Interesting, well-written article (as always). Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments.
      • Can you expand at all on the status of his parents' relationship? Does "contemporary Northumbrian churchmen" mean Oswiu's contemporaries, or 20th/21st century people?
    The former; I've changed this to "Northumbrian churchmen of his day", which I hope is less ambiguous. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you mention in the text that Oswiu had (another) wife and that he had children by her? It is in the chart, but I'd like to see it made more clear before the article begins talking about their children; I assumed at first that Ecgfrith was Aldfrith's full brother.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like the wikilink of Cuthbert in Life of Cuthbert. Can you move it to later in the sentence (Bede's Life of Cuthbert recounts a conversation between Cuthbert...)
    Agreed, this was a mistake. Fixed by DrKiernan before I saw your note. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it necessary to the article to include that Aldhelm received an Irish education? I would probably remove that sentence.
    I'm leaving this in per DrKiernan's comments below for now; let me know if you still think it's unnecessary detail and we can talk. I tend to agree with him that it's useful context.

    Karanacs (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support with some comments Like Karen, I too feel that the mention of Oswiu's other "true" wife should be in the text, however I'm happy for Aldhelm's Irish education to remain in, as that sets the scene for Aldfrith's place in the disputes between the various churches. I didn't like the Cuthbert wikilink either, so I've changed it. Is anything conjectured about why Aldfrith and Cuthburh separated? You should also mention that this would have been another of Aldfrith's key alliances (with Ine). DrKiernan (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added mention of Eanflaed. Thanks for the wikilink fix. I know of nothing about the reasons for the separation of Aldfrith and Cuthburh, but it's quite possible that the decision for Cuthburh to become an abbess was the reason for the separation, rather than the other way around. Aethelthryth, for example, who married Ecgfrith and then separated from him to become a nun, had made a vow of perpetual virginity before marrying (Yorke describes it as "one of the least successful royal marriages on record"). Unfortunately I think it would be speculation to talk about the reasons for Cuthburh's decision. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A very thorough article which not only covers all the known facts about Aldfrith but sets him in the Northumbrian, Irish and Pictish context. I'm close to supporting but have a handful of points and queries.
    Some addressed below; I'm leaving some for Angus, who has the expertise on a lot of the Scottish/Irish/Gaelic issues. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • England was conquered before the year 600 by Anglo-Saxon peoples who had come to Britain from northwestern Europe. This strikes me as somewhat imprecise: obviously, it wasn't England until they had conquered it. Also, it depends what is meant by "England", since parts of present-day England were not conquered by that time. And "northwestern Europe" seems unnecessarily vague for where those peoples came from.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expect Angus is only too familiar with all the geographical, political and racial nuances at play, but perhaps the article needs a little more clarity about and explanation of the polities and races mentioned. A map of the relevant band of northern Britain and Ireland would be helpful, I think. Some particular wordings might raise questions in the reader's mind (I know the answer to most of them, but the general reader might need support):
    With regard to the map, can you tell me what's needed beyond the existing map? I will add Austerfield to the map of Northumbria, but I think that's about the only remaining place identified in the article that's not on one or other map already. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first thing that struck me was that Dál Riata was marked in Scotland but not Ireland: I have always thought it covered parts of both coasts at this time, but I may be wrong. The presence of the single, large word "Brega" on the map of Ireland did not strike me as luminous mapmaking. Perhaps the Uí Néill should be shown, and, maybe, Tara (I don't know what Irish sources tell us geographically about this period).
    The article overlooks the fact that Bede says that after Nechtansmere "some part of the British nation recovered their independence": the maps do not show a British nation. There is a noticeable absence of Alt Clut from the map (one could mark Dumbarton: it should perhaps be remembered that Bridei was from the Alt Clut royal family, so that nation was not insignificant). The article mentions "the many obscure and nameless Brythonic kingdoms in what are now North West England and southern Scotland": so some indication might be shown of who controlled the Ayrshire area, which at the moment is a blank on the map, despite its obvious strategic importance. Galloway is trickier, I admit (was it Brythonic, Anglian, a mixture?) but is it OK to place Whithorn on a map "in the time of Aldfrith"? Archaeology would suggest it was British in Aldfrith's time. Maybe Northumbrian expansion there owned more to the opportunity opened up by Beorhtfrith later. (Even an expression of doubt or possibility there might help.)
    I feel that Forfar could be better marked, as it seems to be placed at Dundee at the minute. I also think that Bernicia and Deira (and possibly Lindsey) should be shown. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made several changes to the maps in the article. Austerfield is now shown, and there's a detailed map of Ireland. I have switched to a general map of Great Britain that shows the general kingdoms, but this does not show some of the details on the previous map. This means that Iona and Forfar are not on any of the maps. I'd considered adding a map of central and southern Scotland that would show the locations of those two places, and would also show the extent of Dal Riata, however, I think the article can't fit in another map. Can you let me know what you think? Forfar is described as being in Pictish territory, north of the Firth of Forth, and Iona as a Hebridean island, so perhaps these descriptions suffice in place of a map. Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The map of Ireland helps, because I can now see the link between the southern Uí Néill and Brega, and I can see Dál Riata. It does seem a shame to me though that the map of England and Scotland does not contain a part of Ireland. Ireland is not marked at all, so it seems there is more sea than is possible. Since it is only northeast Ireland that is relevant to the article, I would have thought Britain and part of Ireland could be shown on the same map. I do still feel it's a shame that we don't have any mapping of the British kingdom centred on Dumbarton. Well, we have Strathclyde, but as it stands that is anomalous unless reference is made to it in the text and to other terms for it. By the way, Stenton seems to feel it was much smaller at this time. I feel some way should be found of showing Iona, Forfar, and Dumbarton, at least, and of making it clear that Dál Riata is on both sides of the water. It must seem as if I am fussing, but any article that dabbles in this geographically and politically complex region must surely attempt to elucidate it. This is not a deal breaker, so ignore me if you are getting fed up. qp10qp (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'd far rather work the maps till they're right; if you have the patience to continue to comment, I would really appreciate it. I have taken another pass and expanded the northern Britain map, and added Ireland back to the British Isles map. The extent I show for Strathclyde comes from Blair's map in Roman Britain and Early England. If you can point me at a source that gives a reduced extent for this date I can certainly change it, but it does represent Blair's map accurately at the moment. I am delaying corresponding changes to the text till I have the map right, so let me know what you think. One particular point: is Brega clearly enough separated from Tara? That part of the map is a bit congested. Mike Christie (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, now we're talking. I like that map very much. Brega and Tara are clear to me. Now the reader can see how close Ireland was to Scotland and why it came into the Northumbrian sphere of concern, and also the links between the Dál Riatas, and the accessibility of Iona from Ireland and its safety from Northumbria. We can never be sure about the extent of Strathclyde/Al Clut, but it might be prudent to shrink the word closer to Dumbarton, judging by what Stenton says (Stenton, pp 85–89, is informative on the regional powers); the word should not, in my opinion, be visually separated from the area of the Clyde Valley—my instinct is that the Southern Uplands would represent the furthest likely southern boundary of Strathclyde, though there may have been British sub-kings on the Solway. Great work! qp10qp (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I moved Strathclyde a bit north. I also renamed "Forfar" to "Nechtansmere"; Angus suggested "Forfar" was a little anachronistic. Mike Christie (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's excellent now, in my opinion. I am certain it will help the readers, who would naturally want to look at maps of these unfamiliar areas. (One small typo I noticed: "River Firth" should be River Forth.) qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ''Both spent their exile among the Scots of Dál Riata. Oswiu was a child when he came to Dál Riata, and grew up in an Irish milieu. Here Dál Riata seems to describe a place, in other spots, a people. It is not always made clear to those who may think in terms of modern Scots and Irish, how terms like Scots, Irish, Picts, and Britons apply to the geography and polities of the time.
    I've gone through and tweaked slightly to make the references to Dál Riata consistently to the kingdom, and I've glossed it at the first appearance. I removed the use of "Scots" to reference to the people of Dál Riata, since as you say it requires explanation but I don't think it's necessary for this article. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's helpful, I think. qp10qp (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irish law made Fín's kin, the Cenél nEógain of the northern Uí Néill, responsible for his upbringing.. Where were the Uí Néill based, for example? Where did Irish law apply?
    I hope the map provides the answer to the first question. Does the second question need a specific answer in the article, or can the map serve for that too? The source is here, in section 23; unfortunately I don't have any of the reference Grimmer gives for his comments about Irish law so it's hard to be more specific. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. As the maps have emerged, it has become clear where the northern and southern Uí Néill were. The only remaining enigma is why Ecgfrith attacked in the region of the southern Uí Néill, but I suppose they may have been one polity. I was wondering whether Irish law applied in Scottish Dál Riata: presumably. No matter. qp10qp (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A collection of wisdom literature attributed to Flann Fína, the Briathra Flainn Fhina Maic Ossu, has survived in a Middle Irish version. What is "Middle Irish"?
    I've had a go at rephrasing this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's helpful. I think its always important to note when sources were written, with explanatory phrases where necessary. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • his dominance extended beyond the Anglo-Saxons to the Picts, the Gaels of Dál Riata, and the many obscure and nameless Brythonic kingdoms in what are now North West England and southern Scotland. The term "Brythonic" is not explained: what distinguishes it from "British"? What does the Gaels of Dál Riata refer to in this context? If these distinctions are worth making, they will be worth explaining to the reader, I feel.
    I've changed "Brythonic" to "native British", per comments below about "Brythonic" being jargon. For "Gaels of Dál Riata", is the term "Gaels" really not well known? The map gives the location, now; is what's needed an indication that the dominance only extended to that part of Dál Riata that was in modern Scotland? Mike Christie (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Things are much better now! My problem was that at one time the article was referring to the Scots, the Irish, and the Gaels in the same region. Each description is justifiable, but it makes sense to keep the terms straightforward and to add explanations where there are differences from the modern use of those terms ifor specific geographical areas. "Gaels" is known up to a point, but not everyone grasps that Gaelic culture spread to Scotland from Ireland. It is good that "Brythonic" has now gone, since in a sense its precise counterpart is the word Goidelic, not Gael[ic]. I see "Goidelic" and "Brythonic" as linguistic and cultural terms rather than geographical, while "Irish" and "British" comfortably cover both and are gentler for an encyclopedia. This is not to say that the words "Goidelic" and "Brythonic" shouldn't be used, just that they need to be explained en passant if they are. qp10qp (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • it has also been suggested that Aldfrith's ascent was eased by support from the Uí Néill, the Dál Riata, and the Picts. Are we to think of the first two as "Irish", in this case, though earlier we heard of the Scots of Dál Riata? What does "Scots" refer to at this period?
    I rephrased this to "Dál Riata, the Uí Néill, and the Picts" to make the references to Dál Riata consistently to a kingdom rather than a people. I don't think there's a need for the reader to interpret these as "Irish" or "Scottish", particularly. Again I hope the maps will supply what the reader needs here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With the various changes and maps, I think the reader can grasp this now. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The raid may have been intended to undermine support for Aldfrith. What support? I felt this came out of the blue. Was Aldfrith scheming for the throne?
    Yorke comments that one reason for the raid might have been "[d]esire to forestall any claims Aldfrith might have had to the Northumbrian throne". I think "undermine" implies a definite plan; "forestall" does not, so I've changed the wording to "discourage" to avoid the unnecessary implication of a scheme. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More comfortable now. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was thus a cousin . . . If his mother is not certain, then nor are his cousins on her side, surely.
    Added "probably". Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oswiu's overlordship was ended in 658 by the rise of Wulfhere of Mercia, but his reign continued until 670, when Ecgfrith, one of his sons by his second wife, Eanflæd, succeeded him. This omits to say whether he died then or not; it's the same in the lead.
    Fixed in both places. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth it, given the number of Anglo-Saxon kings who abdicated. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forfar. It might be worth noting where this was. I've added where Austerfield was: I think such little markers are helpful. By the way, the note tells us about Dunnichen, but not the main text, so the insert in Moisl's quote may appear opaque.
    I glossed Forfar when it appears. I also changed the insert in Moisl's quote to be "Nechtansmere", which is already mentioned in the text, as well as being the more familiar name in secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine: Principle of least astonishment qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moisl's quote talks of Aldfrith being in Iona the year before, but where was he when Ecgfrith died? Bede says, in the life of St Cuthbert, "the next year Ecgfrith was slain by the Picts and the throne went to his bastard brother Aldfrith recently returned from his studies in Ireland". Your note from Cramp perhaps alludes to this, but the possibility may be worth mentioning in the main text. Does Moisl get his information from the Life of Cuthbert or other sources?
    I feel that whatever sources there are on this point should be spelt out. The Blackwells Encyclopedia says that "in the Spring of 685, Oswiu's Irish-born eldest son Aldfrith was staying in Iona when when his brother King Ecgfrith's body was brought to Iona and Aldfrith was hailed as his successor. During the next two years Abbot Adomnán of Iona twice visited England, on the first occasion as an ambassador for the Southern Uí Néill king to recover captives". I don't know which source they get this from (who brought Ecgfrith's body to Iona?), but the latter point relates to my question about geography, and I think it would help the article to join up a dot or two here. Specifically, it might be mentioned that Iona was not, as might be thought from our map, under Dál Riata, but under the Uí Néill. This information would make it clearer why the Abbot of Iona would be working to repatriate Irish hostages; it would also reinforce the possibility that Berht's expedition was in some way related to Aldfrith's claim to the throne. (And if the attack on Ireland was directed against Aldfrith, his move to Iona would make sense, since it was buffered by the other nations of the region against an attack from Northumbria.) qp10qp (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it might be worth making clear that when Aldfrith reinstated Wilfred, the division in the diocese remained or was quickly reverted to. The division in the diocese was behind all Wilfred's other complaints, so it provides context, at least, for his falling out with Aldfrith. He complained, according to Eddius, that Ripon had been made into an episcopal seat, which relates to the same issue.
    Done; I've expanded the section on Wilfrid a little, with some more detail on the sources of conflict with both Ecgfrith and Aldfrith. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's just about OK, though I would have liked to see more joining up of the dots. One of the problems was that once the diocese had been divided up, the bishops in the new seats were opposed to Wilfred, because if the division was reverted, they would lose their bishoprics (and, one guesses, enormous land and wealth). This is why they were only too pleased to oppose Wilfred at Austerfield and slam the door after him with an excommunication. It is also an indication why this pious and scholarly king Aldfrith could never get on with Wilfred: it had become politically impossible for him to agree to his or the pope's demands. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • with a presumed royal centre at Dunbar. What's a royal centre? The seat of a sub-king . . . one of the king's headquarters?
    • and perhaps native Brythonic clients. I think that for an encyclopedia this may count as jargon.
    I've reworded this; without access to the source, which is one of Angus's, I had to be cautious about the rewording, but I think it's unexceptionable. I made "Brythonic" into "British"; I'm not sure "Brythonic" conveys much and from what I can tell it is primarily used in the literature as a subdivision of the scope of "British", e.g. for linguistic discussions. The terms "British" and "Briton" seem to still be current, so I'm inclined to stick with them. (At some point it might be good to have a Wikiproject standard on the usage of these terms, but I don't see that happening soon.) Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • also of Irish sympathies. Does this refer to the Easter controversy, to upbringing, to culture? For me, it's a little vague.
    I've cut this phrase. It doesn't appear to be supported by the reference; I'm sure Angus had a source for it, but for now I've cut it. From what I know, it refers to the controversy with Wilfrid, who was often hostile to the Celtic Church, and places Eadfrith with Aldfrith as a supporter of the Celtic Church. However, I'll check with Angus and restore some version of this when I have a source. Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. qp10qp (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ''an early example of the Anglo-Saxon philosopher king. This jars with me a bit, since I can only think of Alfred in this category. Reading the note, I am not sure that it quite supports this wording.
    I reworded this to make it clearer that it is an opinion, and cited Blair directly for it in the text. Mike Christie (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That nails it. qp10qp (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it worth mentioning that in his letter to Egbert, Bede specifically dates the growth of bad practices in the church from the death of Aldfrith?<
    I added a note about the lay control of monasteries to the paragraph on Bede's comments on Aldfrith, and cited it to the letter. I would have liked to include a quote ("our province has been [...] demented with error") but I don't think it's really relevant enough. Mike Christie (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neat. qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big quote looks very narrow on my screen. Perhaps that is just my problem, but it doesn't happen with blockquotes.
    Not sure which quote you're referring to here. The one next to the family tree? That uses Template:Imagequote, which is basically blockquote plus an offset. The other two are both blockquotes. Can you describe what you're seeing, exactly? Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about eleven letters wide "But" said/she "I . . . etc., over to the right. Probably to do with my settings, but I have never seen this on a wikipedia quote before. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A very enjoyable and absorbing article. qp10qp (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll get on with resolving the issues you've identified as soon as possible. Thanks for the helpful comments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • with a presumed royal centre at Dunbar. What's a royal centre? The seat of a sub-king . . . one of the king's headquarters?
      • and perhaps native Brythonic clients. I think that for an encyclopedia this may count as jargon.
      Oh please, give me a break! You can only take dumbing down so far. The article already makes it appear as if it covers Aldfrith better than it really does because of the huge background section, and so many other digressions.
    And you can only take the stupiding up so far—in other words, the use of terms the average reader will not understand. Orwell, of course, said, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent". For an encyclopedia, it is often necessary to do so, but only if you add a discreet phrase of explanation. That's one of the most difficult challenges in writing an article and the opposite of dumbing down. Before you can clarify a term to the reader, you have to clarify it to yourself. And there's the rub. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • his dominance extended beyond the Anglo-Saxons to the Picts, the Gaels of Dál Riata, and the many obscure and nameless Brythonic kingdoms in what are now North West England and southern Scotland. The term "Brythonic" is not explained: what distinguishes it from "British"?
      Brythonic is a stupid term, but if they'd written "British" they'd have gotten another commentator saying they were confused by that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the art is to use both and illuminate them, so that the readers are given the information they need in order to understand the terms. qp10qp (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The church section has (to me) significant deficiencies. Just to start, the opening line may appear to some to be contradicted by the following text. That aside, why was Wilfrid in conflict with Aldfrith? The section has no explanation 'though explanations are readily available in the sources the article uses. There's nothing in the gigantic background section either to explain the Wilfrid Ecgfrith conflict.
    I have expanded the section on Wilfrid to give the sources of the conflict both with Ecgfrith and Aldfrith. Regarding the opening line, can you be specific? Are you referring to the conflict with Wilfrid? Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The oldest of the bishoprics in Northumbria was Lindisfarne
    Is it? The Saintly being of Paulinus might have something to say about that, as might Ninian/Finian/Uinniau or other Britons who allegedly existed in the region before the coming of the English.
    I removed the comment. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This section is doubly unfortunate coverage-wise because the literature on Wilfrid and the Northumbrian church during Aldfrith's reign is quite substantial. See the collection of essays St Wilfrid at Hexham esp. Kirby's "Northumbria in the Time of Wilfrid", or esp. Goffart's controversial but highly relevant and acclaimed essay "Bede and the Ghost of St Wilfrid" in The Narrators of Barbarian History. There are also the many essays in Famulus Christi (a good book to aquire for lots of these topics btw).
    Ecgfrith was killed during a campaign against his cousin, the King of the Picts Bridei map Beli, at a battle known as Nechtansmere to the Northumbrians, generally thought to have been fought near Forfar [citing Dunnichen Moss in Angus is the preferred site.]
    According to whom? Easy enough to fix, but I should note that Woolf posits a location much further north in his Fortriu paper (though it is just a suggested alternative and has not become AFAIK widely accepted).
    Cited to Kirby. Kirby uses "Dunnichen" rather than "Dunnichen Moss", so I switched to that. Without some more support for Woolf I don't see a reason for including his suggestion in an article about Aldfrith rather than the battle itself. Mike Christie (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this suggestion of an allegiance to the Picts, a battle between the Northumbrians and the Picts in which Berht was killed is recorded by Bede and the Irish annals in 697 or 698.[23] No other battles are recorded in his reign.
    Erm ... this appears to be there as a way of balancing Moisl or contradicting him, but digresses into a statement that should be further down the page and moreover does not cite any source which uses this event as such an argument. If that's why it's there it should be removed as it is spurious. Moisl or anyone else would just point out that Bridei had died years before, Taran had come in his place in the mean time, and that battle occurred shortly after or around the accession Bruide mac Der-Ilei, probably from a branch of the Dal Riata [which rivalled the ruling branch to which Aldfrith had presumably been connected and which had been allied with Bridei m. Bili?]. Moisl's statement is already balanced by other assertions further up; it doesn't need OR if that's indeed what this is.
    This wasn't intended as a rejoinder to Moisl's comment, but I agree it appears that way. It is simply an attempt to find a place to mention the battle of 697/8. Because Aldfrith's reign is peaceful it wasn't easy to slot this sentence in, and I meant to use the mention of the Picts to connect the two comments, not to deny Moisl's point. I've changed "Despite this suggestion of an allegiance to the Picts" to "Subsequently"; I hope that removes the implied OR. Mike Christie (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aldfrith appears to have been a close friend of Adomnán, Abbot of Iona from 679, and may have studied with him
    Aldfrith was a close friend of Adomnan. See Vita Columbae where Adomnan himself calls Aldfrith "my friend Aldfrith" (ii. 46). I think when you get the man himself saying it, even in dark age history, you can go for something stronger than appears. Less reliably, the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland call him Dalta Adamnain, "Adomnan's pupil".
    Agreed; I made this definite. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is very good, but I'm not convinced it had to be forwarded for FA yet. It's coverage of Aldfrith is very choppy. The Iona thing should be discussed systematically at one stage. We've got assertions that he knew Adomnan, got educated in the Gaelic islands and was in Iona the year before his accession scattered across the article (which, being in the Anonymous Life of St Cuthbert iii. 6 shouldn't only appear in quotation of a historian regarding a different topic). Mike Christie won't be surprised to here me say: it does not discuss the sources and their nature! Maybe I'm a bit looney, but this I regard this as highly appropriate (and necessary) for topics such as this. Such coverage would significantly improve the article, something which suggests the article has some way to go before it covers its topic adequately. Knowing Angus and his editing as I do, I've got a feeling he would have done this if Aldfrith became a priority for him in his own time; he's done it for all his other FAs. As it is, I get the smell that the article's being pushed to FA for the sake of it. I'm not going to oppose the nom though, as there are many other FA articles (even in this topic area) that are worse (.. and there are some better, such Flann Sinna ;) ) ... but as you can see alot in this article displeases me. I could go on, but like I said, it is a very good article and there are other worse ones with FA status. Hope I don't come across as too critical. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair criticism. Although I disagree about the cause and also about Flann, I don't have a very positive feeling about this article. I'm really pushed for time just now but as soon as I can I'll get to work. There's not much I can do about Wilfred at Hexham or Moisl's article in the meantime, but it should be possible to resolve the other points you and qp10qp have raised. There's nothing like the prospect of being hanged tomorrow to focus the mind, so they say. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:53, 11 February 2008.

    Everglades National Park[edit]

    Everglades National Park is the third largest national park in the contiguous 48 states, and a whole host of other superlatives included in the lead. And spooky, too. It's also a significant source of controversy in South Florida. I visited ENP in October, saw its lackluster article here, and worked for 2 months to improve it. I based it as much as possible on previous FA national park articles such as Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and Yosemite National Park. It has had a peer review, archived here. I will do what is necessary to see it to Featured Article status. I appreciate your comments and assistance. Moni3 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks good on a quick glance, but I see style problems - please avoid contractions "doesn't, don't, wasn't" unless in quotations. "most well-known" = "best known"? Copy-editing needed?--Docg 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Good catch. Got it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I've never been to the Park, and as a non-native, non-outdoorsy Floridian (in my defense, however, I live on the smelly St. Johns River and was once attacked by pelicans omg), I'm not sure how much my opinion really matters while reviewing an article such as this, but I think it's quite good work. Comprehensive and interesting, to be sure. I do have a few suggestions on some specific points:
    • The dashes in the references (and perhaps the rest of the article) vary from just a plan dash, an en dash, to an em dash. According to WP:DASH, when referencing page numbers (i.e. pp. 211–19), you're supposed to use an en dash. To make it easier on yourself, you may want to ask Brighterorange to run his dash bot over the page.
    This horrifies me, as I went to the endash page, copied it and pasted it in all of the references...--Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead: The water system of all of southern Florida is dependent upon Everglades National Park to recharge the fresh water to the region, as well as to the Biscayne Aquifer. The last bit is vague; if the ENP also recharges the fresh water to the Biscayne Aquifer, then perhaps it should read: ...dependent upon Everglades National Park to recharge the fresh water to both the region and the Biscayne Aquifer.
    Good idea. I'll change that.--Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tense issue: All the water in the Everglades and coming into the system -- not sure how to fix this, but it reads strangely.
    It does...how about "All the water in the Everglades and flowing in from Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River comes from local rainfall, taking days to reach the Everglades from the north." --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is "in" contrasting with "flowing in"; it just doesn't mesh. Would it be factually correct to shorten it to: "All the water flowing into the Everglades from Lake Okeechobee..."?
    Well, the Everglades has an immense capacity for water storage. Most of the water flows in from rainfall, but a significant amount is stored there. What is stored there gets evaporated and rained on up north and over the rest of Florida, recharging the fresh water storage for the region. Maybe I should say it just like that, except more formally. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Everglades appeared above sea level between 100,000 and 15,000 years ago. Areas on land that rise above others are called keys, whether surrounded by water or not.[13] These keys were formed on limestone originally developed underwater. Is there a way to change the second sentence so that it doesn't jar with the sudden tense-change? Also, it is not explicitly stated that we're discussing the ENP's keys.
    The Everglades appeared above sea level between 100,000 and 15,000 years ago. The land was formed on limestone originally developed underwater. As ocean water was captured in polar icecaps, sea levels fell and exposed more land, forming keys: areas of land that rise above others. How's that? --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better!
    • There are some sentences that read as more theatrical rather than scientific in nature, which may get you into trouble with more picky readers. For example, this: Only a matter of inches in elevation makes the difference between the grass covered river and any above-water land that may appear. Is this truly necessary?
    I didn't think it was that theatrical. These are unique formations, hammocks, and only 2-3 inches above everything else. What do you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I read it with David Attenborough's voice in mind; it seems like something he would say. I'm not sure how to change it, exactly, but perhaps it can be tacked onto the next sentence that actually defines the Hammocks?
    Oh, no! Don't read articles like David Attenborough or Steve Irwin. That's wrong. (Although it might help with biochemistry articles)...but I changed it to "Hammocks are often the only dry land within the park. They rise only several inches above the grass covered river and other land that may appear, and are dominated by...--Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This region is similar to the freshwater slough... what region? It's stated in the header, I know, but it's better to have the prose flow from one section to another without having to rely on the header to explain.
    Will do. --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you consider turning the "Endangered and threatened animals" section into prose? It looks blocky and unappealing in list format, IMO.
    I did at one point, but it was the choppiest paragraph I had ever written. I will work on trying to do it again. --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked on this. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Finally, has the article had a copy-edit by a pair of fresh eyes? There are several punctuation and grammatical errors throughout, but nothing too horrible; still, you may want to consider enlisting someone you trust to go over it. Great work, though! If I get over my fear of smelly, marshy stuff, I may get down there one day. :) María (habla conmigo) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Running water doesn't smell :) It's actually rather a sweet sensation, like flowers. Only when the water is so low it's in puddles does it start to get rank. I survived an attack by a prairie dog once that wanted to kill me, and I still like the outdoors! (I also grew up near the St. Johns, which made me want to visit other parts of Florida as much as possible.)--Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Prairie dog? LOL. It wasn't the dramatic prairie dog, was it? María (habla conmigo) 13:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just one that didn't want to leave my backyard when I lived in Colorado. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The article is mising information on how, when or even if the Miccosukee left the area of the park. Rmhermen (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't left, and in fact, are a part of the decision-making process of the park. Let me see what I can do to add that information. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I included some information at the bottom of "Native people". --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Neutral. BTW, there are about 14 "alsos"; are they all necessary? Tony (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Needs a copy-edit throughout, and the links ...[reply]

    • Why is it significantly overlinked? We do speak English. If an eight-year-old reader doesn't know what "subtropical" or "wilderness" or "breeding ground" mean, let her ENTER THE ITEM INTO THE SEARCH BOX, yes? You dilute the important links by spattering blue everywhere, and it's harder to read and messy in appearance. Please audit throughout.
      • I removed some links, but I felt it was better to keep "subtropical" and "wilderness" linked because they are integral to the designation and importance of the park. Many terms that are left I feel are necessary to explain what is common sense in the US or in South Florida that doesn't translate well for English speakers in different countries. I had some difficulty understanding terms in Exmoor National Park, an FAC, because much of it had to do with regional history and culture. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs a copy-edit. I see sentences such as "There are over 350 species of birds that live within Everglades National Park, as well as 300 species of fresh and saltwater fish, 40 mammals, and 50 different kinds of reptiles.", which might be "More than 350 species of birds, 300 species of fresh and saltwater fish, 40 mammals, and 50 different kinds of reptiles live in Everglades National Park. Why no "species of" for mammals alone? Hyphen for "slow moving". Metric equivalents. "Humans ... humans ... human" repetition. "actions" --> "activity", perhaps. Tony (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed these problems and a few others in the article. I appreciate the time you took to read it and give comments. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I thought it was great when it came to PR, and it still is. Of course some improvements can be made, but it's definitely among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman Talk 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Comprehensive, easily-understood, and NPOV. Definitely among Wikipedia's best in terms of content and length. I'd favor someone from the League of Copy Editors (or another, unaffiliated copy editor) taking a look through it to fix some minor things, but they don't take away from the content within. Great job! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Moni3 (talk · contribs) has done an excellent job responding to comments. The article seems very comprehensive and interesting, meets MOS guidelines, and citation issues seem to be resolved. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My previous comments that have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The article seems very comprehensive and has interesting material, but I think it needs a good copyedit to get rid of some of the passive voice, make sure that verb tenses are consistent, and ensure that sentences flow well. There are also some claims that really should be cited.
      • Please add non-breaking spaces between numbers and their unit or qualifiers (ex 350 species, 60 inches need nonbreaking spaces)
        • I think I got them all. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prose seems to be choppy. Sentences could flow better within paragraphs. The writing is not bad, but it is not really compelling either.
        • I did my best to address your more concrete suggestions below. I'll take another look at the prose over the next couple days to tweak here and there. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read through it again and made some changes. --Moni3 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a citation for the fact that plants in the pineland ecosystem bloom 16 weeks after a fire?, and that "Almost all pinelands have an understory of palm shrubs"?
        • It has been so cited. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you have one for the fact that "Almost all pinelands have an understory of palm shrubs"? Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Humans are thought to have inhabited the South Florida region around 10,000 to 20,000 years ago" -> do you mean that humans first inhabited the area then? If so, I'd make that a little more specific.
        • I have clarified that with a well-placed "first". --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article mentions that the Calusa lived in about 30 villages. Is there information on how the Tequesta lived? If not, I'd recommend removing the information about the Calusa villages.
        • Information clarified. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "sticking primarily to coastal regions." -- Does this mean that they primarily lived in the coastal regions or that they primarily travelled through the coastal regions? It's unclear from the sentence.
      • Need a citation for "The only evidence of their existence is a series of shell mounds, within the park boundaries, that were built by the Calusa." This sentence also implies that there is no evidence of the Tequesta existence (other than the Spanish reports, I presume). Is that really true?
      • When the Creek assimilated the Tequesta, did they stay in the Everglades area or did they return to more normal Creek areas?
        • Some remained, some stayed. See next answer.
      • "After these groups, the Seminoles entered the area..." After these groups...what? died out? moved? were eradicated?
        • The paragraph above that one describes how both Calusa and Tequesta were eradicated, but I removed that phrase anyway. I added more detail about the development of the Seminole nation. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not familiar with the history of the Seminoles. It might be nice to expand just a bit the paragraph about how they came to live in the area. I'm not sure what "the various leftover tribes" were.
      • Are the Miccousukee a subtribe of the Seminoles or are they a separate tribe?
        • Similar, but unique. I made that distinction. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might also point out when the Seminole Wars were. The article is using that to reference a point in time, but I suspect many people (myself included) aren't sure when that took place.
      • The information about the 1910 hurricane seems to be forced into the paragraph in American settlements. There need to be better transitions into and out of that sentence.
        • Sentence removed. Interesting fact, but didn't have a good place in the paragraph. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Since the 1850s, the Everglades have been the subject of several attempts to drain and develop before engineers understood the nature of the ecology systems." This sentence needs some work. "Drain and develop " what? Perhaps reword to "Several attempts have been made to drain and develop the Everglades since the 1850s. The first canals...."
      • Need a citation for the fact that an attempt to drain the Everglades between 1905 and 1910 led to sugarcane growth
      • "so new landowners were eager to make good on their investments." what does this really mean?
      • There is a LOT of passive voice in the article, which leads to some sentences being unnecessarily unwieldy. Can some of that be transformed into active voice?
        • I understand the issue of passive voice, and I do my best to say exactly who did what - taking responsibility and all. However, the Florida land boom in the 1920s and 1930s is compared to the Klondike gold rush. It was immediate and massive. Do you have a suggestion of how to describe the destruction of the Everglades when many people were doing it freely, proudly, and frequently? --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • With all the other changes you've made, I read over the article carefully. I made a few small copyedits to change from passive voice in several places, and I think it sounds fine now. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sentence needs help "Wading birds, valuable for their feathers, would often be watched by hunters or people claiming to be Audubon Society wardens, only to shoot entire rookeries for their plumes" the verb tenses don't match and I'm unsure what it is actually saying
      • "By 1997 the lack of fresh water to the Everglades that recharged the Biscayne Aquifer gave way to salt water that was seeping into the porous limestone" needs to be reworded. I'm not sure what it is saying.
      • More verb tense mismatches in the paragraph about Marjory stoneman Douglas. Please read that over with a careful eye.
      • Rather than mention Douglas's age at her death, might we instead have the year of her death?
        • How about both? She was quite extraordinary. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for fact that the Friends of the Everglades accused the National Audonbon Society of selling out.
      • When the article is discussing that "less than 50% of the original Everglades exists today", what is it using for the comparison. What is considered the original Everglades? Is that a scientists' determination?
      • Does it matter to this article that the American crocodile is endangered in the Caribbean and South America? I thought that was a little odd.
        • I guess it might matter to the lonely crocodiles in South America. But I removed it from the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence about 100 Florida panthers needs to be rewritten as it is not gramatically correct
      • Aren't crocodiles reptiles too? That confused me when I read that "Of the reptiles, four species of sea turtles ..." I think you can take out the "Of the reptiles" bit and just start with "Four species of sea turtles"
      • Need a citation for the biggest threats to the West Indian manatee
      • There are a few dates in your references that should be wikilinked (95 and 97)

    Good luck! --Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Checked the edit history, previous oppose is from Karanacs. It would be helpful if comments weren't chopped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for reading and for your comments. Let me know if you have any other issues that keep you from supporting it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now, but the "work pressure meter" on his page reads at a 9 out of 10. I don't expect him to come by. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just haven't time to revisit again; I think more than "a few" fixes elsewhere are required, and this is only going to be achieved by someone who's not over-familiar with the text. So the Director might well pass over my oppose, but please get someone to fix the whole thing up. I don't want to see a grammatical error such as "less than 100" (fewer); or "... mangroves are considered adapted more than any other plant to extreme conditions" (clunky); so "fish" is still linked: hello?; amazing treasures."—does that quote start within a WP sentence? You know what to do ... Tony (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are still strange little glitches. Why is the first source missing a retrieval date when most sources have them? Why are emdashes used in page ranges in the sources (should be endashes). Moni, it might help to ask Mav (talk · contribs) to have a look at the article and lend a hand to get it over the hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I made those changes, and requested Mav to visit the article. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool - I'll take a look between addressing comments about my current FAC for oxygen. --mav (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Absolutely nothing about the geology of this place. All the other FA National Park articles have sections on geology. I may get around to that, but I'm not sure if that can be done within the FAC period. --mav (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a woefully short section. It's all limestone. Other FA national parks have geology sections because they are geologic features. The lead of ENP states that it was created to protect an ecosystem instead and it's unique for that reason. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Over 3 miles of limestone, representing many different formations aged as old as Cretaceous. But only the most recent couple hundred feet of that, from 3 different formations, is actually exposed in the area. There are also a few different discontinuities, indicating past periods of uplift that should be discussed. Not to mention the Biscayne Aquifer, which, while mentioned, isn't described. Geology of National Parks, by Harris, has a full 3 pages just on the geologic history of this place. It has another 7 or so pages on the geography and ecology in a geologic context. I'll go ahead and read that to see what I can come up with. Oh, and the longest term threat to the glades isn't even mentioned; sea level rise caused by global warming. Please take care of that and I'll see what I can do about the geology. --mav (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more material about geology, and restructured the first section to give it more prominence. However, I still feel as if the ecology of the park is much more significant than the geology. Giving the geology equal weight would not do the article or the park justice. I hope what I included will suffice for you. I also added a section about rising sea levels toward the bottom of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great job! - Support --mav (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is close, but why do I hit upon bad samples immediately I go to the article: " the grass covered river and other land that may appear,"—hyphenate the double adjective; I'm perplexed about the land that may appear; what land? "There are thousands of these tree islands in the park boundaries." What, in the boundaries themselves (how thick are they? A metre? "These tree islands ... these islands"—is such a sharp back-reference as "these" required, twice? Please disregard my oppose, but I expect it to be fixed up more thoroughly than the "few" fixes the nominator says she's done. Get someone else to look at it? (Locate a copy-editor from searching the edit histories of similar FAs.) Tony (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Oppose, for the same reason that Tony did earlier, and that he touched on again above. The content seems fine to me, but the writing needs some TLC by an uninvolved editor. I've often been critical of the "professional" standard of writing required for FA, but this does fall short of what I'd consider to be acceptable. I don't think the required copyedit would be a massive job, but it's a job that needs to be done before I'd feel comfortable supporting this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one example, from the lead: "There are 36 federally threatened or protected species that exist within park boundaries ...". I would strongly suggest that the US government ceases threatening all species immediately. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough copy editing work has been done on this article over the last day or so to persuade me to strike my oppose and to support it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status check? There are significant opposes, and this FAC is running well overtime, but I'm not seeing any feedback, and article edits only from Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The status for both FACs is that I'm on vacation in California, spending some time with the subject of my first featured article. I apologize for not responding, but the articles were nominated well over a month ago and I never dreamed they would take this long. I can't log on for any significant amount of time at the hotels I'm staying in, and I have none of my sources with me, but I'll be home tomorrow night and I hope to spend some time working on them then. --Moni3 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. After all of the work done here at FAC, this article has risen to the FA level. Very nice work. Coemgenus 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Attending only to content: the section on hammocks desperately needs an aerial photo to illustrate. The everglades are the world exemplar of these. The discussion of the environmental impacts of water diversion from the everglades is utterly inadequate. Primary impacts are (1) loss of volume of fresh water intake, which is leading to encroachment of salt water, and (2) intake of massive quantities of fertilizer from agriculture. The conservation ecology literature on these two impacts is enormous, and this article does not mention any of it. The article history section should also mention the infamous cross-Florida canal (or whatever it was called), a boondoggle that might have exterminated the everglades and Miami with it, had it been completed. --Una Smith (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I absolutely agree with you that these very serious issues should be detailed, I don't think this is the article in which to do it. The poor small Everglades article (on my list to do in the future) is the place to do it. I have to determine what should apply to the park as opposed to the Everglades as a whole, and that line is sometimes blurred. Your proposal should warrant its own article - Environmental destruction of the Everglades. The Everglades article itself should contain much greater detail about all the ecosystems, and the ecological history of all of South Florida. The canal you're referring to is C-38 in the Kissimmee River, much farther north than ENP. Although it impacted ENP, C-38 was much more destructive to the counties surrounding it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I grant that much of my comments relate to Everglades, not to the park. But that highlights another problem: much content of this article (which is about the park) more properly belongs in Everglades. Look at the lead: do all the special designations apply specifically to the park, not to the whole everglades? --Una Smith (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two paragraphs in the lead are about the park, and they're cited. The last paragraph describes the Everglades, a portion of which the park protects. I modeled this article on the previous FAs of Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Yosemite National Park, all that address the parks and the geological formations within and beyond them. Are you suggesting for this article to reach featured status the material regarding Everglades as a whole should be deleted? Wouldn't that be extremely confusing for readers?
    The issues of diversion and quality of water are addressed throughout the ENP article, as they pertain to the vitality of the park. I don't know what to say here. --Moni3 (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Moni3 has already said, the problem here is that Everglades is a mess. This article contains much content relevant to the ecosystem as a whole, which is much larger the park. Much of that content belongs in Everglades, not in this article, FA or no FA. --Una Smith (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Everglades article were as massive and well-referenced as it deserves to be, the issue here is if th ENP article stands alone. The ENP article isn't meant to be a substitute for a well-written Everglades article, but a comprehensive look at why the park exists, what it protects, what it offers, and the issues it faces. ENP issues are more confined to the 3 counties the park is in, where Everglades issues are spread across 16 counties, and will have more detail about the mismanagement of Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River, and towns that exist because of draining that aren't near ENP, like Belle Glade and Clewiston. I'm serious about rewriting the Everglades article. I've already spent over $200 on books preparing for it. Because ENP is a smaller article, it has helped me with the structure and background of what needs to be covered. But there is no way ENP can be of high quality without a description of what its near 2 million acres protects and why it's necessary to protect it. I don't understand your continued oppose to the ENP article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <unindent> I have the same problem with Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park; the park protects just a part of the canyon so there would be a lot of duplication between the two. I think I have decided to concentrate on Grand Canyon and redirect Grand Canyon National Park to that article. That parts of the canyon are protected would be included in the larger article. Would the same thing work here? Park articles work much better when most if not all of the major feature of the park is protected by it (such as Death Valley National Park or Yosemite National Park). --mav (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in the near future, when I begin working on the Everglades article I may actually end up moving some information around, but I consciously limited the amount of information about Everglades to the three counties the park is in, except for unavoidable connections to larger issues. The information in the ENP is not enough to describe the Everglades, its history, or the problems facing it. My main concern here is, is the ENP article good enough to be featured? --Moni3 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Status Update

    Una Smith invited to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mav asked to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus Fatuarum asked to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm going to give the article a thorough copyedit later today, in the hopes of assuaging the concerns expressed above. Hopefully I can stick my foot in the closing door of the FAC for this important article about my homeland. =) Just in case the facilitator was thinking of closing the FAC in the next 12 hours, heh. – Scartol • Tok 13:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've finished my copyedit. I've also made some suggestions on the article's talk page. Hope this helps relieve the concerns of previous reviewers! – Scartol • Tok 15:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Scartol and Maralia. I'll go take a look at the talk page now. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, agree on the need for copyediting, but that's being taken care of, so other things I noticed. Is the entire Coastal lowlands section sourced only by that one source? Could an additional source be found to back up that paragraph? The opening of the "Activities" statement seems to have an unsourced statement at the end, making it hard to tell if the rest of the paragraph is sourced from just the one source or only that sentence. In the ELs, there are two links with the exact same name? Are the duplicates, or different? Are both necessary? Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed that EL since I used it as a source anyway, and added another reference to the Coastal lowlands paragraph. The first Activities paragraph I wrote using the map of ENP given by the National Park Service. So the source cited at the end of the paragraph is for the entire paragraph. Is there another way you want that cited? --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've standardized formatting on most citations, and applied endashes on page ranges. I did not yet clean up the citations that have no reference url; since I can't 'see' those sources, I'm reluctant to modify those citations before I'm sure I understand what the source are. Can you find a better source for footnote 4a/b (currently Uhler, John, National Park Information Page)? I'm off to dinner, but I'll try to get some copyediting in tonight. Maralia (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the site has a DIY look to it due to some substandard HTML and aesthetics, I have no reason to believe the information isn't reliable. It's sponsored by Hillclimb Media, that also sponsors Trails.com and other outdoors information sites. If you want me to find alternate sources for the information cited by this reference, I can try to do that. I appreciate your assistance! --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support This is very good, and there are just a few minor issues in the prose. Juliancolton Talk 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:00, 11 February 2008.

    2007 ACC Championship Game[edit]

    previous FAC (00:08, 31 January 2008)

    This is an immediate renomination of an American college football GA-class article. It failed the previous nomination because no one bothered to leave comments. A few people pitched in to make minor copyedits and style changes, but no one bothered to support or object to the article. This is (I believe) a well-written article that follows WP:MoS and the unofficial single-game FA style precedent for college football games set by 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl. Please look at the article and support it if you think it is worthy. If not, please let me know what I can fix to gain your support. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Shouldn't the name of the article be "2007 ACC championship game" per WP:TITLE? AreJay (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I originally thought as well, but as it turns out, it's a proper noun in all of the "official" pages that I've come across. The most common usage on the official Atlantic Coast Conference is "Dr. Pepper ACC football Championship Game," but ACC Championship Game is also commonly used. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – This article is comprehensive, factually accurate, and more than worthy for FA status. One thing, however, I might consider doing is reference the lead section. I know things like that can pass (one perfect example would be the featured list I worked on), so unless there's a huge outcry to have it done, I guess it's good as is. Good work on this article! CrdHwk (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak ObjectSupportThe article is well on its way but has a lot of work that could be done for improvement.
      • Is it standard for football game articles to take so long to get to the game summary.
        • Yes, it is. See 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl for the example. It's an FA-class article that made it to the front page using this style.
      • I would link the first usages of terms like, touchdown, Orange Bowl and quarterback in the lead.
        • Done.
      • If extra point kick, point after touchdown or P.A.T. has a link link it. There may be a link for rematch.
        • Done.
      • In selection process, I think seasons should be linked to NCAA DI seasons.
        • Done.
      • Destroyed morale?
        • Fixed.
      • Sealed momentum is not correct.
        • Fixed. Both of those weren't verifiable, so I replaced them and added a citation.
      • Pre game buildup, I do not understand why Miami or Charlotte would lead to better attendance. What were the 2005 and 2006 attendances and locations?
        • Tampa or Charlotte. They were all in Jacksonville. I've added the justifications -- the distance between Jacksonville and the participating schools, high travel costs, and so on. I'm not sure why they think Tampa would get better attendance... but Charlotte is an obvious choice because of its proximity to most of the ACC schools.
      • The first picture caption could be more concise. Maybe eliminate the last sentence.
        • Done. I was trying to use it as an example of poor attendance at the game, but if you think it speaks for itself, I don't have a problem taking it out.
      • Which were the three years the championship game was held in Jacksonville.
        • Fixed. I changed it to "two previous years" and put the years.
      • The following are either unlinked or not linked at the first usage, freshman, pass (forward pass), running back, rushing (rush), receiving (reception), linebacker, interception, sports lllustrated, cornerback, defensive end. Kickoff, national anthem, marching band coin toss, veteran, soldier, referee, field goal, tackle, punt, punter, first down, wide receiver, special teams, total offense, kicker
        • Linked.
      • Many ungrammatical commas. When a dependent and independent phrase are conjoined by and there is no comma used. E.g., “The game was broadcast on ABC, and netted a television rating of 4.1.” has no comma because netted a television rating of 4.1 is dependent on the subject in the independent phrase. Unless each phrase has its own subject a comma is not necessary. I.e., either change it to “The game was broadcast on ABC and netted a television rating of 4.1” or “The game was broadcast on ABC, and it netted a television rating of 4.1”
        • Fixed that particular issue. Working on copyediting other instances.
          • Here is at least two more "The 24-yard reception was his longest catch of the day, and gave the Hokies a lead they would not relinquish for the rest of the game" " recorded nine tackles (one for loss), and caught the game-ending" I only did a search on ", and"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
      • Colloquial phrases such as three-and-out possession, shared time under center, need more explaining, linking or rewording.
        • Working on it.
          • If you want to link under center to center, make sure the phrase is explained there.
    Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBrooks85 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the MVP award is not traditionally given to a losing player, however, Glennon was awarded Most Valuable Player honors over Ryan. Should be cited or removed. It is speculation or WP:OR as to the reason without a source.
        • Removed. If I can find a cite for it, I'll cite it.
      • Final statistics section is virtually unlinked. The article is long enough that second usages might be linked here so that is not unlinked if that is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you're asking here... I was told that I needed to add more links later in the article, which I have done, including relinking several things linked earlier in the article.
    Done and done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The difference between GA and FA for this article will be largely the prose. The following fixes are still needed:
      • Better section name is needed than "selection process". Teams aren't "selected" like a bowl game or the NCAA basketball tournament; they qualify based on being the best team in each division. Given the scope of the section, a better name would be "Background".
      • "Off-the-field discussion primarily circled around low ticket sales and the possibility that future ACC Championship Games could be held in Tampa, Florida or Charlotte, North Carolina due to continued low attendance at the Jacksonville site." Sentence needs soem help. Its redundant and could be condensed some.
      • In general, theres some rather loose prose that could benefit from some serious copyediting. The tone is somewhat informal in many places, such as phrases like "On the opposite side of the field, " and "On the ground," and several other places. The article as a whole presupposes a certain level of familiarity with the game of football, and the tone is more appropriate to a sports page of a newspaper or Sports Illustrated than an encyclopedia article. I would highly recommend seeking out help from the League of Copy Editors and especially trying to hunt down a copy editor who doesn't know ANYTHING about football; they would tend to be able to read the article with a critical eye and help improve the prose where people like me, being familiar with the game, would miss it. If you want some specific suggestions, I have some people who worked on some football FA's for me who would be quite good. Ask me at my talk page, and I'll recommend some good copyeditors... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed your first two suggestions and have left a message on your talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gotten someone to take a look at it, and he suggested some changes that have been made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This article is well written, and everything that has been brought up has been fixed. PGPirate 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I've done a copyedit, and I think the prose is much improved. I removed a lot of the more casual terminology and some of the repetition. However, there is still a lot of repetition that could be addressed. For example, the causes of poor ticket sales are mentioned multiple times, as is the fact that the game could move from Jacksonville. (I am a college football fan, by the way, so I may have also overlooked some word choices that could confuse non-fans.)
      • There are several instances of quotes from ESPN or SI that are cited to VT. Could you track down the original sources?
    • Will do.
      • Should there be a convernsion of mph to km/h and degrees F to degrees C?
    • Done.
      • The stats section may also be able to be cut down, as some of it is repetitive of what is in the game summary. You may be able to incorporate the records into the game summary.
    • Okay.
      • I'm not sure what this means "one blast kick traveled 55 yards"
    • Removed. Want to thank you for copyediting the article. It's something that doesn't get a lot of glory, but it's greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose for now - this article is getting very close though. I would like to see someone either fix some things from the automated peer review:
    1. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 55 yards, use 55 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 55&nbsp;yards.[?]
    2. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
    3. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
    4. The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
    Also:
    1. I think a few more college-football specific terms could do with linking. For instance, the lead uses the word "returned" and the meaning of that may not be clear. I would wikilink it as: returned. I would do the same for other jargon that does not have its own article or cannot reasonably be explained in this article.
    2. I really like to see references in the lead. In my opinion, it is a convenience to the reader to be able to check a fact the first time they encounter it, rather than having to scan through the article to find the relevant footnote. I know this is not required, so I will not oppose on this basis alone.
    3. In the "See also" section - the first two articles make sense to me to be listed, but the other 4 I am not so sure about. I might remove them and let the Category:2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season take care of these. I won't oppose based on this though.
    Johntex\talk 03:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Done.
    2. Done.
    3. Done.
    4. Both are in citation titles.
    Also:
    1. Fixed that particular issue. Will fix any other suggestions.
    2. For me, I like folks to be able to access the quick-and-dirty information easily, without scrolling down the page. If they need citations and facts backed up, they can go to the appropriate section. For me, at least, it's a matter of ease of use for the people who really don't care about footnotes and want an answer right away. That way, the footnotes are there for the people who want them, but the people who don't want them can also get the information they need, quickly. That's just my opinion, though.
    3. I had hoped that other articles would show up ... I've left them in there for now, but we can see about removing them if you think it's a good idea. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • JKBrooks85, have you been checking with Opposers to ask them to revisit their concerns as you address them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... not really. Should I be doing so? I had thought that it was their responsibility to recheck, just as it was mine to fix the problems. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contacted the appropriate editors. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support I still think the article in places could be difficult for someone who is only a casual football to follow it. But the prose is much improved, and the article easily meets all other aspects of the the criteria. I am striking my prior oppose. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: I left sample edits of MOS adjustments needed, please see my edit summaries and ping me when work is done (WP:NBSP, consistency in date linking in citations, and WP:MOS#Captions, same things indicated by Johntex, not yet done). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I see nothing wrong with it except for minor issues in wording that may be a bit too technical. Juliancolton Talk 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:00, 11 February 2008.

    Alice in Chains[edit]

    previous FAC (16:32, 20 December 2007)

    Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose per my previous nom. Primarily, this article suffers from comprehensiveness issues due to the nominator not using 1990s magazine articles/interviews as sources. It doesn't really matter how these articles are tracked down; browse your local library or find reprints on the internet. The article is also guilty of sub-standard prose, but that would better fixed after the additional info is added (outside FAC). indopug (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can see, the article is good/decent/featured/whatever coverage of the 90's. It looks comprehensive enough to me. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments from the previous nom,
    • it lacks information why the band toured so sporadicaly in their career, i.e. Staley's substance abuse.
    • it doesn't mention that there were very strong rumours (maybe even true) floating in the 1990s about break-up and possible fighting between Cantrell and Staley.
    • has no information like what inspired the albums, why the albums sounded the way they did. There are very few quotes from band members themselves about their music.
    • has no mention about how Alice in Chains were pioneers of the "alternative metal" genre. In fact that term isn't even used throughout the prose of the article.
    indopug (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Read these sections, they are stated by User:J Milburn (an administrator) that those sources are un-reliable: [30] and the reply is here Please read them, I can not use those sources. My local library is the size of my hous almost, it is a small library. If there is nothing else I can possibly do reliably, shouldn't it be featured? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes you have to go out of your way to get sources for an article. On R.E.M., two of the books referenced were bought at used bookstores (one in New York and one in San Francisco), one was checked out from my university library, and one is cited using Google Book Search. The question is: have you used all the sources available, and if you haven't, why? If they're unreliable, that's one thing, and also if they just regurgiate information contained by other sources you use. But I don't think that this article utilizes enough of the information available out there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried going out of my way, I care for this article, they are one of the best bands of all time and diserve FA. There are no books published on the band, there are on Staley with a mix of an autobiography from the author, but no serious books. I am 14 so I don't have university books or 90s magazines. The sources indopug wants are unreliable as stated by an admin. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, admins are just "Wikipedia editors who have access to technical features that help with maintenance." That doesn't make them an authority on stuff like sourcing. indopug (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have access to a university library and have some old articles. As I said I'm willing to help you, but right now this article isn't FA material. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be apreciated if you would. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - One note - of the four sound samples, only one contains a ref in the description. Suggest streamlining this (ref everything, or nothing). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Indopug. The article still has some reoccurring issues. NSR77 TC 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Indopug. I'm willing to help the editors of the article find reference material (actually I'd been hoping to add some sources available to me, but I've been busy lately). But right now this article is not the best it can be. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indopug has told you like 3 or 4 times, and you still don't understand. He doesn't want you to use those sources as web sources, he wants you to read reprinted versions of those magazines on the internet and then cite them as if you had read the actual magazine (cite the magazine, not the web page where you read it). Also, WesleyDodds can help you, too. It's a '90s band so it's obvious there is a massive amount of offline sources. Gocsa (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez, I feel like an idiot. You mean to cite the article, not the web? Can you do that? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I did with The Smashing Pumpkins (although now that I have a greater grasp of what sources are available, I've been able to compare the reprints to the original sources). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind finding those sources so I can use them? The page doesn't need a re-write but maby the minor expansions that are needed. The FAC doesn't need to be closed either, i could get it all done in one day, i have an extra day off from school this week. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be able to do a lot of work today (see User:Xihix, who made Dookie a GA in a day, and then took it to FAC), but I personally won't be able to help you today, probably not until the weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also brought an article to GA in a day. (Shadows Fall) I won't be able to today, but after school tomorrow I will be able to. So would you be able to work with me on Friday or Saturday? Thank you by the way. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can help when I can, but I doubt we'd be able to get the article up to FA material during a regular FAC nomination period. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can get the sources I could this weekend. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the hurry, why is it so bad if the article reaches FA status next week or later, or by the fourth nomination.. Gocsa (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither do I. Too much has already been done during the FAC period; more would be an insult to articles that are actually up to standards when they first arrive here. NSR77 TC 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But what is wrong with a day? I If can do it, why not? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt you can do it in a day, with the resources. But you said yourself you don't have all the resoruces available. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found them. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Well written, well referenced, everything looks fantastic. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support - Concise, well-written, neutral, this is a great article. I don't see any reason why it isn't featured already. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Oppose [I trust] per Indopug [will be resolved shortly]. --Kiyarrllston 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also: "In 1986, Layne Staley's band Sleeze had disbanded"? - badly phrased

      • Thankyou for notifying me on my talk page. I do not at the moment see reason to change my previous status of neutral. What do you think about creating a section with a heading "Bandmembers"?--Kiyarrllston 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like this sentence: "The band opted not to tour in support of Alice in Chains, adding to the rumors of drug abuse,[4][33] and tension between Cantrell and Staley." -was tension caused by rumours or by not touring? I looked at the source for "tension between Cantrell and Staley" and while it shows an occasion when they're tense it is not caused or added to by not touring according to that reference (please correct me if I'm wrong).--Kiyarrllston 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You will have to ask Skeletor2112 about the sentence. What do you mean a "bandmembers" section? Do you mean Alice in Chains#Band members? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a list - I am asking as to how you feel about a section - there is much talk in the article on relationships between the bandmembers and on the individual bandmembers, I think a nice 1 paragraph summary of each member's bio in the article would be nice.--Kiyarrllston 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that can't be done. This is the band's article, not the members. That is why the members have seperate pages. There has to be mentions of relationships between band members because it wouldn't be a band without members. It has been mentioned before, that delving to deep with members is against guidelines. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the sentence in question, but as far as a "band members" section - I cant find anything comparable in any other music FA's - can you give an example of what you mean? Thanks Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No - but I don't like in band articles that there are very few real sections other than the overarching "Chronology"/"History" Section. I thought perhaps there would be in Nsync or Pixies articles.--Kiyarrllston 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (In the interst of staying neutral, I am removing my vote, as I have worked significantly on the article in the past few days.) Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - a few small phrasing and prose issues aside, a very well done, in depth article. I must take issue with some of Indopug's points, however. Specifically:

    • "it doesn't mention that there were very strong rumours (maybe even true) floating in the 1990s about break-up and possible fighting between Cantrell and Staley."

    Why would any old rumors need inclusion? (or any rumor for that matter?) And how do you source a rumor? I thought Wikipedia was fact-based. Nothing to do with "oh maybe they were gonna break up in the 1990s and maybe they didnt get along" - how is that wiki-worthy? Other than a minor mention like "Amidst break up rumors, the band returned with ____", as long as it is sourced, but I dont see how that is holding the article back in the least.

    • "has no information like what inspired the albums, why the albums sounded the way they did. There are very few quotes from band members themselves about their music."

    Hmm, I dont see the point, or the manner in which you would even include how the albums are inspired, on a factual basis - barring that the album's inspiration is a major factor, such as a concept album. Aside from saying somthing small like "Man in the Box, which features lyrics about censorship" here or there. Or somthing classy like: "I was really stoned when I wrote it."<ref>''"Fuse TV Interview"'' (last accessed November 21, 2006)</ref> (from the Man in the Box song page.)

    Although I admit I am not a huge AIC fan, it is possible they have a deeper inspiration for stuff, (aside from the typical "dark themes" or "drugs/drug abuse"), but the "Musical style and influences" section makes mention of lyrical themes, uses quotes from members, ect.

    I cant imagine how you would source "why an album sounds like it does" while staying neutral - what, from a technical aspect - like what recording gear or guitars they used? The article uses ample quotes from noted reviewers as to the critical response.

    • "has no mention about how Alice in Chains were pioneers of the "alternative metal" genre. In fact that term isn't even used throughout the prose of the article."

    Taking a look at the alternative metal page, AIC is barely mentioned in passing as a "grunge" band. At least in the metal community (where I dwell), I rarely, if ever, hear the term "alternative metal". Of course most bands fit under 15 labels, and aside from possibly an infobox mention, I again don't see how that is holding the article back from FA.

    • "this article suffers from comprehensiveness issues due to the nominator not using 1990s magazine articles/interviews as sources."

    Really, this is an absurd statement. How are facts different if they are taken from a 1993 Spin magazine article or from the bands official online bio? Facts are facts, and should not change due to the publication year... Some editors above saying that Indopug meant using hard-copy sources, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the articles "comprehensiveness", I think it is very comprehensive.

    I think people that are opposing based on these points should take another look at the article, or other similar music FA's. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's strange you say these things, as you promoted Megadeth to FA status, and it's (or was) a whole lobt better article. :) Gocsa (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if Megadeth is a better article, but theres more to it because they have a lot more history, Alice in Chains only released 3 full albums (Megadeth 11) and AIC was defunct for a long time... Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alice in Chains has much much less history than Megadeth or newer FAs (such as Radiohead, U2, Nine Inch Nails). They were inactive from 1997-2005 and I'm not even sure if now they are active. The meat of their career lasted from 1990-1996, as opposed to Radiohead's 1992-present, U2's 1976-present. Look at Godsmack, they started in 1996 and are still going, that is longer than AiC, and that is a featured article. Seriously, if I can't get hold of information that wasn't there, then what is holding this back from being promoted? Six years, is the length these guys were active. And how the hell did they pioneer alt metal, that genre has been around forever, they did not pioneer it. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, if you can't get sources that is not an excuse for this article to be featured; Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and an FA is the best we can make it. Wesley's offered to help with the sources hasn't he, so I don't understand what the problem is. The only mention AIC has in Heavy metal music is as an mega-selling/influential alt metal band; I only assumed it was necessary to illustrate that in this article too. indopug (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't that fact that we can't get the sources, it is the fact that there are no sources that we can get. Sorry for making it sound like I was the only one editing, I didn't mean to. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, when is the last time you read through the article? When i set up the FAC it was 32KB now it is 37KB. It got longer, especially the "Dirt and Jar of Flies" section. Just check it out. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I am missing somthing, but what exactly in the article is unsourced? Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutly nothing. And that is pretty much the point of this conversation. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 06:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Skeletor2112 performed a thorough copy-edit of the article, and looks a lot better. So far there are six supports, four opposes, and two nuetrals. I encouraged all opposers to take another look at the article and re-comment here. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you addressed the Opposes over sourcing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My oppose still stands. it's a decent article, but it's not the best, or even the best it could possibly be. As I've said before, I can help look up sources and do some copyediting and prose revision. However, I am busy these days and any work I can contribute will be slow. I don't think we should rush this; this could be a very well-done article but I don't think enough has been done yet since I first commented here. Take a couple of months on the article before nominating it for FAC again; the article will be all the better for it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you think is wrong with it still? You misspelled something and it confused me. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the copy-edit has greatly improved the article but a great deal more information could be added if you used the sources I asked you to refer. That the nominator refuses to even acknowledge their importance in this article is what baffles me though. Surely you accept that referring that contemporary magazines will improve the article. Hence, if the article could be improved: its not the best it can be right now. (I think Wesley misspelled "or" as "oe"). indopug (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did use the sources you provided, look at the dirt section. I used the one where Jerry talks about Dirt but Skeletor2112 removed it, I asked him to put it back in. There were a couple that I didn't use; such as the one on Boggy Depot (that is about Jerry's solo album—no need to be in the article) and nothing could really be used from the Layne written piece. Seriously, what do you you mean by "the nominator refuses to even acknowledge their importance in this article"? I do too, there is a whole section! What else do you want! You give me such broad topics, yet never state exactly what it is you want. I think the article is the best it can be, I'm not just saying that as a nominator. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, there hasn't been enough research done. Look through nytimes.com and time.com for possible resources. I've got books I can read through at my local library. The prose is more subjective; it's workmanlike but with some work it could be "brilliant prose". There are some problems like the use of "their" when referring to the band (Alice in Chains is singular, so it should be "its"). And I just noticed, ref-22 is mistitled. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, can anyone give a practical exapmle of what more the article needs? Other than saying "its not ready" or "it doesn't use 1990's sources" (which it does - see the RollingStone.com articels used as cites?) The FAC page says "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Other than the its/their comment, and prose issues, Wesley, when you say "there hasn't been enough research done" - what exactly is missing from the article? Every tour is adressed, albums all have critical blurbs, chart info, all points of the band's history are adressed, the band's influence, the musical stlye, the formation/demise/reformation, ect are all adressed. The band only released 3 full albums, and really only toured 2 times. They were on drug hiatus for 3/4 of their career... as was said before, they are not comparable to bands with huge histories and 150 million albums sold, like U2 or Metallica. The article could go into way more detal about hiatuses, more on solo albums and the like, but the article is on Alice in Chains. People are making it sound like there is somthing left out, like the writer forgot to mention an album, or a tour, or somthing, but it's all in there. It seems like people want fluff, or non encyclopedic information? Like what the band members did on their downtime when the band was on forced hiatus?(and even that is mentioned with solo albums) Or what their favorite football team is or somthing? Seriously, just anything specific would be helpfull. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's lots of short paragraphs, some only one-sentence long. The musical style section is lax. It's more about what the band is classified as, rather than its concrete musical traits. I do have a Guitar World article where Jerry Cantrell talks about the band's music. I can go to my local library and review sources on grunge and metal (as I did when I was working on the FARs for Grunge music and Heavy metal music). As I've said before, I want to add material from it, but I really don't have the time right now. There are sources available that with some dilligence we can track down and review for information, but despite the work BurningClean has put into this article, he has admittedly not perused much of what is available. Thus I have to continute to oppose this article primarily on grounds of comprehensiveness. With time we can expand the article to something more closely resembling band articles by those with similiar success and notability (ie. Wilco). But I don't think this rush is helping matters. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And as for the use of "their" - are you sure that usage is incorrect? I think of Alice in Chains as a group of people, a "them" - like The Smashing Pumpkins article, the lead says "The Smashing Pumpkins broke into the musical mainstream with their second album". You wouldn't say "The Smashing Punmpkins broke into the musical mainstream with its second album", would you? Maybe you are talking about using their in different places? Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Smashing Pumpkins" refers to more than one individual (ie. a band of "Pumpkins"). "Alice in Chains" is a singular name. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But talking about the Smashing Pumpkins, one is actually referring to the group of people named The Smashing Pumpkins, not the actual "pumpkins". How can a group of people be an "it"? I started changing all of the "their's" to "its", but most really sound weird... Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In American English, collective nouns are singular, whereas in British English they are plural. Compare R.E.M. and Radiohead. Bands of individuals, however (ie. Smashing Pumpkins, New York Yankees--essentially group names that end in a plural "s") are plural. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Skeletor2112 and I have been working on the article the last couple of days, and I truely believe that all oppositions have been taken care of. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref-28 is unformatted. Also, don't link to websites that don't have permission to reprint old articles (see the Guitar World article referenced). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I just formated them properly. Those are one of the few sources I didn't retrieve. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When you add so much text to the article, newer and newer prose/MoS/sentence flow will obviously creep up. Why are (((these things))) in the reeferences? Why are both # and number used wrt chart positions? Why is 7 used instead of seven? Why does the men in a box RS reference not contain a publication date? Where is the cite for "The EP was released while Nirvana 's Nevermind was number one on the Billboard 200, resulting in an explosion of Seattle based bands, and the term grunge music."? Why is that ghastly logo which is not discussed in the article and supposedly (no cite) "resembles the sun" even there in the article? That Guitar World article is still linked to a copy-vio site. What do the lists of bands AiC toured with add to the article: Primus, Tool, Rage Against the Machine, and Babes in Toyland; Iggy Pop, Van Halen, Extreme and Poison; Metallica and Suicidal Tendencies? What is "Steattle"?
    Do you still "truely" believe this article should be FA? indopug (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's awesome that you can point out typos and stuff, but why not just fix a misspelling that was just added? (and if you notice, that was added after Burningclean posted above) By the way, what are "wrt chart positions"? Nitpicking aside, the Nirvana reference is in there. The "Man in a Box" Rolling Stone reference is fixed, as is the Guitar World one. ((()))'s are gone, 7 and # are too. The logo has been removed. The bands mentioned are notable, because they show the vastly diverse bands AIC toured with,(like the article says) from speed metal to funk, to punk to glam rock. Metallica and Suicidal is a famous tour they pulled out of the day before due to drug use. Metallica was touring on the 25th biggest selling album of all time in the US, which would have had a huge impact on AIC.
    And for the record, I do "truley" believe the article is "wrt" (aka, FA) Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    wrt is "with respect to" (its a common acronym in my part of the world). After one and a half months of FAC, an article shouldn't have typos and stuff. I just sought to prove that due to all the additional work thats gone into this article, new problems will inevitably creep up, and another thorough copy-edit (from fresh eyes) is required. Also, one month into an FAC is not when you should be rewriting the article significantly. Oh, and the rockonthenet Alice in Chains FAQ is unreliable. indopug (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats cool, I have never heard that acronym before - but what I was getting at is there is no need to mock someone's typos here when the article is what is in question - and "Steattle" was a typo I had just added. While I agree that all of this kind of work is best done before the FAC process, I am not the nominator, I just came apon this article and thought I could help improve it. Regardless though of how long it has been a FAC I do believe it is now up to par with other music FA's like Megadeth or Slayer. Can you explain how the Rockonthenet.com FAQ is unreliable? The author used it to reference a Grammy nomination and the Clash of the Titans tour. Two facts that can be referenced other places I am sure, but is there some reason Rockonthenet.com is "unreliable"? Skeletor2112 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I haven't really followed the improvement of the article since I opposed, and I don't really have the time or interest to read and check the whole thing again. I see it got better now, although it still hardly uses offline sources, like magazines from the 90's. So I agree with the people saying it could use a little more research, as magazines and such are more reliable, and (more importantly) neutral than say a biography on the band's website. Gocsa (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, indopug + NSR77 + WesleyDodds = 3 opposes. indopug (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, sorry, I overlooked NSR77. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well constructed article. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dead links still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Also, three oppose, seven support, three nuetral. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see six supports, three opposes, and no indication that the opposers' issues have been addressed since I last asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Two people were nuetral from the start (one was a support but was changed because he worked on the article) and one opposer changed his to a nuetral. I strongly belive that all the article needs is a good copyedit from fresh eyes, therefore I contacted WP:LOCE. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I have to add that I do think the opposers' issues have been adressed. Here are indopug's issues:

    • "Primarily, this article suffers from comprehensiveness issues due to the nominator not using 1990s magazine articles/interviews as sources."
    Many new quotes and info from magazine articles from the 1990's have been added, although I don't see how the year of the source matters that much. a glance at the references sections shows there are now 9 1990's magazine sources.
    • "it lacks information why the band toured so sporadicaly in their career, i.e. Staley's substance abuse. "
    Info on substance abuse and lack of touring has been added throughout the article - see Dirt and Alice in Chains for examples.
    • "it doesn't mention that there were very strong rumours (maybe even true) floating in the 1990s about break-up and possible fighting between Cantrell and Staley."
    Although I don't see how rumors are even remotely encyclopedic, a sourced mention was added to the Alice in Chains section.
    • "has no information like what inspired the albums, why the albums sounded the way they did. There are very few quotes from band members themselves about their music."
    Quotes have been added all through the article, info on the band's intentions for albums, ect. See Facelift and Sap, Dirt, and the Jar of Flies sections.
    • "has no mention about how Alice in Chains were pioneers of the "alternative metal" genre. In fact that term isn't even used throughout the prose of the article."
    Again I have to say that the term is not often used, (the band is barely mentioned in the alternative metal page as a grunge band) AIC is primarily identified as a grunge/hard rock or metal band.

    These are the points that people "opposed per indopug." Maybe I missed what you are talking about Sandy, is there somthing specific we have not adressed? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, I overlooked WesleyDodds's issues:

    • "There's lots of short paragraphs, some only one-sentence long. The musical style section is lax."
    All short paragraphs have been fixed, musical style section has been expanded - info on the bands distinctive traits(harmony vocals, guitar sound, ect) have been added.
    • "I have to continute to oppose this article primarily on grounds of comprehensiveness."
    Although not a really specific issue, the article has a lot more "meat" now, and I think it is very comprehensive. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "two number one albums"—a hyphen, do you think?
      • "a high charting song for the band and is thought to be one of the band's heaviest songs to date by All Music Guide." Hyphen missing. "For the band" might be a put-down. Specific reference for the "thought to be"?
      • Most of the quotes use the required "logical" punctuation, but ... Staley said, "I know I'm near death, I did crack and heroin for years. I never wanted to end my life this way." and "Drugs worked for me for years," Staley told ... etc.
      • Four music samples is bumping up against the maximum justifiable under our NFC rules. Not all are couched in educational terms.
      • Pity so many of your references have no author. Can we trust their authority? Tony (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for the notes - can you explain the 3rd point you listed? Should those quotes use somthing else for punctuation, or some other format? I'm not sure what you mean by "logical punctuation".
    Pretty much every reference without an author is a general fact reference,(the Rolling Stone article "Men in a Box" doesn't list an author for some reason...) like chart positions, release dates, ect. Anything specific that jumps out at you? The other notes have been adressed, Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Any hope of accessing old copies of The Rocket to add quotes and cites for details? I believe that no article on the Seattle Grunge scene should achieve Featured Article status without use of this important source. The only reason I don't try to argue that this requirement is essential & unavoidable is that I don't know if more than the odd back issue is accessible beyond private collections & maybe a research library or two -- or if any collections of this periodical exists. -- llywrch (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I kind of doubt any would be available considering it has been out of publication since 2000. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • llywirch brings up a valid point, referring The Rocket would give an excellent contemporary overview of the band, especially before its rise to stardom. I'm not sure about the absence of reprints on the net though; I managed to find some while researching for "Touch Me I'm Sick", so some digging would be welcome. indopug (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a quick look at the Nirvana, grunge, and Pearl Jam articles shows no cites from The Rocket, and all three are FA's. I think AiC's "rise to stardom" is pretty well covered in the Formation and Facelift and Sap sections, using the July 1990 "Link With Brutality" Circus Magazine interview, along with the band retrospectives in the Music Bank biography, and the AMG biography. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK cool then. It was just a suggestion,as I thought it would shed a new perspective on the band's origins. indopug (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose looks reasonable, and shouldn't alone stand in the way of promotion. But why is there an en dash in "Seattle–based bands"? And "follow–up album"? These should be hyphens. Please read MOS on this. This quote starts within a WP sentence, yes? Cantrell said, "We deal with our daily demons through music. All of the poison that builds up during the day we cleanse when we play."—So the final dot goes after the closing quotes. Needs checking throughout. Tony (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I took care of the en dashes, and fixed the quotation punctuation throughout the article. Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing I just noticed, the article uses the All Music Guide bio as a source 12 times. While AMG is reliable, its bio is a tertiary source (This means that the overview was written by compiling information from interviews/articles--primary/secondary sources). Since Wikipedia is also a tertiary source, I think it would be risky to rely so heavily on another one--notice how other other new band FAs don't use it. It might be apt here to source whatever information you do to the AMG bio to magazine articles themselves where ever possible/feasible, for added reliability.
    Other than that most of my concerns have indeed been addressed; as for alt metal, I was referring to Heavy metal music (an FA) which mentions AiC's Dirt as a best-selling alt metal album, which lead me to believe AiC was a defining alt metal band. The style section could use a ce; the last, 3-sentence, paragraph uses the words "lyrics" and "vocals" four times each. (Shouldn't Seattle based be Seattle-based?) Rockonthenet.com is not a reliable source, its alright for a list of Grammy noms but something like an FAQ might be dodgy.
    Fix these and I look forward to supporting, this article has come a long way :) indopug (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I took care of the redundant words in the style section, the hyphen, and the rockonthenet.com sources are only used for grammy nominations, and vh1/mtv awards/nominations. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get on that, I have the weekend now anyway. I have to say though, I am not very good at all with copyediting. would you mind doing that one? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I got the AMG down to six uses, all for good purposes and replaced the rest. I also got rid of the FAQ source. that means that all that is left is the section copyedit. O-3 S-7 —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator has asked me to do a ce, which I intend to do in detail. However, since I really believe it is necessary to again go through the article completely (fact-checking, cross-referencing, prose improvement... the whole shindig.) since it has been pretty much rewritten since I last reviewed it (in the old nom), this will take me around a week or so. Plus, I am swamped off-wiki. Considering the length of this FAC already, I wonder if it may not be better that this be taken off-FAC so that I can bring forth my concerns in leisure. (And I still sadly have quite a few serious concerns, for eg: "Alice in Chains' has cited many musical influences, including... Van Halen." - Firstly, the band doesn't say anyting in the ref; the AMG bio author says AIC "Draw[s] equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal". This has COMPLETELY different meaning from the band saying that they were influenced by Van Halen.) However, if the noms still refuse to withdraw the nom, I will try to do my best over the next week. Peace, indopug (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very long, I'm debating if it should be closed and a new one opened. I shall ask Skeletor2112 on that. Also, I belive he is the one that provided the source for the Van Halen deal. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This one has been a FAC for a looong time, I think it's close, so why not just finish it up here? I took out Van Halen as an influence, that one has been in there forever and I dont think either of us sourced that to begin with, but yeah, that was definitely a bad cite. I went through and rechecked all of the sources, and after a few more fixes everything looks good, every magazine source is good, the biography, review, grammy/award, and interview cites are all double checked. Ceoil has just done a copyedit as well. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it does need closure. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 13:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - I'm very busy off-wiki now, so I'm sorry but I can't devote any time to fact-checking (despite my promise to). All my initial comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed but I would suggest withdrawal because the article and the nominators deserve an FAC free from arguments and fighting; also, neutral non-music reviewers too will chip in with valuable advice. Besides, Wesley promised to add his source which would only improve the article and dare I say it, maybe even make it perfect. Thank you, indopug (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indopug, I would like to thank you very much, because you pushed me to get this article to the very best it can possibly be. Weasley has admitted that he has not been able to collect the source, therefore I do not belive that this article should be without promotion. Once or if weasly does retrieve that information, i would like for it to be added, but I do not belive that should hold this back. Information will be added to articles as the band or whatever it my be get older and progress, featured or not. SandyGeorgia has stated that if we come to an agreement on sources, that she will close the FAC. Thank you, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My long list of suggestion were addressed. --Efe (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note There are eight supports (seven if I am not included), two opposes, and four nuetrals. It seems as though all concerns have been addressed, although the two opposers that are left have not seen this progress. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [31] unreliable for biographical information; and that too it is the first cite!! A reliable source has to be "scholarly", this brief concert bio is not. "Alice Mudgarden, Music and lyrics: Jerry Cantrell:" why is that in italics? (don't pass it off as minor and expect me to deal with it, such problems would've been quickly handled in a normal FAC) I wonder if I was a bit too hasty in changing my vote... indopug (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm... Okay, the source is gone. "Alice Mudgarden, Music and lyrics: Jerry Cantrell:" is in italics because that is the format of the citation, it isn't something an editor did. Look at it if you don't believe me. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:00, 11 February 2008.

    Birmingham campaign[edit]

    I'm nominating this article on the 1963 Civil Rights demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama for featured article because I have worked on the article since October, scouring resources, asking for peer review (you can find it here) with minimal feedback. I hope to have done this subject justice in writing this article. I will remain watchful of the nomination and do what needs to be done to see it to featured article status. Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose by Dweller

    Not yet FA quality. Here's a selection of problems found from a quick tour of the article. This is not comprehensive.

    • I found the following rather incongruous: "Racial violence was notorious in the city. Singer Nat King Cole was assaulted on stage in 1957 by three white men."... followed by description of 50 racial bombings. The article seems to be proving the racial violence by the minor attack on NKC, with the 50 bombings as an afterthought! Drop the NKC reference; it's trivial.
    I removed the statement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Lead includes the term "African American"... it's the only such usage in the whole article. I'm fairly ignorant on these sensitive issues... is this an anachronism? Further, it's odd to find jargon used in the Lead if it won't be used in the article.
    I changed this. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be more comfortable if the Lead were at least one paragraph longer... say the opening parag summarising the issue, the next giving some narrative and the third looking at the impact. Two parags just seems insubstantial and the current opening parag seems crammed to me.
    I added some information to the lead.--Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section heading "Battle of Birmingham" strikes me as POV as there's no reference in the article to such a usage in RS
    Was titled this in one of my references, but I changed it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abraham Woods claim is apparently unsourced.
    Fixed.--Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wyatt Tee Walker wrote in retrospect of the impact that the Birmingham campaign is "legend"" is poor English
    Fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two photo captions say they're "iconic images". That's repetitious and, unsupported, POV. I also believe that if you're going to use fair use images, you need to refer to them extensively in the text. That'd help you overcome another current shortcoming - captions should be brief.
    I had to get assistance with two of the photos. It is my understanding that the photos in question can only be used in the article if they are iconic, and it has to be made clear in the article that the photos impacted society or photography in some way. This is why the Images of the day section was included. The editor in question who helped me with this, Carcharoth, and I have an extensive discussion about this on the talk page.
    We're in agreement... what I'm saying is that detailed discussion of the pics needs to go into the text, not the captions. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I shortened the captions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still unhappy with the captions. Captions should tersely explain what the image is, not go into detail. They're all trying to tell the story, when they should merely be identifiers that refer helpfully to the text. "Photograph showing the wreckage of a bomb explosion near the Gaston Motel where Martin Luther King, Jr., and leaders in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference were staying during the Birmingham campaign of the Civil Rights movement." for example could simply read "Wreckage following the Gaston Motel bombing". Placed alongside the appropriate text, that's it. And if the text isn't there, why is the image?
    It's such a good story to tell. I shortened the captions again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may comment on the captions and the pictures, it is important not to shorten the captions too much (that can lead to readers being uncertain what the connection is with the article), and not to leave important information on the image page - we mustn't rely on the reader clicking through to get important historical information like dates - all the important information should be in the caption or the article. Wikipedia:Captions says "Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture." For a historical article like this, the dates of the pictures is important. Many times I've seen pictures that looked fine, but when you check the image page, the date was wrong for what the image was being used to illustrate! And if I may pick up on two comments by Dweller, "captions should be brief" and "should tersely explain what the image is" - this doesn't tell the full story. Captions should succintly explain what the image is, but for information-dense images, sometimes long captions are needed. The basic, "who, what, where, when, why?" questions should be considered and answered. For fair-use images, the situation is more complicated. Sometimes repetition (sometimes supplying the same information using different words) between the caption, the surrounding text, and the fair-use rationale is needed to drive home the point of why the picture is being used (especially details of where and when it was published, and the impact of the picture) - otherwise you have people saying "not enough commentary". Regarding "iconic", that sort of thing should be sourced, but if it is, then it is not POV to say that. As Moni points out, Birmingham campaign#Images of the day more than adequately covers the story the two fair-use pictures tell. I would be happy to discuss the individual captions in greater details at Talk:Birmingham campaign if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I found some punctuation errors (1 example:"demonstrations' organizers"). I suggest a copyedit.
    If there were multiple demonstrations, the possessive of those would be demonstrations', would it not? --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be correct. That's me not reading carefully enough. I did notice some others that less likely to be my mistake! If I find a few mins, I might fix em myself. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry... hope that helps improve the article. --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not apologize. I appreciate the feedback and will do what it takes to see this to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "employing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s policies of nonviolent action to disrupt the city's functioning by filling the jails to capacity, and deliberately flouting laws they considered unfair." Poor English and the sense is unclear. My guess is that what is intended is "employing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s policies of nonviolent action to disrupt the city's functioning by deliberately flouting laws considered unfair in order to fill the city's jails to capacity." Is that correct? --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I altered the lead, particularly the sentence you highlighted. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I've not revisited the article recently. Thanks for the reminder. I still firmly believe the article needs a thorough copyedit, something reinforced by the kind of pernickety pedantic comments I'm about to make and the changes I've made and will make in the article itself. So, I continue to oppose the promotion of the article on the basis of 1a. Which is a shame, as it's the easiest thing to have fixed (get it copyedited) and the most fiddly (and all-round irritating to all) to oppose on at FAC.

    So, new issues below. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead:

    • Quote from MLK in Lead - is it necessary here?
    The idea that people would voluntarily get arrested in large numbers defies common sense. The purpose of direct action, I thought, had to be explained well and early. That quote did it better than I could. I can move it to another section, but I have to remember that people are reading this who have no concept of activism or direct actions. It's a vital explanation to make. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Project 'C'" formatting looks odd
    Would it look even more odd in italics? Grammar and punctuation-wise, it is accurate. Let me know if you have a suggestion.--Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • photo caption "causing" doesn't sound right - try "prompting"? "eliciting"?
    Seems to have been done. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ran low on volunteers to risk arrest" perhaps "prepared to risk" is better
    Done. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grammar of that entire sentence needs review
    I split it into two sentences.--Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second para seems to focus too much on the thinking behind and not enough on what actually happened for a summary (eg Lead doesn't actually say there was brutality, just that it was hoped it would be prompted)
    I added more detail. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More will follow. Or perhaps you might prefer to put this on hold pending a copyedit and everyone can (hopefully) pile-on support? --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's in the realm of the league of copy editors right now. I await their suggestions or tinkering as well. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice one. OK, please drop me a line when it's been done and I'll be happy to come back here. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again, Dweller. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Feedback from Kiyarr
    • Query: could the sentence "Black churches were often targeted[,] for hosting mass meetings[,] where civil rights were often discussed." be improved by replacing with "Black churches often hosted discussions on civil rights"? - does the sentence refer to "targeted (for racial bombings)"? is there a source for this?--Kiyarrllston 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the churches were targeted for bombings when they hosted mass meetings. There are sources. Is your suggestion for me to revise that statement and cite it? --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do suggest that. I had misunderstood the meaning of the sentence. I perceived some ambiguity as to whether the targeting refers to 'for racial bombings' or 'for meetings'
    Citing a source would definitely improve it.
    Thanks for answering.
    --Kiyarrllston 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote the sentence and provided a source. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I note around 6 occasions where parenthesis are used unnecessarily and flow could be improved by removing them.--Kiyarrllston 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I don't know if I reverted 6 occasions of parenthases, but I changed a few. There are only three left, the abbreviations for ACMHR and NAACP, and "see top of page" in the "Images of the day" section. --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to reiterate that I will do what is necessary to see the article to its best quality. I have addressed the issues here and invite the editors who commented on the article to revisit it, and encourage anyone else to do so as well. I very much appreciate your time. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Support
    I believe - the article is not badly written - not nearly brilliantly written either however, I believe FA status requires more flow and expedience than is currently in the article- a more professional level of writing.
    If this is something you are able to put into words, such as improve the flow between the sections, or make connections between certain sections, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [done]The organization is mostly good - suggested improvements: heading -"D" Day- could be replaced with a more informative one, "References" heading could be replaced by "Citations" or "Notes" or "Footnotes" - as to distinguish from Bibliography
    Changed.--Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [???]'m not sure the article is NPOV. Martin Luther King is often treated as a hero in popular culture - which is definitely un-encyclopedic - .
    This I have to address. I agree King is treated as a hero in general, but I hope to have included a fair account of the criticism the campaign received at the time, other than the obvious criticism by Connor and the conservative element in Birmingham. Shuttlesworth was considered by many to be a panderer to publicity and King's advisers bickered with each other, but these are parts of the story that I don't really consider appropriate for an encyclopedic article - more for what one learns when one goes out and reads all the books about it. But criticism of King was kept fairly quiet. The editor of the Birmingham World, instead of criticizing King, simply refused to print any news about the demonstrations outside of editorials, which are mentioned in the article. There were times that King's advisers were frustrated with him for hesitating in making decisions, and I included that as well. If there are specific parts you think should be edited that seem to put too much emphasis on King's actions or reputation, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it very unusual that you say he is treated as a hero in general - I guess it is not so easy to treat him otherwise.--Kiyarrllston 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that criticism of King is not really forthcoming from people who are not avowed racists. I was referring to his historical legacy as a whole, not in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [done]I am not sure the lead properly "summarizes" the article - there seems to be more than one movement or project -Project "C"- and -"D" Day or "Children's Crusade"- aren't really noted at all within the lead yet the latter, the use of children, seems was the most effective part of it.
    I rewrote the lead once more. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [not done]I think this article should note the larger picture - the Civil Rights Movement - which it doesn't seem to except when talking about the president's actions.
    The Albany campaign is mentioned as a factor helping leaders to decide what NOT to do. King made a deliberate decision to stay in Birmingham during the campaign, leaving only twice for weekends, which helped to focus as much attention on Birmingham as possible. In the impact section, the Birmingham campaign is connected to the Selma marches. Are there specific connections you were hoping to see? --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the birmingham fit into the larger picture? How does this even affect people today? - Was this at the beginning of Martin Luther King's Career? (had he given the "I have a dream" speech yet?) - I see that it is said to be "Civil Rights Movement's most important chapter" - what was the following chapter? what was the preceeding chapter? --Kiyarrllston 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    King gave the I Have a Dream speech in the summer of 1963, after the Birmingham campaign, which is mentioned in the "After the campaign" section. In the "Background" section there is a paragraph about the previous chapter - the Albany movement, which was not successful, and how the campaign's organizers did their best not to make the same mistakes in Birmingham as they did in Albany. Other connections to Civil Rights Movement chapters are made: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Selma, Alabama marches, Medgar Evers' inspiration from the Birmingham campaign to do the same in Jackson, Mississippi, and Roy Wilkins' views that other chapters had a bigger influence on civil rights. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [done]Thank you for putting a friendly notice in my talk page. I strongly suggest WP:CANVASSing in the form of friendly notices to parties interested both in improving the article and those interested in reviewing it - have you contacted past contributors to this article or frequent contributors to the FAC or PR pages? members of the Copy-editing league?
    I will look into this. I put notes on the Civil Rights article talk page and the WP:Discrimination talk page. I'll search for others. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reading this comment. I am very amenable to elaborate and expound on anything I wrote in this comment, please feel free to ask.
    --Kiyarrllston 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Personally I dislike articles where the organization consists only of a chronology treatment - a possibility that goes away from this is the creation of a section on "Actors"/"Political Actors" - where you could note the sides to this "conflict" or campaign. - What do you think of this?
    I have to consider this more. I'm not so in love with the idea because it would make the article quite unstable during FAC. Plus, there is an element, specifically in this article, of one day's actions compounding upon the next until a crisis situation was reached. Without chronology, I'm not sure this tension and near-chaos can be related adequately.
    Once more, I appreciate your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I helped out with some of the images but have only tweaked and copyedited the text, which was largely written by Moni. I've watched the article grow and improve since I helped with the images. I've read the article several times, and each time I've found it well-written and well-referenced (with some of the suggestions here improving it still further). I also support the chronological narrative approach. The article might need a little polish here and there, but I don't see any substantive objections to it being featured, particularly as Moni is working to address the concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Weak Oppose until copyedited. I began browsing earlier today before I got sidetracked. Main issue (as always) is prose. Main issue (as always) is prose. great topic to choose for FAC and I'll do what I can to get it through. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    :You need to avoid repetition - in 2nd para of A city of segregation, bomb or some variation thereof is used 3 times very quickly (excluding 'Bombingham')

    Birmingham's black population began to organize to affect change. - you could lose this sentence without losing meaning. It doesnt add anything really.
    I will consider this. If it is deleted by the league of copy editors, I will leave it out. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shuttlesworth's home was repeatedly bombed, - do we know how many times over what period? Would be great to put in to get a real feeling for this. MOS also likes specifics. vague otherwise
    I'll check on this information and add it to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Be good to have how long MLKs campaign in Albany Georgia slotted in - to give a comparison. You can slot in length in this sentence here - although the (x-length) campaign had been described as a - and ref it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will add this to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The City of Birmingham responded not only with arresting picketers and people at sit-ins. - using "not only" requires a second clause with "but also" or something similar. it is missing here and the sentence sounds weird as is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hesitant to change much until the league of copy editors looks at it. I'm going to wait on this for now.--Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They had their supporters who watched and lent their encouragement on the sidelines, but many were too alienated to get involved. - I don;t understand the 2nd bit. why were they alienated. Do you mean lost interest or just had to look after families or....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't want to get arrested. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Casliber, I appreciate your comments and your work on the article. I hope not to upset you, but I reverted your grammar and punctuation changes. Some of your changes made the content inaccurate. For example, you changed "inter-racial" to "interracial" in a quote by Albert Boutwell, and it needs to stay exactly as it was written. Also, I prefer that people's last names are used instead of titles - it makes for a more even and NPOV article. I have the article with the league of copy editors, and I'm awaiting their potential edits to what exists now. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Erm, yes. I must admit I don't appreciate 2 hours of my time blanket-changed. Some of the changes are pretty obvious redundancies and repetitions which you can see for yourself. It really needs addressing. I've clarified as Oppose above but will happily support if the prose is fixed. I'll leave it now then and come back after copyediting. I am curious as to what is the difference between interracial and inter-racialcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Live and learn. Long ago I learned not to edit after drinking a lot. Yesterday I learned not to edit after not sleeping for two days...So I went through and incorporated some of your suggestions and changed the 2nd paragraph under "A city of segregation". I know you put a lot of work into the edit and I apologize for dismissing it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly there Support - I was just looking at it again - the other issue is to me it seems a little 'bare' in places somehow. Given it was a campaign to effect change, I was hoping After the campaign would expand a bit on how things changed in the city afterwards - how quickly segregation actually took to occur and figures in terms of wages, employment etc. How quickly african-american assumed jobs previously denied them (eg police etc.), and how harmonious or otherwsie it was (i.e. locally as well as its role in initiating change across the country). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded this section. I could not find information about wages and employment other than that it was months before clerks were hired, and 1967 before the first black police officer was hired, but I did address different aspects of success of the campaign. --Moni3 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Good, this was exactly the sort of info I meant. I am fascinated at how the demographic change would occur once the laws were changed - the examples you give about clerks and police officer above are great. Ok, on day 'x' the parks were desegregated - did many african american people enter straightaway? Did folks stay away for a while? Were there any notable retaliations? How quickly did schools desegregate? etc. Any more would be great but we're just over into FA territory now for mine. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—1a. Here are random samples of why the whole text needs a couple of hours' attention by a good copy-editor. Please don't just address these issues:

    • Don't we know what "jails" are? Why is it linked? Other trivial links still should go throughout—otherwise they dilute the high-value ones and annoy readers. Please audit.
      • I removed the link around "jail" and a few other common words throughout the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... negotiation."—Period last if the quotation starts within a WP sentence. See MOS.
      • The article had a thorough copy edit by the LOCE, but I changed this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First caption: rather long. MOS says keep them short. Can some be just in the info page, and/or the main text?
      • There is a discussion above between Dweller and Carcharoth about the appropriate length of captions under iconic images, specifically when the images are a part of the subject of the article. I admit I'm relatively inexperienced in FA, especially in the realm of images, but I tend to agree with Carcharoth about the captions needing good descriptions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Project 'C' ", —ungainly quotes: please use italics for C instead.
    • "Not all of the demonstrators were nonviolent"—double negative could be avoided with "peaceable", perhaps.
      • Changed to "peaceful".--Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stronger flow without "also" in the third para.
    • "By the end of the campaign, though, King's reputation was enhanced,..."—"though" has an attitudinal ring to it; more formal is "However, by the end ...".
      • Changed much of this paragraph for accuracy and your suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a model for later campaigns in other cities, succeeded in effectively shutting down the city,..."—Can you avoid the rep of "city/ies"? Remove "later", or maybe "for other campaigns in the ?south"?
    • towardS can be an adjective, not "toward".
    • "Pay scale differences between white and black workers at the local steel mills were common, and the average income for blacks in the city was less than half that of whites." Hmmm ... the second statement is much more dramatic and makes the pay "differences" seem vague, even coy. And were the black pay scales more or less than the white? Say "Significantly lower pay scales for black workers ... were common ...". I hope it's a reputable source for the "half"—these stats are notoriously reliant on the way things are counted. (I'm not, BTW, disputing the significance of the disparity.)
      • Sentence altered. The source's author, David Garrow, has written several books about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jobs that were possible for blacks consisted of manual labor"—ungainly and the wrong meaning. "Blacks were restricted to jobs such as ...?? Tony (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "Jobs that were available..." --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comments, Tony1. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to warrant your support. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update by Moni3: I'm covering my bases here, so this is no reflection on the promptness of the following editors who have contributed to this FAC.

    • Thanks, Moni3; it helps when nominators keep the FAC apprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Moni3, for leaving a comment on my user talk page.--Kiyarrllston 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all. Thank you for helping to make it an excellent article, as it deserves to be. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improved; I still see a MOS breaches in the position of the final dot: "... firing line." and others; please check through for this (the dot) where quotes start within WP sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) January 29, 2008
      • Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks seems to suggest that it is correct to have the period inside the quotation marks: "Correct: Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The period is part of the quoted text.) " In this case, the quote is a full sentence: "Real men don't put their children on the firing line." Thus the period goes inside the quote marks, surely? Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies. I must have missed that message. Really sorry. I'll take a look through the article once more and get back here as soon as I can. <most embarrassed - sorry again> --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Post copy-edit reiterate Oppose by User:Dweller
    • Continued oppose I'm afraid I'm still finding a lot of issues, although thankfully they're now more factual/narrative than grammatical etc. As there are so many, I'll stick with oppose. I began commenting in depth, but the list is extremely lengthy, and is based on just a chunk of the article. This sort of stuff should be picked up at PR, in my opinion. FWIW, here's the detailed comments, but, sadly, it'll take a lot more than just fixing these to turn me round. Please go back to PR (I assume the article went there before FAC):
    • I'm very confused about the attorneys when King was in jail. Did he or didn't he get represented? Article implies he didnt because they wouldnt be left alone. Further, article first mentions block on NAACP attorneys, but then mentions legal pad given to him by SCLC attorneys. So did the second lot manage to see him when the first were blocked, or are they one and the same (in which case, why the different name?) or did he get visited by both, but article implies the first couldn't and doesn't explicitly say the second did! Phew!
    • "jail administrators wished King to be out of jail as soon as bail could be raised and paid," I presume the source verifies this, but why would this be so?
    • Supporters pressured" In English English, this would be pressurised, or pressed. Is this OK in American?
    • Did Mrs King phone the Kennedys after she was advised to?
    • "His arrest attracted national attention, including that of corporate officers of retail chains with stores in downtown Birmingham. After King's arrest, the chains' profits began to erode, and national business owners pressed the Kennedy administration to intervene." Suggest reword..., esp. as last subject ("His" would refer) is a baby, not MLK. "King's arrest had attracted national attention, including that of [some term less fussy than "corporate officers"] of retail chains with stores in downtown Birmingham. The chains' national sales figures were down [too preemptive to talk about profits, and clarify it's nationally, not in Birmingham] following King's arrest, and the owners pressed the Kennedy administration to intervene."
    • Impression given that Jaqueline K calls because of the business leaders, but it's not clear.
    • "He was released on 20 April, but the campaign faltered because it was running out of demonstrators willing to risk arrest. In addition, although Connor had used police dogs to assist in the arrest of demonstrators, this did not attract the media attention that organizers had hoped for." - multiple problems. First, the failure of the campaign is dismissed in a couple of brief sentences tacked onto MLK's imprisonment. Secondly, the first reason stated is apparently unsourced. Thirdly, in what way can the campaign be said to have "failed" - against what criteria is it considered to have failed? All this is too important to hide and deal with at speed in an otherwise apparently irrelevant paragraph section.
    • "D" Day. Consistent with "Project C" etc, the name should be entirely within quotes. You'll need to nest them if the original name included quote marks
    • Presumably, the "Children's Crusade" was a reference to the Children's Crusade? This is worth noting.
    • There must be a relevant specific wikilink for Prom queen
    • Why would prom queens and athletes be particularly open to recruitment, as opposed to other kids? Should it mean that they were particularly sought out, rather than the implication that they were prone to recruitment?
    • "skipped school" is a little informal
    • "When no squad cars were left to block the city streets" - they were blocking the streets with cars? Why? Against pedestrian demonstrators... how?

    More to follow --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to Dweller: I'm going to address your specific points, because I can't address the more nebulous comments ("it'll take a lot more than just fixing these to turn me round," for example). --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for taking so long to make these changes - I had to check out some of my references from the library again in order to address your points. Letter from Birmingham Jail (with or without the "a") has its own article. I answered your questions by shifting some sentences, adding a couple of sentences, but hesitate to add more to this section so as not to draw attention away from the campaign as a whole. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. No worries about taking time to respond... there's no rush. Not sure what you meant about Letter from Birmingham Jail, but I assume it's fine. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to be honest and say I don't know what you don't understand about why Birmingham jail administrators wanted King out quickly. Yes, they despised him, but King brought intense national attention to Birmingham. They didn't want King in jail - they wanted him to shut up and be gone. Also, I'm not sure what is confusing about recruiting popular, attractive, and athletic students to lead others to march. Successful students get along with adults better than troublemakers, and organizers wanted picture-perfect button down all-American kids to participate, not hoodlums. I suppose one could read it as the kids were easy to manipulate, because they were, in a manner, used for a cause, but that is not a point I feel that is the responsibility of the article to make. Another issue I'm not sure confuses you: squad cars and barricades were brought in to block the streets because the police were expecting small numbers - maybe 20 students. There are no sources I read that indicate how many students the police were expecting, but a few addressed the surprise of the police. The article states that James Bevel told Bull Connor that they were going to march, but didn't say how many were going to be there. Connor assumed squad cars would be able to take a small number of students to jail, not 600. Plus, these were kids, pliable second-class citizens who were supposed to be terrified of police. I'm sure it was inconceivable to police at the time to watch children coming out of church in their starched Sunday clothes to run pell mell to avoid arrest. They very calmly or enthusiastically walked directly to the police and expected to be arrested. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the mayor etc would have wanted King out of town, but the "jail administrators"? I thought you were implying that he caused problems to the jail specifically (but the article doesn't say that).--Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with the idea of targetting athletes etc. The point I was making was that the article says "He was most successful in recruiting" some types of children, meaning he was less successful recruiting others. There's no intuitive logical reason why this should be so, so either information is missing or the wording is misleading. Try dropping "most"? --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't (don't) see a mention of barricades, just police cars. It seemed to me that cars were a particularly ineffectual way of trying to block pedestrians and I was puzzled as to why the police would choose to do that. If you're saying there were cars and barricades too then something's missing --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In reference to the campaign faltering after King's arrest, again...confusion to your confusion. The article doesn't state that the campaign had failed, but that it was faltering, slowing. It was losing momentum, media attention, and not getting Birmingham residents to volunteer in mass numbers to be arrested. Their goals were to shut down the functioning of the city in order to be able to negotiate for desegregation. The lead mentions the purpose of nonviolent direct action. --Moni3 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, well taken. I do think that this pair of sentences deserves more attention than being tacked at the end of the parags about MLK's imprisonment. Logically, I'd suggest they could be relocated as an introductory paragraph at the top of the next section. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pressured" in American parlance is more appropriate than "pressurized", which would more accurately refer to treatment of wood or some such other substance. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then of course you have to stick with it! I wasn't sure. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I re-linked Soviet Union. I don't believe it is a common term any longer, especially for young people. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what this refers to, but no problem. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I kept the link to "prom queen", keeping it because it's an American reference. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I saw the article I thought it was just pointing to Prom (on the word "prom" alone), but this could be my mistake. Either way, it's fine now. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Newsweek source doesn't connect the marches to the medieval Children's Crusade. I'm not sure I can do that if the source itself doesn't. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I take your point. How about a footnote along the lines of "The term Children's Crusade has a notable history, originating from the 1212 Children's Crusade." By focussing on the origins of the term, we should be able to avoid OR. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Skipping school" is not so informal in the US, but I changed it to "truant".--Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lastly, I have to disagree that the article needs to be returned to PR. It has had a thorough copy edit by LOCE, I have addressed the points I assume are the most glaring to you and to other editors as well as I could. The article has support from some qualified editors in the FA process, ones I respect, as I noticed, so do you. At the top of this FAC request is the link to the disappointing response the article got from PR when I placed it there. I don't have faith that it will get any more attention if I denominate it. It's difficult to discern from me, I imagine, if I'm responding your suggestions because of this lengthy FAC, but I hope to relay the utmost respect, and I'm doing my best to weigh your concerns with the integrity of the article in its entirety. That said, I continue to appreciate your input. I feel that this article is quite excellent due to the suggestions of my fellow editors. The article is very well-written, and a tribute to an event that I have always found fascinating. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've discussed this on our talk pages. I understand your stance and will try to make good on the promises I made, although it may take until early next week as I rarely edit at weekends. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I took out "most", moved the sentences about the faltering campaign to the next section, replaced the word "barricades" because it was in there at some point and can't remember taking it out - was probably removed to consolidate terms during one of its many copy edits, and expanded the footnote for "Children's Crusade". --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified Dweller of my comments here. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments I've copyedited this today. It's really quite good, and I changed little. Some remaining issues:
    • "High school, college, and some elementary students" - 'some' on the last type here rather implies 'all' for the others.
    • "During the protest, the Birmingham Police Department " - till now, there's no reference to a specific protest, only 'protests'; please clarify the one referred to here.
    • "Martin Luther King, Jr.," should either be used consistently throughout, or the 'Jr.' should be dropped consistently after the first full use. As is, the article switches indiscriminately between the two forms.
    • "their conversation was brief and he was guarded, as he correctly assumed that his phones were tapped." - it's unclear which definition of 'was guarded' is meant here; suggest "their conversation was brief and guarded" as less ambiguous.
    • "The campaign, however, was faltering because it was running out of demonstrators willing to risk arrest." - 'however' is quite awkward after a double section break.
    • Quotes are used for "Project C" and should therefore be used for "D Day".
    • "more than a thousand students were truant from school and showed up" - this is an odd mix of active and passive verbs.
    • "In June 1963, the Jim Crow signs that segregated public places in Birmingham were taken down." - the signs didn't segregate the places.
    • "Birmingham's public schools were integrated in September 1963, after Governor Wallace sent National Guard troops to keep black students out and President Kennedy reversed Wallace and ordered the troops to stand down." - didn't he reverse Wallace by ordering the troops to stand down?
    • "Because leadership was given to the black middle class in Birmingham and the SCLC and left out the black underclass, according to Eskew, riots occurred after the bombing of the Gaston Motel, and they foreshadowed rioting in larger cities later in the 1960s." - it's indeterminate what 'according to Eskew' modifies here, and cause and effect are garbled; I think this sentence needs a full rewrite to say what is intended.
    • Reference formatting is inconsistent. I've gone through the page ranges and replaced dashes with endashes, but there are quite a few remaining issues:
    • A quick sampling of the punctuation used after a publication name results in this list: [17] comma, [50] semicolon, [54] full stop, [56] colon, [57] none.
    • Access dates are given for only a few of the publications that are available online.
    • Article titles are inconsistently formatted—some titles have no quote marks (compare [18] and [33]).
    Most of the ref formatting issues can be fixed with citation templates. I can help, but after having racked up 26 edits just now (primarily from endash fixes), I feel inclined to wait for an invitation before I muck with it any further. Maralia (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to copy edit the article. I made most of the changes, except for: all the online sources have access dates. Articles from The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Newsweek are from microfilm. I don't think I need access dates for those. As for the phrase "were truant and showed up" was changed from "skipped school and showed up" at the behest of Dweller. I don't know what else to change it to, but I liked "skipped". I'll clean up my references (I love the MOS so much!!! Oh my God!). I do appreciate your help. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that some of those problems were caused by me asking for changes, so apologies Moni3 :-) Why not go back to "skipped", as you say it's not so informal in the USA? --Dweller (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed; "skipped school" would solve things here. As to the other issues: understood about articles accessed via microfilm. Other changes adequately address my above concerns, with the exception of the Eskew sentence. Syntactically, it now reads, "Because x, according to Eskew y foreshadowed z". I can't quite make sense of that. Maralia (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eskew fixed. Only remaining issue in my opinion is citation formatting. My offer still stands! Maralia (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I confess. I don't mind bending over the microfilm machine ruining my eyes, or throwing out my back walking around with a load of books to cite all the stuff in the articles I work on, but the punctuation in the citations just drives me right out of my tree. I appreciate your assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand; it's drudge work, for sure. It's done now. The citation formatting should be beyond reproach; but please do look over the content of the Citations section, as a few are slightly expanded—I looked up a book here, a website there, etc. in order to more thoroughly fill out the templates. Thank goodness there were no edit conflicts; I would have leaped out the window! Maralia (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it looks good. Thank you so much!--Moni3 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • "black Americans in the United States" seems unnecessary. "black Americans" or "blacks in the United States" will do.
    Done. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "During the summer of 1962, Martin Luther King had led a movement in Albany, Georgia, to try to change that city's policies of segregation, but the campaign was described as a "morass" instead of a success" Described so by whom?
    By the text of Voices of Freedom. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Soviet Union began a "massive propaganda exploitation" of the events in Birmingham, using it for up to 25 percent of its news broadcast, and much of it was sent to Africa, where Soviet and U.S. interests clashed." "exploitation" is not a neutral term.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but they are the words of John Cotman describing information compiled by the CIA. The phrase is in quotations. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with those quotations is that they are not attributed. The first one could be fixed by mentioning who said that. I think the second one needs to use neutral wording. Characterizing an event in the Cold War only from an American point of view isn't right IMHO. --Carabinieri (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I attributed the first quote and removed the second. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at the moment, some comments, sorry for the delay in their provision...
      Sorry, bit late but hopefully these may be of use...
      • Consistent use of King Jr. is needed.
      • City of segregation has two paragraphs which are chronologically out of order, this is a little confusing for me.
      • Is wikilinking to morass useful? This may have been the quote but the wikilnk redirects to marsh. Not particularly informative in this context!
      • "They claimed on a technicality that their terms would not expire until 1965 instead of in the spring of 1963. For a brief time, Birmingham had two city governments attempting to conduct business.[23]" -I'd merge these sentences as the latter is a direct consequence of the former...
      • "Selective Buying Campaign" section. Was this a formal title? If not then the title should be "Selective buying campaign" per WP:HEAD, if so then my apologies.
      • "The boycotts were declared 80 to 95 percent effective." - I'm not sure I understand what this means. Effective at what, exactly?
      • "To benefit the movement, Wyatt Tee Walker, one of the SCLC founders, used Bull Connor's tendency to act with violence." not sure about this. I'd say it something along the lines of "Wyatt Tee Walker... would use Connor's tendency to act with violence to support the movement's non-violence" (or similar).
      • " On April 10, Connor" - by now it's easy to lose context so I'd suggest a full wikilinked date and Bull Connor's full name here.
      • "The campaign was faltering..." - not the best way to start a new section if the previous section didn't end with something similar. My reading of the end of the previous section was that things weren't going that badly for the campaign if "national business owners pressed the Kennedy administration to intervene."
      • WENN could be linked.
      • "The "D" Day campaign received front page coverage in The Washington Post and The New York Times." should be cited.
      • Standoff section reads stilted - too many short sentences which don't naturally flow and prevent decent prose.
      • "didn't " - "did not" for FA!
      • Expand AFL-CIO on its first use.
      • " In June 1963, the Jim Crow signs indicating segregated public places in Birmingham were taken down." needs citation.
      • Not essential but I'd move [106] to the end of the sentence. I know it relates directly to the 1963 but no harm in moving it for aesthetics to the end of the sentence.
      • "Someone threw a tear gas ..." - reads strangely - try "A tear gas canister was thrown..."
    • Feel free to get in touch if any of these need to be clarified.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Rambling Man, and thank you for reading and commenting on the article. My responses:
        • A previous editor just told me to use King's name consistently either with the Jr. throughout, or use the Jr. once at the beginning and then not at all. Since some of the sources name King without the Jr., I chose to go with the second option.
        • In the City of Segregation section, I can see your point that they seem out of order, but to set the context of why the campaign was done, it is necessary to describe the state of inequality in the city. Years are used, again for context, but not necessarily for chronology. In the first paragraph, 1960 is mentioned because it was the last year that voter registrations were counted, and the 1958 Time article spoke directly to Birmingham's economic situation. I feel as if the order of what is described is appropriate for setting the inspiration for the campaign.
        • Re: the wikilinking of "morass" - I grew up here in Florida in a swamp and never have never seen the term "morass" before. If it's a dealbreaker I can de-link it, but it's not a common term to use.
        • Selective Buying Campaign is a proper term used for the campaign and should be capitalized.
          • Okay, so perhaps it should be capitalised in the lead as well then for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I linked Bull Connor's name per your request.
        • I altered the sentence with Wyatt Tee Walker's theory per your request.
        • I included a brief lead-in to the Recruiting students section, per your request, but a previous editor here requested I move the information about the campaign faltering to the section below.
        • WENN, although having the same call letters, does not correspond to the black radio station in 1963 according to its article.
          • Well then that could be confusing in the future - perhaps create a stubbed article for the WENN you're referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Didn't" was changed. What can I say? Two LOCE editors gave it a run-through.
        • For "Someone threw a tear gas" - I'm senstive to the criticism of passive voice. If I changed it to "A tear gas canister was thrown" I anticipate getting that criticism.
          • Yeah, I appreciate that, it's not essential.
        • Although the Washington Post and New York Times articles were cited throughout the D Day section, I cited them again, per your request.
        • I'm not sure what's confusing about the 80 to 95% effective sentence. The previous sentence stated that business had fallen by 40% - that's a pretty significant number. What would you like to see?
          • I can understand the 40% fall in business but I don't know what 80 to 95% effective means. Effective at what exactly? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFL-CIO is expanded.
        • "For a brief time...two city governments" was joined to the previous sentence.
    Thank you again. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For morass, perhaps wikt:morass (piped properly, of course) would be more appropriate. Maralia (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you're always welcome. I'm glad if I've been of help. I'll re-read the article and re-appraise as soon as I can find time. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Status update: I feel that I have addressed The Rambling Man's objections, and invited him to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, the article has evolved well. It's a pity the PR wasn't better attended as all this kerfuffle could have been avoided, but I think you got there in the end... Congratulations. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is running well over time with significant opposes, yet no feedback for several days and no significant article edits since February 2nd. What is the status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The status for both FACs is that I'm on vacation in California, spending some time with the subject of my first featured article. I apologize for not responding, but the articles were nominated well over a month ago and I never dreamed they would take this long. I can't log on for any significant amount of time at the hotels I'm staying in, and I have none of my sources with me, but I'll be home tomorrow night and I hope to spend some time working on them then. --Moni3 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Moni3; have a safe trip home, and let's try to wrap these up quickly once you're back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Some comments:
    CloudNine's addressed comments
    • Just looking through the references to see that they meet criterion 1c. A very small issue, but I spotted ref 105, which refers to a teaching website at the University of California. It seems to be out of place, as the rest of the sources are of such high standard. I wonder if you actually need that reference, as the fact that the "I Have a Dream" speech took place is fairly obvious (and you should be able to find a more authorative reference anyway)
    • "The boycotts were declared 80 to 95 percent effective". By whom and why? No need to go into great detail, but it does seem to be lacking a little context.
    • The Woolworth's link in Methods should link to the company itself rather than the person?
    • "Not enough people were arrested to affect the functioning of the city" seems quite an awkward construction. You may want to rephrase it.CloudNine (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the reference from UC Irvine. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the sentence about 80 - 95% effective. It was quoted in a book from another book, and too many folks had questions about it. I don't have the book it's originally in and I can't explain it. Instead, I added a quote by the president of the Chamber of Commerce. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that Woolworth's link was changed a couple days ago by a well-meaning editor. I changed it back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expanded the sentence about not enough people were arrested. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reading the article and I hope to have addressed your concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "They caused downtown business to decline by as much as 40 percent, that got the attention of the Chamber of Commerce." "that" and "got the attention" seems a little awkward.
    Ok, tweaked that sentence again. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The letter responded to eight politically moderate white clergymen who had protested King's presence in Birmingham, saying that he was agitating local residents and that he had not given the incoming mayor a chance to make any changes." sounds as if King was accusing himself via the letter. CloudNine (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okeydoke. Altered that. --Moni3 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Right in front of Hudson stepped Parker High School senior Walter Gadsden as a police officer grabbed the young man's sweater and a police dog charged him." Needs rephrasing. "As" is a little ambigious here, and it doesn't read too clearly. CloudNine (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Changed that to "when".--Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: CloudNine invited to return here.--Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll continue to review the article. I'll probably support this after a good review. CloudNine (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment on punctuation: I removed all punctuation from Project C and D Day references because I don't know how to punctuate them. Several of my sources punctuate them differently, where two don't punctuate them at all. I'm interested in simplicity right now. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 21:39, 9 February 2008.

    Hurricane Isis (1998)[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it follows all of the FA criteria. Granted, my opinion is biased, and it's up to all of you, but, for what it's worth, it was rated A-class by the WPTC, copyedited by several editors, and got a favorable GA review. So, as I always say, here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The article does not follow the manual style on dates, and is underreferenced. All statistics and points of specific fact should be cited. A common rule of thumb is a minimum of one citation per paragraph. -Fsotrain09 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does it not follow the manual of style? Also, every statement in the article is sourced, other than the lede (not needed) and the fact its name was re-used (which doesn't really need a citation, since the Wikilinks show it is obvious that the name was reused). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "The Comisión Nacional del Agua distributed 1.6 million gallons (6 million liters) of water and provided repair equipment to the 173 localities whose water systems were damaged", for example, is not cited. Now, if you are using one source for a paragraph of prose statistics, that's fine. The Manual of Style says full mm/dd/yyyy dates should be wikilinked. Since the dates the article refers to occur within one calendar year, they should not be linked. -Fsotrain09 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking does not suggest dates without years should be unlinked. I see nothing wrong with the dates in this article. Peanut4 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    About the references - the way I source is I place a source at the end of every block. Section A gets ref A, and section B gets ref B, though Section A and section B might be in the same paragraph, or potentially even in the same sentence. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Can we clone Hurricanehink? Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments.
      • I'm not sure what this means "Operationally, the system was not classified until 21 hours later."
      • Refs 3 and 4 don't have publishers listed

    Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks, I got those. "Operationally" means how it was treated in real time, so I've adjusted the wording to be clearer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. No problems. Epbr123 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, significant jargon and other issues: Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is some jargon in the lead that could use explaining or wikilinking. An example is "low-level circulation" and "tropical storm". The differences between tropical storms, tropical cyclones, and hurricanes are not apparent to general readership and may cause some confusion. I think it is out of the scope of this article to explain the differences, but they should at least all be wikilinked so people can go look it up.
      • Likewise for the term "wave axis" used in reference to a tropical wave. Even the article on tropical waves does not explain what the axis is.
      • "On August 31, the two primary areas of convection were well-removed from the center, and by early on September 1, even though deep convection was still not well-organized, the low-cloud circulation was sufficiently well-defined that the National Hurricane Center designated it as Tropical Depression Ten-E while centered slightly less than 350 miles (565 km) south of Cabo San Lucas." Too long, suggest breaking up. What is Tropical Depression Ten-E? How is that different from a hurricane? Is Ten-E part of some naming scheme?
      • "In real time, the National Hurricane Center first upgraded the system 21 hours later." I don't understand what this means.
      • "Late on September 1 it intensified into Tropical Storm Isis..." This phrase and others preceding it assume that the reader understands the progression of a hurricane through various upgrades, but this progression is probably relatively unknown to most people. I can deduce that perhaps it went from a tropical wave to a tropical depression to a tropical storm to a hurricane.. is that right? But then what is a tropical cyclone, which is mentioned in the lead?
      • "Coinciding with the issuance of the first advisory on Isis..." Who issued the first advisory? The only organization mentioned thus far in the article is the National Hurricane Center. Are we to assume they issued all the warnings/upgrades/downgrades mentioned in the article? Needs significant clarification.
      • San Diego County is not mentioned in the Preparations heading, yet you said earlier they were affected by the storm. There were no warnings, advisories, or preparations there? If not, why not?
      • "A married couple were killed..." Grammar.
      • "Initially, reports indicated a family was missing in La Paz, though they were later proven false." Trivial. In fact, I'm not sure it's necessary to report individuals who were missing or killed - maybe just report the general numbers. Thoughts?
      • "The heaviest rainfall fell..." Seems redundant.
      • I don't think "minorly" is a word. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is very little difference between tropical cyclone, tropical storms, and hurricanes; they just differ on location and strength, which is explained in the tropical cyclone article. I clarified that low-level circulation really just means surface circulation, which I believe is self-explanatory. I removed "axis" from "wave axis". I cleaned up and clarified that sentence. In real time..., which was previously listed as operationally, means how the storm was treated while it was active, as opposed to how it was treated based on subsequent research on the storm. Someone previously commented that operationally did not make sense, so, given that sentence is particularly confusing to outsiders, how would you explain that? Regarding the cyclone being upgraded to Tropical Storm Isis, yes, that is a correct assumption, and I don't know of any clearer way to say that, unless I should say something like, "Tropical cyclones are named when the reach winds of 40 mph (65 km/h), which is the minimum threshold for tropical storm status." That sort of information is not really appropriate for this article, as no other tropical cyclone article, to my knowledge, has to explain that. Clarified the warning. The impact in California was fairly minor, so significant preparations were not taken there. I've seen in a few newspaper reports that the National Weather Service predicted a chance of increased precipitation and thunderstorms in the San Diego area, but that's a bit too minor for the preparations to warrant inclusion. Tropical cyclone articles always list how many people died in a certain area, and in some instances how they were killed. I believe that an entire family was reported missing is somewhat notable, at least notable for one sentence in the article. I fixed the last two things, as well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the "in real time" issue - I would be more inclined to keep the word "operationally" but briefly define it in the text. So maybe, "The National Hurricane Center upgraded the storm 21 hours later operationally, meaning that the upgrade occurred while the storm was in progress rather than during later examination." At any rate, you have addressed my other concerns so I will switch to support. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My technical support. Nothing wrong with the article, at least to my bad grammar filled eyes. Hink did a great job on this article. Mitch32contribs 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moderate Support - It looks good. However, it could use more wikilinking, especially in the Aftermath section. For example, only one word in the first paragraph of the Aftermath section is wikilinkes; "Acre", "Mosquitoes", etc. can be wikilinked, and it would make the article almost perfect. Juliancolton Talk 21:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 16:22, 9 February 2008.

    Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki[edit]

    Previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

    To my surprise, Home of the Underdogs is a notable website, and did have a review for this game. It is still the only media mention of Radical Dreamers outside of the sources present found. Since the last FAC, the issue of expanding notes on the various extra scenarios has been addressed, and the music section has been expanded. Also, a couple gameplay notes have been added. The article should now be exhaustively comprehensive. Zeality (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - couple of minor issues: Support, great work! --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Lynx and Kid duel, and she removes the Chrono Trigger from her back pocket and activates it." Who removes it, Lynx or Kid?
      • After the last sentence of the Music heading, the footnote is in italics - it should not be.
      • The image in the infobox has some minor issues. The fair use rationale mentions "Square Enix" but the article cites Squaresoft. On further reading, it's not clear who actually released the game. Additionally, the fair use rationale is for the article Chrono Trigger and not for this one. Recommend using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template so you get the required elements.
      • The other image in the article also listed the incorrect article title in its rationale. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All corrected. Thanks. Zeality (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments.Support Looks great.
      • "The player must choose from a list of possible actions." - this sounds instructive, how about re-wording it, like the narrative progresses along alternate storylines as the player chooses...
      • "Graphics and animation are minimalistic..." - Curious about the use of "minimalistic". To me, minimalism is an intentional artistic choice, but in the game it looks like its minimalist features are an unintended consequence of resource (time/money) contraints. If you want to keep the term, can you be more descriptive in describing its minimalism (why and how). Or, for example, if I'm correct, write that due to the constraints the developer chose a minimalist style for the graphics and animation. Or, alternatively, ...the developer used minimal graphics and animation.
      • "...sequel to the world of Chrono Trigger." - would Chrono (series) be a more appropriate link?
      • "...development team, which is currently working on Final Fantasy XI." - according to the FFXI article it was released in 2004. --maclean 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. For the minimal statement, I rephrased it, "Radical Dreamers features minimal graphics and animation; most areas are rendered with dim, static backgrounds." I took out "the world of" since Cross is a sequel to Trigger, and I clarified that the Cross team are continually updating FFXI (an MMORPG). Thanks for the suggestions. Zeality (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I nailed down all the errors. Zeality (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Looks better than I thought it could be made to be, great job, nice to see another Chrono series FA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Zeality (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems Cubed3 changed something. It's fixed. The Cocoebiz one goes down from time to time, but is generally reliable. I got a false positive on it a few days ago, but it's up now. Zeality (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Title -Subtitle-" thing is a Japanese subtitle quirk. The article was named like that, but since it's not accepted usage in English, an editor had it and articles like it changed to the current "Title: Subtitle" system. Crisis Core is another example. For the other dashes, do you mean the list with the extra scenarios? The rest of the prose seems to use word1—word2. Zeality (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, Zeality, I misspoke. It's not the last section, it's "Characters and story". I'm not sure about the emdashes used in what seems to be a list; can you doublecheck those with WP:DASH? There are unspaced emdashes in the text, and spaced emdashes in that list. Also, check date formatting on citations (Yasunori Mitsuda (2000-18-12). Chrono Cross OST Liner Notes. Chrono Compendium. Retrieved on July 24, 2006.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced the emdashes between the titles and the descriptions with spaced endashes. For the title themselves, I replaced the emdash in the Gil scenario with a colon after rediscovering that the game presents it that way. Zeality (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Elcobbola
    • Comment. WP:FUC 3A sets forth "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." Use of both Radical dreamers.png and Radical Dreamer English Logo.png seems questionable, as the images are not meaningfully different from one another. I don't know that "identify[ing] the subject of the article; specifically, the effects of the English patch" is sufficient to warrant use of a non-free image. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking back, I'm glad you brought that up; I've wanted to get rid of that. I will replace that with a non-free image of Masato Kato which does have direct relevance to the article. 3 for an article this size is still on the conservative side; the number will always be low because Radical Dreamers is a text only game. Not much to show here. Zeality (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the issue with Radical Dreamer English Logo.png is resolved, but the replacement has a dispute tag. Did we take one step forward and one back? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More Comments
      • Possible OR: “The gameplay is similar to a video game version of a gamebook”.
      • Grammar: “Radical Dreamers features three protagonists—Serge, Kid, and Gil, who seek out”. Shouldn’t the comma after Gil be an m-dash?
      • Organization of thought: Gameplay section should be divided into multiple paragraphs, as at least two “topics” are addressed (gameplay and “atmosphere”).
      • Clarity/in-universe: “Serge, is a drifting musician who met Kid three years ago after becoming dissatisfied with life” Three years ago from what date and in what context did they meet? What does “binding” mean? Who is Lavos? (Lavos should be explained in article – for those unfamiliar with the series, following the wikilink is currently mandatory to understand and doing so disrupts the flow).
      • Redundancy: Phrasing of gaining the “upper hand” is used twice in close proximity. Phrasing such as “after evading death from various traps” (why not “after evading various traps”? It’s obvious that traps=bad pie).
      • Overall: It reads as if the author is trying too hard to meet “brillant prose”. The article is peppered with unnecessary adjectives which prompt OR and WP:PEACOCK concerns (e.g. “foreboding” and “renowned”, respectively), impair readability (e.g. “the abode of…” just seems corny) and leads to nonsensical imprecision (e.g. “A handful of themes” – why not just “several”?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Foreboding—there is no other suitable adjective to describe foreboding strings; I could use pensive, suspenseful, etc...but the game creates a horror-themed atmosphere as described by Kato. The music sample nails it. I have no idea what kind of sanitary adjective could replace that. Now, I singled out foreboding because it is the only alleged peacock word I'm aware of outside the plot summary, which is a work of fiction which I'm summarizing in its own terms and words.
    • For the Kato picture, there is no free alternative, and I encourage someone to just try and find a free picture of this guy, let alone take one. Ultimania is basically the only time I've ever seen his face, and I run a website on the Chrono series. The situation reflects a failure on the part of copyright-paranoid editors to create a reasonable fair use template for cases such as this. Because of paranoia, I'm already damned to not getting an image on the main page if this makes TFA.
    • The rest of the points have been rectified. Zeality (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand, to a degree, the need to use such adjectives in plot sections to adequately convey the game’s tone, atmosphere, etc. Use in other sections, however, is questionable. To continue with the “foreboding” example, would changing “accompanied by foreboding strings” to “accompanied by strings” really be a meaningful detriment to the article – especially given the presence of an audio sample? Foreboding, in itself, is not a deal breaker, but the volume of such adjectives is an OR concern. The only other example that stands out is: “These later stories often feature humorous situations”. Humorous to whom? Humorous is a subjective (i.e. OR) interpretation. These two, admittedly minor, adjectives are the only peacock/OR concerns.
    • To be clear, I don’t contest inclusion of the image. I’m merely unclear about the criterion 3 implications of a disputed fair-use image.
    • Awkward phrasing (e.g. “abode”, “handful of” instead of “several”, etc.) has yet to be addressed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 Okay; sorry about the image contents, as fair use on TFA blurbs is my personal Wikipedia crusade. I've contacted an administrator affiliated with WP:VG about reviewing the image so the {{RK}} template can be added to legitimize it. 2 For the peacock words in the story, I've made sure that there are citations specifically quoting the words I've used, along with a citation describing the Kingdom of Zeal from Chrono Trigger. Also, I've used the Procyon Studio interview with Masato Kato to cite use of "comical" in describing the scenarios, which replaces humorous. I also went ahead and added citations to the scenarios from the game's text. I removed foreboding, since yes, the musical sample does represent that. 3 As part of #2, I've copyedited the article. Zeality (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the image of the developer, which Zeality asked me to pass, I'm not sure if it's a clear "ok". There is the issue of him still being alive, so even as reclusive as he is, the no non-free image of a living person guidance is still in play. But more importantly, I would consider how this images the article, per WP:NFCC#8 - is the reader's understanding of the game improved or enhanced because of the picture of the developer? --MASEM 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I removed it. I'll keep the rationales around in case there's ever a future need; the picture will be safe on my website. I suppose it needs to be deleted now. Zeality (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - An excellent article, and I have no quarrel with the prose. --PresN (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 20:55, 8 February 2008.

    Planet[edit]

    This is a GA-class article and I believe it could become a FA. Comments & suggestions are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Serendipodous is the user that contribuited extensively (and probably the most) to this article. The Enlightened did contribute a lot in the past. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article stats:

    1. Serendipodous 442
    2. Nergaal 239
    3. The Enlightened 232
    4. Ckatz 137
    5. RJHall 74

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Well written, well referenced, no serious problems as far as I can see. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: The big thing for me is that the History section begins with the heliocentric era; there is nothing about the planets and how they were perceived in geocentric times. Specifically I would like to find the earliest historical record of a planet's motion; also, I would like to include something about their role in astrology and religion. Serendipodous 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with the geocentric part, I really do not believe that religion and astrology have enough space to be included. The article is allready close to 70k. There is allready a link in the See also section. At most I think there should be a sentence or two right after the contention with regards to the 2006 definition (after the 10th planet statement) as in why did people care about the 9th planet. Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added details about geocentrism and a note about Sumerians.Nergaal (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the astronomy articles are always great (except those asteroid ones, of course). Also, Serendipodous, planets in geocentric times is on the Etymology section. igordebraga ≠ 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Serendip. Again, I think we have a situation where someone who hasn't edited the page has brought something forward prematurely. Yes, ancient times is in etymology—but that underscores that the page is not properly rationalized. Basic things, such as excess dabbing, do not seemed to have been checked for. When something as major as this comes to FAC I like to see the "last push" in the history, where minor things have been addressed as much as possible. But I don't see that here. Suggest withdrawing until primary authors are ready. Marskell (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did rewrite the titles so it makes more sense. I also went though all the article except for properties and I will do that today-ish.Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative Support Oppose—While it's a nice article, it doesn't appear to have gone through the final rigorous cleanup and editing needed to reach FA. Here are a few concerns I had:
    In the following sentence, the naming sequence does not appear to follow from the initial remark: "The order of shifts began with Jupiter and worked inwards; as a result, a list of which god had charge of the first hour in each day became Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn..." This needs to be clarified. Done.—RJH (talk)
    I read the link and reworded Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but the remainder of the paragraph needs work. What is a "fist day"? If it is a typo for "first", does it need an article? What does this mean: "The god that was in started the day gave the name of the day - this is from where the order of the present weekdays comes"? It needs cleaning up and clarification. Done.RJH (talk)
    Tried again. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs a reference: "Since Earth was only generally accepted as a planet in the 17th century, there is no tradition of naming it after a god." Also the Online Etymology reference says the Earth was considered a planet from circa 1400. (Which is correct?) The later citation is also incomplete as it lacks an author, date and publisher.
    Done (I think).Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Please provide a citation for the statement that "there is no tradition of naming it after a god."
    There is a reference for the Earth being accepted as a planet in 17th century. As for naming after god, seriously, if anyone knows which god is that then perfect, otherwise I am not sure this should be referenced (Earth<=earth does the word earth come from a god?).Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If this opinion can't be supported by evidence, then perhaps it should be restated? Since the context is the greco-roman naming scheme, it might make sense to limit the statement specifically to just that.—RJH (talk)
    found this in the Earth: The name Earth originates from the 8th century Anglo-Saxon word erda, which means ground or soil. In Old English the word became eorthe, then erthe in Middle English.[3] Earth was first used as the name of the planet around 1400.[4] It is the only planet whose name in English is not derived from greco-roman mythology. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    strange, this was allready in the article: the Germanic languages, including English, use a variation of an ancient Germanic word ertho, "ground,"[17] as can be seen in the English Earth, the German Erde, the Dutch Aarde, and the Scandinavian Jorde. Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation #16 (Template:Cite journal PIG) is invalid. Done.—RJH (talk)
    It was probably a vandalization.Nergaal (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence needs a reference: "In Japan, the names of days of the week were calqued by naming them after the elements that corresponded to their European planetary names." Done.—RJH (talk)
    I added a link to Days of the week article but that might not be enough. Anybody got a good reference? Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Deleted it since it was somewhat off-topic. Nergaal (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph that begins "During the 1800s, astronomers began to realize..." needs work. The initial sentence is empty of context, and only becomes clear after the third sentence. Done.—RJH (talk)
    Rewrote it Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Its closest distance to its is..." missing a word. Done.—RJH (talk)
    It was star.Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Earth's atmosphere is greatly different to the other planets..." seems somewhat awkwardly written and is vague. "The composition of the Earth's atmosphere is different from the other planets..." Done.—RJH (talk)
    Took your suggestion. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The important attribute of a planet's magnetic field is completely missing from the "Physical characteristics" section. Done. Thanks to the editor for the contribution.—RJH (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done? Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing... I'm very tempted to suggest moving the "Attributes" section to just after the "Formation" section. Doesn't it make sense to discuss what a planet is before talking about specific examples?
    Took your suggestion - although looking back, I am not 10% convinced anymore it should be there. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done.—RJH (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ? what do you mean?
    He means there's no "Magnetosphere" in the "Physical characteristics" section. I've asked someone who knows about these things to have a crack at adding it, so it should be inserted within a few days. Serendipodous 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the "not done" was for the organization, rather than the magnetic field. But now I see that I was mistaken; the 'formation' section was moved down to just before the 'attributes' section. That wasn't quite what I had in mind; I would like to see a general discussion of planetary formation and properties before giving specific examples. You now have that reversed. Discussing planetary properties first allows the examples to make more sense.—RJH (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    done Serendipodous 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err?—RJH (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I enjoyed much of what has been done already by the editors and with some more work this can readily become an FA.—RJH (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand etymonline's claim. Perhaps they are referring to Earth as a whole spherical object, as opposed to just "the ground". Earth was certainly not considered a planet in 1400, because no one believed it moved, and in order do be a planet, movement is somewhat mandated; that's what the word "planet" means. Serendipodous 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's the only citation in the entire paragraph. So I'd say it needs some shoring up. :-) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Etymonline's claim seems to be a quick summary of the Oxford English Dictionary's definition 10. a. Considered as a sphere, orb, or planet. The early references for that definition (1400, 1555, 1658) refer to the sphere of the Earth, but not to it as a planet. Culpepper in 1658 is cited for "The Earth is a great lump of dirt rolled up together, and... hanged in the Air." The first reference that implies it's motion (1726) speaks of its aphelion and perihelion and it is only 1854 when the OED finds an explicit statement that "the Earth is a planet."
    On other matters, I think the historical names and mythology sections (in all cultures) need to address the mythology and terminology of the Sun and Moon. Someone up on the appropriate cultures need to address that. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriate links for this will be to Helios/Apollo and Selene, the Greek solar and lunar deities, and Shamash and Sin (mythology), their Mesopotamian equivalents. I can't find the Greek names for the Sun and Moon as planets yet. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone is adding "done" comments to someone else's edits. Please do not alter other editors' edits, and please remove. When someone else's comments are altered, the only way for me to know who considers something "done" is to step through the diffs. Per WP:TALK, please don't alter other people's text. An issue is not "done" until the reviewer says it's done; if you want to respond to a review, please thread comments below the reviewer's comments rather than editing the reviewer's comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the WP:FAC instructions regarding graphics. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'll strike my oppose for now, as clearly there is work going on to take it forward. Small note on the etymology: the German Erde and Dutch Aarde, in use for the planet, are obviously cognates with Earth, so I'm suspicious of the claim that it was only used for the planet in 1400. Unless all three languages saw the same denotation shift after they split, you'd have to guess the denotation dates to the common Germanic (Also, Norwegian Jorda and Swedish Jorden.) And it raises an obvious question: what were the Anglo-Saxons calling the sphere from 700 to 1400 AD?
    Maybe I misunderstood your question, but wasn't the planet thought to be flat before 1400? If they thought it is flat, then "earth" should be similar to rocks/mud and has an anthagonistic meaning to the words sky or ocean. Nergaal (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a common misconception. The Earth was known to be a sphere as far back as 500 BC. Ptolemy provides empirical evidence for the sphericity of the Earth in his Almagest in 150-odd AD. Whether the Anglo-Saxons knew it was a sphere before then is a different question, since they didn't have access to detailed astronomical knowledge until a long time after their conversion to Christianity in 597 AD. Serendipodous 11:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that Greeks new the planet was flat, but this knowledge was lost in the Dark Ages, and popular knowledge and the Catholic Church assumed its flatness. At least the masses must have thought it is flat, and I bed very few scholars actually had an idea about roundness. Giordano Bruno? Flat Earth Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Flat Earth doesn't support that. The English Bede is quoted, amongst others. Marskell (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone have access to the OED? Marskell (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What for? Nergaal (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To help answer the question. Marskell (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr McClusky cited the OED a few posts up. I don't think it's that relevant here though, because the OED mentions only English citations, while until the 18-19th century most scientific papers would have been in Latin. I haven't read Newton's Principia from cover to cover, but I'm pretty sure it mentions planets, and it was published a long time before 1726 Serendipodous 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he did, sorry; Bede is in Latin, of course. Perhaps someone wants to do a quick read of the Canterbury Tales to see if some reference to the sphere exists :). I didn't mean to bog things down with a pedantic point. Marskell (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be nice if the Greco-Roman info in ancient history could be balanced with more from India and China. Marskell (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Maybe it's just me, but I really dislike the floating table of contents, as it messes up the layout IMO. I'd rather have some blank space on the right of the TOC as usual. Regarding the etymological question: I'm not a linguist, but in case anyone cares in Spanish "tierra" means the Earth, dirt, ground, and land. My guess is that using the same word for "the world" and something like dirt must be common in many languages, although it still seems plausible that no one the Earth a planet while the geocentric model dominated, because the Earth was special (despite being round). --Itub (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the floater. It was a bit eye-twisting. Yes, this leaves a gap but it's a lot easier to view. Serendipodous 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of cleanup needed. There is one quote box that is bolded, and another in italics, see WP:ITALICS, WP:MOSBOLD and WP:MOS#Quotations, quotes should be neither bolded nor in italics. See WP:GTL, ideally see also should be minimized in a comprehensive article, as any other article worth discussing should already be linked within the text of this article and should not be repeated in See also. Can the external links be pruned (see WP:EL, WP:NOT)? There is inconsistent date formatting in External links as well (see WP:MOSDATE); please use one date formatting style throughout the article. The citation formatting needs a good deal of cleanup: there is incorrect use of hyphens instead of endashes on date and page ranges, there are numerous missing publishers (and some of the sources appear to be personal, self-published sites), and there is inconsistent date formatting in citations as well. Here's a sample that is missing a title, publisher and has an unformatted date: Spitzer.caltech.edu Retrieved on 04-25-07 and is possibly a personal website. Within the body of the article, there is a mixture of unspaced and spaced emdashes for punctuation; pls see WP:DASH and use one style consistently. Punctuation on image captions (sentence fragments vs. full sentences) needs attention per WP:MOS#Captions. Of most concern is the lack of publishers and the possible use of non-reliable sources, which is something that should be reviewed; all citations should be completed as in WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: quotes formatting; captions punctuation; see also and external links trimmed; went through several of the references; added publishers and formatted the dates of (I think) all the references; all the references use {{citation}} or similar templates. Nergaal (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done: hyphens instead of endashes? WP:DASH? Not sure what they mean, nor why are they acually required (besides esthetics). Help anyone? Nergaal (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: I think that I've caught all of the en-dashes. I've also taking the liberty of replacing un-spaced em-dashes with spaced en-dashes: the latter is more common in British scientific literature, and the article uses British English. Bluap (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still unidentified publishers and personal, self-published websites used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what makes space.com a reliable source? I can't determine authorship, ownership, factchecking, any kind of oversight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    except for the video, references that do not have publisher have instead work. so this is not enough? Space.com while not referenced looks interesting. As for self-published websites I am not sure what to to about it since a lot of that stuff would require lots of hours for finding more official sites. Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced a few of the self-published references with proper refs and tagged a few more as needing to be verified or (more likely) replaced. It will take some time. I'll try to work on it in the next few days, but may or may not get to it. All of the citations on the article for space.com are authored, dated news stories; looks reliable to me. (Ought this discussion be moved to the article talk page? These seem like substantial enough issues that we shouldn't be clogging up the FAC page.) Ashill (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gibor Basri is a professor of astronomy at Berkeley. I'm not sure what makes him an unreliable source. Ditto an astronomer from the Harvard Center for Astrophysics. nineplanets.org is a page often cited by scientists. Why is it unreliable? Serendipodous 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tracked down better sources using the article by the CfA astronomer. However, in doing so, I found that one of the statements allegedly referencing that work isn't in there, and I haven't heard it before: "After initial observations led to the belief [Pluto] was larger than Earth, the recently-created IAU accepted the object as a planet." Is there a source for that statement? I tagged it as citation needed. Ashill (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A person isn't a source at all; it's the fact that it's a self-published web site that makes it unreliable. A book, journal paper, or other published writing by him would certainly be reliable; I'll try to find a relevant one tonight if someone doesn't find one first. (WP:SPS.) Nineplanets.org is sort of OK, but I think a more permanently published source would be better. Ashill (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From the about us link on space.com, Imaginova Corp. is the owner. Ashill (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the discussion shouldn't be moved; WP:V is a core policy, and discussion of reliability of sources in a featured article is critical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For example the statement

    Several projects have also been proposed to create an array of space telescopes to search for extrasolar planets with masses comparable to the Earth. These include the proposed NASA's Kepler Mission, Terrestrial Planet Finder, and Space Interferometry Mission programs, the ESA's Darwin, and the CNES' PEGASE.[59]

    is referenced by space.com. Why in this case space.com is not a reliable source? Proposals cannot be referenced by sites such as space.com? Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO space.com is a reputable-enough source for the claims for which it is being cited. It is being cited four times; two are news stories about the reception of the "Pluto decision" and one is an interview. I don't think space.com is less reliable than the average newspaper when it comes to these (it has named authors and a media company behind it, so it's not like citing a random Geocities fan page). Only in one case I think that adding a more "scientific" reference might be helpful ("However, recent analysis of the objects has determined that their masses are each greater than 13 Jupiter-masses, making the pair brown dwarfs.[68])". --Itub (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Space.com is reputable for the statements it's cited for. I checked on the statement about the brown dwarfs; that is stated in the journal article about the system as well as in the Space.com article. I moved the journal citation to make that clear, but left the Space.com article so that there's a public audience-level citation as well. Ashill (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 21 may now be irrelevant, because it was intended to reference discussion of the apparent 5/7-planet split found in ancient sources. Unfortunately all reference to that split has been removed from this article. However, it has led to the article claiming that Ptolemy said there were seven planets, which is flatly wrong. Given the article's current makeup, however, I don't see how to fix this. Serendipodous 08:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticed a big hole in this article. There is no mention of the planets' motions as observed from Earth; no mention of diurnal motion, apparent retrograde motion or the varying motions of each planet relative to the fixed stars. Serendipodous 08:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps. But those topics are related to any Sun-orbiting objects as seen from the Earth, including asteroids. The subjects may need to be covered on the orbit page first (which they aren't right now).—RJH (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still categorized as needing cleanup and having unsourced statements; is work progressing on that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Those are the unreliable sources, which are being whittled away, and a statement that was uncovered as unsourced in looking at an unreliable source. Ashill (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that all the unreliable sources and unreferenced statements I've found are cleaned up now.
    Cautionary tale in doing so: I found a number of statements (particularly in the discussion of extrasolar planets) taken from recent press releases which were put out by the press offices of authors of Science and Nature papers. Of course, Science and Nature papers tend to be about surprising, new results, and the press offices tend to pick out the most surprising points from these papers (even when the point is downplayed by the authors themselves). We need to exercise caution in pulling those statements out of the press releases and resulting news stories because they tend to be not well-settled — they shouldn't be presented as pure fact. Of course, that's hard in a rapidly-developing, brand new field like extrasolar planets. Ashill (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is not an issue anymore. Nergaal (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will not hold up the FAC, but it's an irritating little thing that should eventually be fixed. There is a mixture of citation methods used, causing a bolding issue. The cite templates no longer bold volume number on journals (removed from WP:MOSBOLD), while apparently the citation template still does (grrrr ... ). Since this article mixes templates (I suggest getting away from the citation template, and using the cite templates), some of the journals are bolded in citations, while others aren't. Irritating, but a product of people fiddling with these templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been using the citation template, not cite, because it allows Harvard citations, should they be useful. Is there an advantage of the cite template, other than the formatting? I placed a request on the citation template talk page to be consistent with cite journal, but no one's replied or changed the template, and I don't feel comfortable changing it. Ashill (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation template does not display doi numbers which are way more important than Harvard citations. Nergaal (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of one being better than the other. Although all of the inconsistencies were cleaned up a few days ago, because of the mixture of citation methods, the article is back to inconsistent date formatting in citations, with hyphens on page ranges again rather than endashes. The issue is that citation handles things like date formatting and PDFs differently than cite templates, so you have inconsistency in citation formatting (2c). I left sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    page ranges have no more hyphens and I switched almost everything into cite templates. There should be more consistency now. ps: why isn't there a bot dealing with the hyphens in the page ranges? Nergaal (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was answered here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A similar lack of standardization of formatting of author name (some have last name first, some first name first, some separated by commas, some by semi-colons, some with ampersands, and so on). Partially caused by different citation methods, partially different editors I suppose. A consistent citation style should be used throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through almost all refs and I tried to set up the "last, first; next" format. I might have skipped a few though. Nergaal (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this won't hold up the FAC, but the inconsistency in citation formatting still exists (see 2c, which calls for a consistent citation style). The author names are all over the map. Some use commas, some colons, some have punctuation after the date, some before, some use ampersands instead of commas, some use more than one of all of the above within the same citation. For a sample of how to consistently set up clean author citations, see autism or Asperger syndrome. Using the cite templates correctly, they have:
    • Smith AB, Jones BC, Williams DE (2000).
    Clean puncutation, standardization of names, consistent, final punctuation after the date. Just an idea for future work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've chosen the format that seems most common on this page and tried to apply it consistently. I'm using the format that you get if you give the last= and first= parameters to the cite/citation templates (they actually agree on this point!), using a period and a space for multiple initials. Depending on whether the first name or middle initial is available
    • Hill, Alex S.; Coauthor, Jane D. (2008).
    • Hill, A. S.; Coauthor, J. D. (2008).
    • Hill, Alex; Coauthor, Jane (2008).
    Ashill (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been under review for 2 weeks now. So what other comments need to be solved, or what is it still missing? Nergaal (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:31, 7 February 2008.

    Koli Point action[edit]

    Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific Campaign battle for FA consideration. The article passed an A-class review at WP:MILHIST [32]. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support A very nice article and an interesting read, as expected. A couple of questions and comments, but nothing that I feel should hold up this FA candidacy.
    • Is there any reason Edmund Sebree and Millard F. Harmon don't have their own articles?
    • I noticed one or two errant commas, particularly in the second paragraph of "Guadalcanal campaign", keep an eye out for them.

    Other than that, its all good. Nice work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't find any page ranges in the article that aren't using en dashes. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some here, and more ... easiest thing to do is to ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to correct them.
    • Hough, Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal, p. 350, Shaw, First Offensive, p. 42-43, Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 423-424, Griffith, Battle for Guadalcanal, p. 246, Miller, Guadalcanal, p. 200, Zimmerman, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 141-145. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'm confused here. I thought those were en dashes that are currently separating those page numbers. En dashes are the regular keyboard hyphens and the Em dashes are the long (–) hyphens? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope: hyphen (-), ndash (–), mdash (—). Hyphen and ndash look the same in the default edit-mode font though, unless you use the explicit html coding. Carre (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I think they're all correct now. Thank you Epbr123 for helping out. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Another great article on the Guadalcanal campaign which meets all the FA criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:31, 7 February 2008.

    Alien vs. Predator (film)[edit]

    The first of many Alien related articles to come here.. This article has been completely re-written from this, has had a peer review, an extensive GA review, and has been copyedited by several users, full copy-edit and redundancy removal. I have done my best to ensure FA quality and am open to constructive criticism. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No description of either AVP movie would be complete without discussing the terrible, terrible lighting of both films. This was mentioned in a number of reviews. Raul654 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lighting is mentioned as one of the the main criticisms the first review paragraph, I will however add a sentence or two for the negative paragraph mentioning the lighting. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This article looks very nice and is very informative. I never knew much about movie production but this article is sooo much more informative than originally. M3tal H3ad is very prolific with his work, knows what he is doing, and fine sanded this article —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support seems good enough to pass (specially considering how the article was before). igordebraga ≠ 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support very strong article, and I look forward to M3tal H3ad's work on other Alien articles. Alientraveller (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excellent article, although I do have one concern: Isn't this movie a cross-over of the Predator and Alien franchises; if so, shouldn't this be explicitly mentioned in the lead? indopug (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone please check on the Fair Use issues here; it's not an area I'm familiar with, and there are several Fair Use images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The fair use rationale for the movie poster in the infobox seems valid (Image:Avpmovie.jpg), as it represents and identifies the subject of the article, although some editors argue that "identification" is not a strong fair use rationale. The rationale for the two copyrighted images in the article text seems valid since they are the subject of critical commentary (both Image:Alien vs. Predator (film) Predator gods.jpg and Image:AVPmoviefilming.PNG). However, the fair use rationales for all three have a blank or incorrectly completed "Portion used" field. Further, the use of images containing watermarks, as is the case for Image:AVPmoviefilming.PNG, is not ideal at all. --Laser brain (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. The image usage seems appropriate and relevant to the text with appropriate captions. The only problems are the "portion used" sections which need to be completed (should be easy enough) and an effort should be made to find a replacement shot for Image:AVPmoviefilming.PNG that is not watermarked. On a somewhat side note, Image:Alien vs. Predator (film) Predator gods.jpg is used in a second article and needs a separate non-free rationale for that article. Pagrashtak 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added to the portion "Movie screen shot" and "production screen shot", although I'm not sure if it's correct - the FU page doesn't describe it well. Regarding the watermark, i looked but couldn't find one without it, unless a picture can be taken using the DVD but i can't with Media Player and it will be really shoddy quality. The template states "This may indicate the copyright status of the image, which may make it inappropriate for Wikipedia use." - we know the copyright holder is Fox for all the images, and the appropriate license is added. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • M3tal, can you work with Laser or Pagrashtak to see if it's good now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left a query for Pagrashtak regarding the "potion" field of the template for clarification. I'll be sure to get back to you. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know the instructions leave a bit to be desired, but the "portion" field is used to describe what portion you used of the entire copyrighted work. So, for the case of a screen shot, the portion would be "One frame from the film" or similar. If the production photo came from a larger collection of photos, say so, and so on. Hope that makes sense. --Laser brain (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou for clarifying. I added the appropriate information to the portion although i am still a bit doubtful if it is satisfactory. Regarding the image being used on a page without a separate FUR, i removed it as the page already has 6-7 copyrighted photos, and it did not have critical commentary. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information is correct. Thanks for your attention to the matter!--Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Excellent article, properly sourced, well written, very thorough - great work! Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:31, 7 February 2008.

    Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia[edit]

    Taking a lesson from A bastard's guide to writing a featured article this is a cookie cutter subject - a run-of-the-mill town near to another previously FA'ed place. Actually, it is located between two FA'd places, Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. The difference is that this town has dinosaurs! maclean 07:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is a disconnect between the way Notes and References are organized, making it hard to locate the Ref that matches each Note. Sample edit left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. That was a good point, I never saw that. And 'Thank you' to those above who read the article, I appreciate it. --maclean 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike a few other BC articles, which were pretty bad, this is quite well-written. But why not polish it? Here are very random examples:
      • "Population projections made in 1977 estimated there to be 3,568 residents in 1981,..."—"Population projections in 1977 were for 3,568 residents in 1981,..."
      • "Population level in T" --> Population of T
      • "an English only mother tongue"—bizarre.
      • The "with" connective, poor at the best of times, appears here twice in a row, without even preceding commas: "The town experiences a continental climate with arctic air masses moving predominantly southwestly from the Mackenzie Valley towards the Rocky Mountains.[37] These southwesterly winds move through the mountains north of town. Much of the precipitation is lost in the mountains with the town itself in a rain shadow behind Mount Bergeron."

    And more. Recruit someone new to run through it, and make it a great article ... Tony (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the input, Tony. I did your "How to satisfy Criterion 1a exercises" a few months ago. I believe my writing has improved over the years thanks to writing WP articles. Since your second point deals with an image, that point will take a day or two to fix. --maclean 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please doublecheck the dead links returned by Check external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support well written and tightly knit. Just a suggestion: could the town hall image be moved in the infbox (or some other picture of the town be inserted in the infobox)?--Qyd (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 18:31, 7 February 2008.

    Giovanni Villani[edit]

    For all you dirty Wikipedian wool finishers out there with an interest in pre-modern Italian diplomacy and banking, this article is for you (I know, I know, it's a small demographic). The article is quite short, about 28,000 KB (much shorter than the Ming Dynasty article I recently nominated), and well worth the read, unless you're a lazy fart. It's jam-packed with good pictures and inline citations with credible scholarly sources, so you can't jump around and complain much about either of those points, can you Mr. Condescending Reviewer? (...Silence...) That's what I thought. Now who's ready to read an article on some dead Italian guy dressed like the caped-crusader!?Pericles of AthensTalk 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I have not, nor will I ever, think of myself as a lazy fart. I read the article; interesting. Cite number seven should probably be converted to proper format, though. Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yaarrr, matey. I believe I just fixed the online citation to fit a proper format; if there is still a problem let me know.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're good. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment. Your blurb made me laugh (especially with the WoW pushing Mr. T knock-off), which is why I read the article in the first place. Nice sell! The subject matter is interesting and the prose is written well enough. I'm concerned about several things, however; the lead states that the Cronica is famous, but this is not qualified. Is there something about the work's legacy that can be mentioned here; why has it lasted this long and what is it used for today? Despite the Dante tidbit being very interesting to an English major such as myself, I don't see it in the body of the article, whereas the intro does not say that Vallani had and wrote about first-hand accounts of fires, famines and the plague -- these things make up a huge chunk of the article. I would expand on this greatly in the lead and maybe move Dante somewhere else. Also, the Cronica is mentioned in several different ways throughout the article, which can be somewhat confusing: Cronica, Chronicles, Chronicles... is there any one that is more accepted than the other? I do not believe they should be used so interchangeably. It may also not be a bad idea to define what a Chronicle is for all of us who flunked medieval history. I'm leaning toward support, but this needs a little more work. María (habla conmigo) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to say that I have so far addressed all of your concerns except for two: creating a legacy section on Giovanni and his Cronica, as well as creating a section on defining what a chronicle is. I think this article can do without the latter (people can look through the chronicle article if they are unsure of what a chronicle is), but the legacy section is a very good idea. I will now be researching more about the Cronica so I can begin a legacy section, as you suggest.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! I hadn't noticed that "chronicle" was already linked in the lead, so I apologize for that oversight; I agree that a lengthy description is not necessary. The lead is already much improved and I look forward to reading this legacy section. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You got it; I just created a new legacy section, but it is a work in progress (only 6 sentences as of now). I will expand upon it in due time.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know about your progress, Pericles. The legacy section is a great start and the lead is a million times better -- I'm willing to offer my support as a non-lazy fart. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I like the article, but I'm wondering about the structure. The major part of the article is not about the man but instead about the Cronica itself, a subject which could arguably be its own article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's debate this point. You say the "major part" of the article ("The Chronicles" section) is exclusively about info stated in the Cronica and says little about Villani. I would argue that the beginning five paragraphs (including the quotation about the 1300 pilgrimage to Rome) are all about Villani, why he wrote the Cronica, his views on certain things, his writing style, and his contribution to Italian and even European literature and historical record. You could argue that the "rebuilding", "fires", and "flood" sub-sections have little to do with Villani the man (except to demonstrate his writing), but the "famine" sub-section directly deals with Villani, since he was an official in charge of provisions for the city during the first famine described. Hence, he had a leading role in the events described in that sub-section (refer back to his "Life" section). The "commerce and trade" sub-section also has valuable input from Villani on why he thinks fairs do not work in Florence. Plus, the new Legacy section adds more info about Villani the man, not just his writing. Rebuttal?--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Moni3 I, too, read the article in order not to be thought of as a lazy fart by anonymous strangers... And these are my comments.

    • I liked the article. I learned some things, and all the famine, fire, and plague that happened to Florence within a short period of time makes me wonder how the region attributed their pretty bad luck, or if they took it all in stride.
    • Might you be able to spread the photos from one side to the other to balance out the appearance of the page? I know it's a no-no to begin a section with a left side photo, but you have some sections that can have some photos below the section start.
    • This sentence: By writing in Italian, he depicts what he saw with the immediate vividness natural to a clear businesslike mind accustomed to the observation of mankind, without the self-consciousness imposed by composition in Latin. has 2 issues that I saw. Sometimes the verb tense isn't consistent. Most of it is past tense, except for this sentence (and I didn't check the entire article for consistent verb tense). As well, has someone else in one of your sources characterized Villani's writing style in this manner or have you?
    • You have given me a new way to coerce encourage people to read my future FAC's. Good luck! --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved two images on the left, in regards to your suggestion. Also, that sentence was actually never mine, and in retrospect it was a little unencyclopedic, so I just deleted it. Thanks for commenting, and I hope your future FAC intros are just as ridiculous as mine. Hah.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article is completely different from the first one I saw and I like this one much better :) I've done a bit of copyediting myself, and I now think it meets the Featured Article critera. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixes resolved Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I think the article is poorly organized, as half of the article is presented as more of a plot summary/history of the city rather than related specifically to the subject of the article. I also think the prose is very choppy and could do with a good copyediting. More detailed concerns:
      • I think the lead is a bit short.
      • Per WP:MOSBIO, after the first reference, he should be refered to by his surname. The article alternates between calling him "Giovanni Vellani", "Giovanni", and "Villani". Please be consistent.
      • Full dates (and month-day combinations) need to be wikilinked so that date preferences work
        • After moving all the stuff into the Cronica article, I found only one remaining instance of this, so I linked it as you suggest.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please wikilink factor and prior, as those terms aren't in widespread use today
      • Parts of the first section read more like proseline. Can it be massaged a bit so that it flows a little better?
        • I'm working on it...I've fixed a few sentences but it still needs a bit of work to reorder all of that (some of which was not my own doing, but that of previous editors).--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What were his actual duties as"magistrate of provisioning" during the famine?
      • Overall, I'm finding the prose to be a bit choppy and in some cases a little more informal than I'd like to see.
        • Ok, be specific, where exactly do you see this and I will be more than happy to address concerns with specific statements.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Walter VI of Brienne to rule as signor, a man who suspended all legal actions taken against the Buonaccorsi" -> this sentence makes it sound as if a signor was always a man who suspended legal actions against this family
      • I think the section headings need to be renamed. Death is under life, which doesn't make a great deal of sense, and "A banker, official, diplomat, and prisoner" is much too long to be a section heading (plus, it really shouldn't start with an article)
      • I think you should mention in the Life section about when he started writing the Chronicles. It's a little jarring to go from just a brief mention of what he wrote in the Chronicles to a statement that it was an important work at the time
      • You need to make it clear that the really large quote in the beginning of the section The Chronicles is from Villani
      • Is "annacuracies" supposed to be "innacuracies"
        • Hey, that's pretty condescending, isn't it? It was a typo that has been fixed.--

    Pericles of AthensTalk 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • Not meant to be condescending, I thought it might be some strange form of "anachronism" but I was too lazy to look it up to see if it was a real word. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I question whether this article should contain such an in-depth summary of the events captured in his work. Most of this half of this article relates to Villani only in that he wrote about the events - there is almost nothing about how the events affected him. I would suggest that a second article be created about the Cronica and this information be instead placed in that article. I really don't think it belongs in a biography unless you can tie the information more closely to his life (for example, the information about the 1347 famine could be incorporated into the part of the article about him being named a magistrate of provisioning)

    Karanacs (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More from me (Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

      • First paragraph of Life and career section mentions "decided to begin writing the Cronica." I'd include a short (one-sentence?) explanation of what the Cronica is since it isn't made clear until later.
      • "Villani retained much of the optimism in his writing" - but the article does not mention before that there WAS optimism in his writing, so "retained" might not be the best word
      • What exactly was he convicted and imprisoned for (it's not clear how he broke the law)? Was he the only one convicted from his bank (or from the others that went bankrupt at the same time)?
        • Come on! Play nice! I can't find every obscure fact in the world; only 80% of them. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ""It is known that several events...written to deliberately obscure the truth". This seems a little Weaselly for such an allegation.
        • Ho ho, fixed that big time, you'll like the scholarly improvement to that sentence.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The details on his death/burial are on the life section instead of the death section.
      • I think the Nuova Cronica section needs to go between Life and Death (with Legacy and Criticism still last). Most of what is discussed in the Nuova Cronica section are things he wrote, and it would provide a good segue into death, since that begins by talking about an entry in the Cronica.
      • The persondata template appears to be missing.
      • The prose still needs work. I fixed a few misspellings and duplicate words, but I don't know if I caught them all, and it might be wise to run this through a spell check. Life and career section appears to jump around a bit, and part of it still reads like proseline. Some sentences don't flow well together (for example, "Villani was a Guelph,[10] but his book is much more taken up with an inquiry into what is useful and true than with factional party considerations. He favored republicanism over monarchy") Can you get an involved person to take a look at it?

    Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed the first three sentences in that paragraph, but in order to get some outside help as you suggest, I've contacted The Pentagon, which will deploy an elite editing team of death squadrons known as the League of Copyeditors—otherwise known as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen—as soon as they are done destroying America's enemies overseas. Tally-ho, wiki freedom fighters! (XD Lol.)--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC


    • Weak Support Neutral Oppose I agree with previous reviewers who have said that the article should focus on the man (the subject of the article), noting his works only as to talk about him further. For his writing style, for the specifics regarding X, Y, and Z regarding the works, again in the article of the works.
    • "Villani described the rebuilding of Florence after the 1293 rebellion of one Giano della Bella; he notes that by 1296 conditions were once again in a "tranquil state." - this is is about the contents of the Cronica, and on Florence history/historiography, not in any way about Villani
    • I note that Ming Dynasty was also requested to be split into "History of the Ming Dynasty" and "Ming Dynasty". It is not easy to separate closely related topics.
    Kiyarrllston 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See above ^ for all these concerns I have just addressed. Damn I'm good. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for notifying me on my talk page, I enjoyed reading the article, I consider my previous objection addressed.--Kiyarrllston 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I claim that the writing style is not yet up to snuff, and that overlinking is occurring (hostage?).--Kiyarrllston 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed your concerns on the article's talk page where you wrote; as to overlinking, I'm right on it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to neutral. Further comments left on talk page.--Kiyarrllston 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to weak support because I agree with carabinieri's assesment--Kiyarrllston 14:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a reminder on his talk page that there were outstanding comments that needed to be addressed. He appears to have been active in the last few days on other pages, so is probably not on a wikibreak. Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I haven't gotten to this right away, I have been concerned with other things on Wiki and real life concerns with mounting schoolwork, as this is the second semester of my senior year in college. Wish me luck people. :) I will try to address these concerns over the weekend.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over this article on Villani and the new one I just created for Cronica, I must admit, I feel sorry that I didn't split the article in the first place and just nominate Cronica to be a featured article, because that article actually looks better than this. Lol. Oh well, I put up Cronica as a Good Article nominee; anyone want to review it?--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just improved this article on Villani by adding new information from Louis Green's 1967 journal article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weakish oppose Weakish support Don't know enough about the subject to have a strong opinion but I think a round of copy-editing from fresh eyes would do a lot of good. A few sentences seemed awkward, though I don't claim to be an authority on grammatical issues. For instance as well as his glorification and inability to criticize the papacy and Florence should probably be something like as well as his glorification of the papacy and Florence and his inability to criticize them. Or even simply as well as his glorification of the papacy and Florence. In that same paragraph you have While continuing work and was continued by his brother in back to back sentences (and somehow, I feel like "continue" is not the right word here). A few paragraphs below: "... the famine's worst effects. In order to mitigate the effects, ... ". Later, use of the informal word info. Here and there Villani could be replaced by a pronoun to tighten the prose. I know, these are not cardinal sins but overall, I think a thorough round of copyediting is needed to meet criterion 1a. These minor quibbles notwithstanding, this is a very nice article and kudos to the author(s). Pichpich (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copyedited the article according to each one of your suggestions; even scrapping about two dozen instances where there was a "Villani" and replacing it with a pronoun. I think you'll like the general clean up which follows the advice you've proposed here.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I told User:Karanacs, I have contacted an elite shadow government of mind-control masters and ex-KGB officers known as the League of Copyeditors; they should be slitting your throat any minute now, along with your dog, after they are done mercilessly copyediting this article and intercepting North Korean missiles shipped to Iran.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to weak support per the changes made. I still believe that the elite shadow government of mind-control masters and ex-KGB officers known as the League of Copyeditors could help. No offence to you, the article is very very well-written but fresh eyes are often a good idea for making the final adjustments. As I said earlier, I can't really judge the content but as far as form is concerned, I won't object with the article being promoted to FA but I still think there's room for slight improvements. Pichpich (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article looks really good. I just have one (extremely minor) concern: "Villani's work is an Italian chronicle written from the perspective of the political class of Florence just as the city rose to a rich and powerful life of thought and action." Is "Italian" referring to the language it was written in? In that case a link to Italian language might be helpful to clarify the matter.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea; I've fixed that.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 6 February 2008.

    Robert Peake the Elder[edit]

    Nominator: User: Qp10qp

    I'm nominating this article for featured status because I believe it is comprehensive and unusual. There is little known about Peake (in fact I hadn't heard of him till I added the sad and beautiful "Elizabeth of Bohemia with piled barnet" portrait to the Anne of Denmark article). Until December, Wikipedia didn't have an article on Peake. I accidentally found some original scholarship about him in a book on Nicholas Hilliard and Isaac Oliver by Mary Edmond, and it struck me that her findings about Peake's life have never been put together with the scholarship on Peake's art by Roy Strong. Karen Hearn mentions Edmond but goes no further in her useful notes on a few of Peake's paintings. So this article, without resorting to original research, is, I suspect, unique (it doesn't have an equivalent online or in print and the only other place to find this group of pictures together is, thanks to PKM, on our Commons).

    I haven't put the article up for Peer Review because User: PKM, User: Amandajm, and User: Johnbod have been joining in, which is a peer review in itself. PKM has done inspiring work in finding and assessing paintings (if anyone wants to know how an image should be titled, sourced, and described, have a look at how PKM does it). Compiling a set of Peake pictures is not at all straightforward: we have been up against the fact that one secondary source does not know what the next is doing, and a degree of confusion and fuzziness that probably results from the low importance given by galleries to such pictures as these. (Amandajm has made some clever deductions to work out that what was described as one painting was in fact two: the talk page is fun, if you get the chance to glance at it). Who knew there was was this other little English painter in there among all those Netherlanders, producing what (I think) will one day emerge as a substantial body of work? Not me. qp10qp (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support without hesitation. Well done. On a quick read, I can't find anything to criticise (although I'm sure we can if we try hard enough ;) )--Docg 14:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Qp's nom, which I think is accurate. I have contributed some minor touches myself, mostly tidying, as he is kind enough to say. A fine piece of encyclopedic synthesis, apparently not available elsewhere in such detail, but without any OR. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. Overall I thought the article was comprehensive and well-written. I have a few minor suggestion for improvement, but my primary issues are a few missing citations (which should be easy to find, I hope), and an overabundance of images. I would support but for the gallery. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to make it clearer in the caption for the first image (of Henry and Lord Harrington), that it was painted by Peake. It's assumed yes, but I'd start out "Peake's portrait of ...", especially because people might read the caption before the lead and then be confused. Then for subsequent pictures the captions are fine

    Done and agreed - PKM (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm not entirely sure what this means "who lived at the sign of “The Key"
        • Done by note
      • In the first paragraph of early life and work, you should list the full names and wikilink to De Critz and Gheeraerts, as that is their first mention in the body of the article
        • Done
          • I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. It was this sentence "Peake’s training would have been similar to that of De Critz and Gheeraerts, who may have been pupils of the Flemish artist Lucas de Heere.[9]" that I thought it needed to be spelled out.
    And done. qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Painter to Prince Henry section, specify which King (people may not read the lead)
        • Done
      • Duplication of 6 November in the paragraph concerning the death of the Prince of wales; can this be rewritten just a tad so that isn't necessary?
        • Done
      • There's a period in the caption of the painting of Princess Elizabeth Stuart, when that is not a full sentence. Would a semicolon be more appropriate?
        • Done -first bit
      • Also, is Princess Elizabeth Stuart the proper way to refer to her? Perhaps instead, Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I and future Queen of Bohemia,...
    She is sometimes called Elizabeth Stuart, but I have simplified it to "Princess Elizabeth". qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you provide a citation for the facts that "This fashion, which has remained a feature of English aristocratic portraiture" ... and that the curtains were "a motif popular in the first decade of the 1600s"?
        • Done by note, last 6 dones by Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I think this needs more than an explanatory note; it needs an actual source that says the fashion was a feature of English aristocratic portraiture and that the motif was popular - otherwise it is original research. Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could ask the editor who added this material, but it's discursive for my liking and so I have cut it. qp10qp (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever! It is hardly OR, and unlikely to be challenged, as a fairly basic point. A glance at the Larkin Commons Gallery Gallery ought to settle the matter for anyone not familiar with the subject. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    John, I didn't mean you! The original sentence was added without refs by someone else, and, though it is fairly unexceptionable, it was synthesising the point with Peake in a way that requires cites. If I see supporting material, I'll add it back in (and your Larkin note), but I'm not going to go looking for it. By the way, many thanks to you for helping so much with these queries. It is very much appreciated! qp10qp (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should dispense with the gallery. The pictures included in the body of the article do a wonderful job of showing his work while the text provides a nice bit of context. 9 images in the article + 8 in the gallery is overkill, esp for an article that is only 34k.

    Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Who is adding graphics? Please read the WP:FAC instructions and remove the "done" graphics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think (and I'm open to being convinced otherwise) that the gallery should stay. Generally, the number of images would be overkill if they were merely illustrative. But this is an article about art. The images are content themselves - the reader/viewer learns more about the subject from them. Can you tell me why the reader would be better off without them?--Docg 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might well withdraw my support if the gallery goes! See talk on this; I won't get myself started. It is an article on a painter, and each picture is worth 1,000 words in my view. This collection is itself encyclopedic. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree that an article about an artist should have images of his/her work for completeness, but I think it needs contain a representative sample and not aim for completeness (I use that word for lack of a better one; I know that completeness is not possible nor is it likely your aim). I know a little about art but not a lot, and for me as a reader I want to know the context of the pictures that are shown—why are they important examples of his work? What's different about them? This article does an excellent job of putting the pictures that are embedded in the text in context (as well as the the gallery pictures of Charles I & the hunting one with Robert Devereaux). The other pictures in the gallery, however, give only a brief historical context of the subject; their inclusion offers me as an unknowledgable reader nothing except a chance to say "oooo, pretty" (and I did do that). Rather than dilute the impact of the other pictures, I'd prefer to just remove those that don't offer the article much.
    I know that other articles, such as FA Texas A&M University, have galleries set up at the Commons, and link to that from the article. Would that be an acceptable compromise—keep the 2 in the gallery that are mentioned in the article, and then move the rest to the Commons so that they are available to those with additional interest? Karanacs (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearly all articles on painters, like this one, have Commons galleries (Peake's now has 21 files). They are not the same thing at all, don't have caption info (now much expanded here), and are not under the control of English WP - not a big issue here, but most Commons galleries on famous painters are very raw data indeed - full of mis-attributed/titled/described pictures, unsorted, with hopeless descriptions - look at the Commons pages for Rubens, Raphael etc etc. Most art books have as many pictures as the publishers can afford, which fortunately is not an issue for WP. Allowing for detail images, there are only 14 paintings shown, which can hardly be called excessive. It is right at the end of the article - you don't have to read it. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (as a contributor) and I also support the gallery; I think in articles on visual subjects (artists, fashion) it is worthwhile to include a gallery arranged chronologically or geographically to show the range or evolution of the subject. What's in the commons is usually not arranged chronologically, or by type of work (minatures vs. panel portraits, say) or in any other way that is meaningful to a reader. Editorially selected examples to show a range of work seem a useful adjunct to me. I've seen it suggested that printed encyclopedias do not include galleries of images so neither should Wikipedia, but surely that is a constraint of the printed format (printing costs, size of volumes, shipping costs, all ending up affecting retail cost and acceptance by consumers). We are not bound by those constraints and should, I think, take advantage of the opportunity to present information in this (to me) useful way. - PKM (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the picture rights cost - often a significant constraint on paper publishers. Text is much cheaper per page. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note: I checked the list of current FAs. Sadly, there are very few FAs of painters, but of the two famous ones that I saw (El Greco and Salvador Dali), neither included a gallery in the article, only pictures incorporated into the text. My biggest problem with the gallery is that there is no context to the images included (except for the two mentioned in the article). What makes those paintings representative of his work (why choose those vs others he painted)? What makes those different from the ones that are detailed in the text? Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick interjection - both those FAs have 15 pictures in the text; this has 17 in total. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree with you. Peake is an unusual painter in that the paintings themselves are the strongest source of information on him, the amount of scholarship being very small and unfocussed. If we are to give the reader an account of Peake's development, we have to show the pictures included in the gallery, for most of which there exists no scholarship other than their gallery notes.
    Why these pictures? The pictures in the gallery chart Peake's work chronologically; in addition, they show the way he repeated figures from patterns (with significant changes) and the fact that he painted non-royal subjects too. On the latter point, it is inevitable that since Peake painted the royal children, those paintings have been the ones noticed by writers. However, little has been written about his non-royal work, for which the pictures themselves are the chief information. The gallery addresses this and rounds out the picture of Peake's work. It also illustrates, for example (as in the case of the Knollys portrait, issues of dating and attribution raised in the text). The portrait of the young Elizabeth is there as evidence that it may be a companion piece to the 1603 double portrait: it is hoped that the interested reader will check its background against both double portraits, as the matter is mentioned in the text. The provision of the second double portrait is essential for the light it sheds on Peake's practice of reworking a composition. The eagle-eyed may also be concerned to note that this Elizabeth portrait is tonally more similar to the 1605 Devereux version of the double portrait than to the Harington one of 1603 (this is one of several places in the article where the paintings themselves may appear to contradict the scholarship quoted: in a sense they are required as counterbalances—or at least, supplements—to the referenced text). A more straightforward example of the use of types (or patterns) is provided by the Charles in Garter portrait: this is intended to balance the comments of Sheeran and Hearn that treat the Cambridge portrait (which was actually a later version of the Garter type) as if it represented a singular stylistic moment. The unknown man is a great oddity that when looked into may also raise issues that contradict aspects of the text. The pictures of Anne Pope and Elizabeth Poulett show how Peake's art had developed from the time of the Knollys portrait of 1582. I have seen no scholarship on this development (apart from that concerning the Cambridge portrait of Charles), so it can only be shown to the reader visually. Those two paintings are also examples of the rich late visual style addressed in the Elizabeth Pope section, which would otherwise seem isolated from the material about royal portraits which by necessity takes up most of the article.
    I do not believe that all articles on artists should have a gallery, but galleries seem to me useful for the obscurer artists of this period, who are possibly more interesting for the invaluable documentary and cultural information they provide than for their creative individuality. I see these paintings as facts that contribute to the informational value of the article. qp10qp (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bordering on an original research argument—we think that the pictures dispute the scholarship, so we're going to include them for that reason? I really think that the number of pictures for an article this size is overwhelming to most readers.

    Maybe this will help though. In reading WP:GALLERIES, it recommends that A short introduction to a gallery is expected. Do not just dump the thumbs on the reader; explain in some detail why they are grouped together. Perhaps if you can include a brief description, thus adding context, before the list of pictures it might help. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They weren't dumped, as I am sure you are beginning to realise: precisely the opposite, I promise. So long as we don't make authorial comments, it is not original research to include these pictures, even if the notes from their galleries contain information that contradicts or lends a slant to the information referenced to the scholars. The issue of original research is complicated with pictures, which, from an informational point of view, are umbilically tied to their description at their home galleries (unless published scholars have challenged those descriptions). It would not be possible to add a picture to the page for which we have no information; but we have added paintings for which there is information at the galleries, so there is no original research. (The standard of scholarship at the galleries is another question; but we are in no position to dismiss their attributions: that would be original research.)
    On the question of an introduction to the gallery, my first instinct is that it's not necessary, since each picture has a full caption. But as you are quoting a guideline, it looks like I will have to do it. qp10qp (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. qp10qp (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am far from sure that any actual guideline covers this. There is one covering the now extremely rare articles-that-are-just-galleries, which I think is what is being referred to but nothing I am aware of covering galleries in articles. Confusion between the two is common among Wiki iconoclastss. Does someone have the working link? Karanacs, I think you just have to accept there is a large concensus here to keep the gallery. Personally I gon't think the Intro adds anything - the captions say all that needs saying. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't oppose on the grounds of the gallery as there is no official policy or guideline on it, but I find it telling that three veteran FA reviewers/writers (me, Giano, and SandyGeorgia) really dislike the galleries in FA articles. Images are wonderful additions to articles, as long as they are placed in context, and galleries don't provide that opportunity. (And I saw a comment earlier but can't find it on the number of pictures in the other articles - yes, there is a similar number of pictures; the difference is that the other articles are at least twice as long as this one, meaning there was more opportunity to put the images in context and embed them in the article.) As it appears neither of us can see the other's viewpoint, I see little benefit in continuing the discussion. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, although I think you are rather overstating the amount of reference in the text to pictures in text sections, in FAs or any articles. I think we all know that if there was more known about Peake, all these pics would have been fitted in the longer text sections, and we would not have had any complaints about being "overwhelmed"! Have you seen Giano's latest FA - Queluz National Palace? - some would say that has mini-galleries. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Karanacs, I have now read Wikipedia:Galleries, and it is about whole-page galleries. So I think I can safely remove the gallery introduction without offending any guideline. qp10qp (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it was also a proposal that was rejected ages ago, but someone had removed the tag (now restored). Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments from Maralia
    • "Peake was the only English-born painter of a group of four whose workshops were closely connected." - only English-born, or only painter? "group of four whose" leaves the distinguishing factor indeterminate.
    Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link to Lincolnshire, please - there's no link even to England.
    Linked. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was apprenticed three years after the miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard to the Goldsmiths’ Company in London" - this imparts no information. when, please?
    Joined the two sentences together, so that the date is in the same sentence as this. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A signed portrait of 1593" - from 1593.
    OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I would say "of" is more correct, and the normal usage in academic art history - "from" sounds rather journalistic to me. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Serjeant-Painter to the king" - I think this is a case where either both or neither should be capitalized.
    One can never get full consistency on this: I've now decapitalised serjeant-painter throughout. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scholars have deduced from Peake’s known payments" - payments to me are debits, not earnings.
    OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His will was made on October 10, 1619 and proved on the 16th" - what does proved mean, in the context of a will?
    I've now provided a link to probate but don't want to make a meal of this, which was the way it was put in the source. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some paintings, however, have been attributed to Peake from analysis of the characteristic method of inscribing the year and the sitter's age on his documented portrait of a "military commander" (1592), which reads: "M.BY.RO.| PEAKE" ("made by Robert Peake")." - some paintings have been attributed to Peake [based on correlation/parallel/something to] analysis of the...
    Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "making her look much younger and more triumphant than she was" - how does one look more triumphant than one is?
    By being paraded through the streets on a chariot in evocation of the Roman emperors (see Strong Gloriana and The Cult of Elizabeth) when one's armies are being humiliatingly defeated time after time on the continent. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been more clear. What I was getting at is that it's a matter of placing her in a triumphant setting, isn't it? Perhaps that's an unnecessary distinction, but I stumbled over it. Maralia (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Robert Peake was one of the earliest English painters to explore another form of full-length portrait that became fashionable in England, the individual or group portrait with active figures placed in a natural landscape" - prefer colon to comma here.
    Not me. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The action is natural to the setting, a fenced deer-park, with a castle and town in the distance" - second comma is unnecessary.
    Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The reason Prince Henry regularly commissioned portraits from Peake was to send them to the various foreign courts with which marriage negotiations were underway." - 'The reason...was' is weak prose.
    OK. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut the link. Not sure what this refers to. PKM? qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed to me that America should be linked somewhere, but I admit I didn't go back and check the link. The Jacobean idea of a personification of America isn't exacly like anything we have. Okay unlinked I think. - PKM (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dashes in reference page numbers need to be converted to endashes.
    Five got through. Changed. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all relatively minor issues—this is the first FAC I've reviewed in days where I found essentially no issues from a strictly copyediting standpoint. It's a nice change! Thanks for a good read. Maralia (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for reading the article so carefully. qp10qp (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, as the bulk of my concerns have been addressed. For the record, I explicitly support the gallery's inclusion. Maralia (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, fine comprehensive article on an obscure painter, including its 17 images. I would have thought that the shortness of the article was grounds for including them.--Grahame (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support This is wonderful article on a previously obscure painter. It is well-researched, well-written, and well-illutrated. My concerns can quickly be remedied.

    • I thought that "print-seller" had lost its hyphen.
    Done , & link changed. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between about 1590 and about 1625 - Is there any way to avoid two "about's" here? It's not very elegant.
    I dropped one, per Waterhouse. qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • they specialised in a style of full-length portrait popular in England without equivalent on the continent - not entirely clear - describe the style a bit instead
    What about this? "Between 1590 and about 1625, they specialised in brilliantly coloured, full-length "costume pieces" that are unique to England at this time.<ref|>"There is nothing like them in contemporary European painting". Waterhouse, Painting in Britain, 41.</ref|> qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Should "brilliantly-coloured" be hyphenated? Is that a compound adjective there? Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliantly is just an adverb. qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. But isn't it necessary? You can't take it out, right? Isn't that why the hyphen is necessary? Awadewit | talk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Peake began practising as a portrait painter is uncertain,[10] but he was "well established" in London by the late 1580s, with a "fashionable clientèle". - might be nice to tell the reader who is saying these words - I wasn't sure if it was a contemporary or a scholar, until I looked at the note.
    Brought Strong into it. qp10qp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The role was flexible in its definition of duties. - I feel like this could be worded better - I'm not exactly sure what is wrong with it and I tried to come up with something shorter, but I couldn't. I just stumbled over it a bit.
    I've dropped the sentence and adjusted the next one slightly, to compensate. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1611, Peake dedicated to the prince a translation of Sebastiano Serlio’s The First Booke of Architecture that he had commissioned himself. - It is not clear who did the commissioning - the referent for the "he" is unclear.
    Reversed the sentence structure. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nicholas Hilliard had died in January, Queen Anne, who had done so much to patronise the arts, in March, and the painter William Larkin, Peake’s neighbour, in April or May. - What do you think about semi-colons to help out the reader?
    I tend not to do that if there are no miscues; but I've added them anyway. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The double portrait is set outdoors, a style introduced by Gheeraerts in the 1590s, and Peake's combination of figures with animals and landscape also foreshadows the genre of the sporting picture - Is there a good link for "sporting picture"?
    Nothing that I can see, after a good look. Very unfashionable .... Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked through the Herring and Stubbs articles, but nothing. Should we make a red link, do you think? qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so. It's a whole genre - it should have an article, like portrait painting. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The portrait is open to several interpretations. - Obviously - could this statement be made a little more interesting?
    Dropped it altogether. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the gallery is excellent. As an undergraduate, I was an English-art history double major. Both majors always urge you to "go back to the primary sources" to really learn about the material. We cannot easily quote whole works of literature in wikipedia articles, but we can quote entire paintings. The best way to learn about art is to look at it. I think that having the gallery is an excellent idea. It provides users who want to take the time to look at the paintings an easily accessible format in which to do so. I would just add footnotes for the attributions.
    You only did a double major? How lazy. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a source note to the unknown man. Knollys has an in-text lead to the Berger Collection. The others have notes or are covered in notes elsewhere in the text . . . except Frances Walsingham (so this was a worthwhile exercise and I'll bring her up on the Talk page). qp10qp (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What if someone looks only at the gallery? Since we can easily copy notes with the "ref name" feature, I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to do that here. Just an idea. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008
    • Bibliography:
    • There are several journal articles missing page numbers.
    Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haigh, Christopher. Elizabeth I. London: Pearson Longman, (1988) 1999 - I don't understand the dates in this reference - there are several like this - is it supposed to mean the original publication date? If so, it should be placed before the publication location with a period after it.
    I've cut them out now, but this always makes me nervous because the original date of art research and attributions is so crucial in sequencing the evolution of scholarship. I've got the Strong books in quite recent editions by a different publisher from his original one. I must need something to worry about, but I feel cheated when it turns out that a reference didn't give me the original publication date. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you cut them out? You could just place them in the correct location. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kitson, Michael. British Painting, 1600–1800. National Gallery of Victoria, 1977 - Publication location?
    Melbourne. Ha, ha! This is my favourite ref in the article! Amanda just happened to have seen the Devereux version of the double portrait at Melbourne in 1977 and fished out the catalogue. Kitson's comments set us off on a chain of domino-like revelations about that picture and its twin. qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a pleasure to read this article. Awadewit | talk 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers. Now I know what it's like for you assembling articles out of fragmentary information and scholarship. Many thanks for the review.qp10qp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, what reference style is the bibliography supposed to be in? I tried to fix it up so that it was consistent, but someone starting reverting my changes, so I just gave up on that. It would be nice if the "Bibliography" were consistently in MLA, Chicago, APA, or some recognizable style. I am becoming depressingly familiar with these styles, unfortunately, as I enter the wonderful world of academic publishing and I can't quite see one here. Awadewit | talk 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope it wasn't me that was reverting you: I have been editing away without really noticing what else was happening. I go by Turabian, 7th ed. For example, they do the "edited by" thing, rather than the "Eds". And for "in", they have a full stop and then "In", with a capital.

    For example:

    • Spirn, Anne Whiston. "Constructing Nature: The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted." In Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, edited by William Cronon, 91–113. New York: W.W.Norton and Company, 1996.

    qp10qp (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok. I have gone through all of the citations and adjusted them for Turabian (the student's Chicago!). I also added a hidden note so that other editors will know what style is being used. I find that helps. Awadewit | talk 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. I got the Turabian when my Chicago needed renewing, because it was much cheaper and so nicely set out. Over the weekend, I decided to collect some templates to cover all my needs, but as before, I found them anti-Chicago and was thwarted (and annoyed). I'm emotionally a Chicagoan, and when it's up to me to decide a style, I revert to that. But I think my first-publication-date idiosyncrasy must have crept in as a bastard of Harvardism. qp10qp (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support looks like it took some putting together, but it's a good read even if you don't like Peake. A few minor points:
    • Why is the second portrait of Princess Elizabeth used to illustrate a section that discusses the first portrait? And why is the second portrait not mentioned in the text at all?
    There used to be a nod to the older portrait in the text and this reminds me that I intended to reinstate part of it. I think the first portrait goes well in the gallery with the double portrait to which it may be connected. The portrait of the older Elizabeth used to be in the lead, but there have been various changes to image position that I didn't envisage when constructing the text and image relationship. For me, the portrait with the dark background is Peake's masterpiece, but it doesn't work so well at a smaller size. Unfortunately, I cannot find a word of scholarship about that picture to place alongside it. Perhaps I could say something about her: she's very interesting. qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the titles of the pictures not italicized consistently?
    For a number of reasons. Some of the paintings don't seem to have a regular title, and where some have been taken from books it is not clear whether the caption was a descriptive one by the writer or an actual title. One also doesn't know what to do when a scholar gives a different title to the gallery. Strong happily calls the procession picture (which seems to be what it is "now known as", rather than its title, hence the quote marks), Eliza triumphans, but I don't know on what authority. The New York Metropolitan gives a frankly ludicrous title to the Harington double portrait, and one which makes captioning awkward. We do have an agreed title for the equestrian portrait, which has been used. On the whole, to be on the safe side, the article's captions give a descriptiion of the picture rather than wade into the murky waters of "titles". However, point taken, and I'll trawl back through the books and galleries to see if there's any way to rationalise this. qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice to see the three pictures of Henry together, though it's probably difficult to arrange. Yomanganitalk 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They used to be. I don't like to interfere too much with the decisions of other editors (it's all a matter of judgement, I suppose), but I'll have another think about that. Many thanks for your review and thorough copy edit. qp10qp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only item in External links is now the Commons link; is that proper per MOS? (I've never been sure.) I usually place Commons links up with "See also" or somewhere else near the gallery to make it obvious that we have more images. - PKM (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added NPG & MMA external links. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaks for style. I have removed some duplicate wikilinks for Elizabeth I and James I - both are linked in the introduction. I changed "family ... acted as guardian" to "guardians" (plural) - or is this an American vs. British usage question? I also reworded a bit to remove the repeated phrase "only surviving daughter" referring to James's daughter Elizabeth. - PKM (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I usually dislike galleries in articles (they tend to attract numerous uninteresting and poorly taken holiday snaps) but this is not the case this time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind; checked it myself, and it links fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 6 February 2008.

    Oxygen[edit]

    previous FAC (21:43, 27 December 2007) and recent peer review (21 January 2008)

    Co-nomination between mav, Nergaal and WikiProject Elements This article had 26KB of prose before the FA push was started in mid-September. Since then I've added a bit over 20KB of prose and others have added more, making the total prose size 53KB before we moved the excess text to daughter articles (there is now 43KB of prose) and left, what I think, are great summaries here. Since this is a Vital Article covered by 3 different WikiProjects, bringing it to FA quality has been nothing short of a monumental effort that required a great deal of work from many different people. For example, Nergaal has extensively copyedited, cited and reorganized the article and other members of WikiProject Elements and other WikiProjects, especially (in no particular order) Sbharris, Pyrotec, Tameeria, Plantsurfer, Derek.cashman and others have helped bring this article to its current state. I certainly could not have done this alone. So, what else, if anything, is needed to bring this to to FA status? --mav (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I forgot to mention that this article received Good article status in December. I also, of course Support my own nomination this time. --mav (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found the lead section rather overlinked, & have removed a number of unnecessary links (eg life, energy & teeth). I suspect that a few more could be removed without any loss of information but with a corresponding gain in readability.
    I also feel that some of the detail should be dropped from the lead. For example, does the reader really need to be burdened with terms such as obligate anaerobic organisms? Indeed, the sentence However, free oxygen is toxic to obligate anaerobic organisms and was a poisonous waste product for early life on Earth contains a verbose tautology & should perhaps be shortened to However, free oxygen was a poisonous waste product for early life forms on Earth.

    I'll post some more general comments when I've had time to read through the rest of the article. My initial impressions are favourable. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the suggestions! The lead has been significantly refactored and I think we have addressed your concerns with it. --mav (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead is far better now: condensing 4 paras into 3 was an improvement too. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was only when I read down as far as the section on Allotropes that I discovered that This article is primarily concerned with this allotrope (ie O2). It seems only fair to tell the reader what the article's about by including this fact in the lead —& I've done so in para 3. I've also condensed the aerobic/anaerobic distinction in an attempt to bring out the contrast more strongly: please edit this if it isn't expressed correctly! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed that statement from the body since this article is about all aspects of oxygen. But since that is the dominant free form, that allotrope does get a lot of coverage in the article. I like your edits, BTW. --mav (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Flattery is no way to get to FA status—but thanks all the same! It's looking good now. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It rarely hurts :) --mav (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - first line: "Oxygen (pronounced /ˈɒksɪdʒən/) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas with the chemical symbol O and atomic number 8" is just wrong. Oxygen the element has the chemical symbol of O and atomic number 8, Oxygen gas has a chemical formula of O2 and an RMM of ~32. At different points throughout the article it is unclear whether the element or the gas are being refered to. Guest9999 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a valid point. We have started to make the distinction more clear when and where it might make a difference. The lead is already much more clear, I think. --mav (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed oxygen into dioxygen where was the case but wasn't clear enough. I also tried to make a clearer disambiguation message at the begining of the article. I hope it is better now, and please try to be specific if you still have problems with this (i.e. list problematic sections). Nergaal (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm sorry, but I think you've gone overboard on this. I think we just have to live with the fact that in many applications (aviation, diving, even industry) oxygen is the accepted usage: using dioxygen will simply confuse many non-specialist readers. When the cabin of an aircraft is depressurized we expect to see oxygen masks drop down: the last thing the passengers want to hear is that prefix di-!
    Perhaps you should establish at the top of the article that, unless otherwise stated, oxygen refers to O2. Usually the context will make it clear which you mean; only when ambiguity might arise should you use dioxygen. Otherwise it simply sounds pedantic. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point and think that a good compromise is to make sure that the context is set correctly. In many cases that will require replacing dioxygen with oxygen gas if the context of the sentence does not make it clear that we are talking about free oxygen at STP. I see to this after work today. --mav (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - pedantic overuse of "dioxygen" is now history. --mav (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ... & the article looks much better as a result! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - leaving aside the fact that I am also a nominator, I do actually believe that except for minor tweaks this is a great article. A ridiculous amount of work has been put into this article to be both comprehensive and concise, but also well written. Nergaal (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The heading Anthropogenic production is pretty dreadful: how is the poor reader looking through the TOC meant to guess what it means? Unless this is a standard heading in all chemistry articles, I strongly recommend translating it into English & changing it to something like Industrial production. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all the methods discussed are necessarily industrial. I would just call the section "production". I think it is normally implied in chemistry that "production" refers to (artificial) production by humans. The other "natural" forms or production are usually discussed under headings such as biosynthesis or geological cycles. Besides, "anthropogenic production" is a term that one hears most often in discussions of CO2 and global warming, and may bring the unintended connotation of "pollution", hardly a problem with oxygen! --Itub (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine: Hydrogen has Production (with 3 subheadings). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. While there may be some minor changes of wording that could still improve the article a bit, I believe it already meets all the necessary criteria. I congratulate the principal authors because this is one of the most difficult chemical elements to get to FA IMO, due to its ubiquity and the richness of its chemistry. --Itub (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - would it be appropriate to mention anything about Oxygens' role in different types of fuel cell? Guest9999 (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be wrong, but I think this comes from the fact that the solutions to the Schrödinger equation have been calculated exactly for hydrogen, while for oxygen is faaar messier. Nergaal (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor quibble re. heading "Allotropes". While "allotropes" is technically correct, it's also rather a rather uncommon word. I'd say that "molecular oxygen" or something like that would be easier for most readers, and the subarticle as well as a link to allotrope could follow directly after the heading. If there are good reasons for keeping it the way it is, I'd accept that of course. Kosebamse (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Molecular oxygen would be at least confusing. Forms of molecular oxygen would be too verbose. I am not sure what better options are there, but IMO I think the same could be said about isotopes. Nevertheless, this problem could be solved by being extra-sure that the reader understands the meaning of allotropy from the first sentence in tha section. Nergaal (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Forms of molecular oxygen" does not sound awkward to me, and has the advantage of being easily understood as well as factually correct. But as I said, I won't insist.
    Otherwise, a very long but well written and interesting article. I have not read all of it but from what I have seen I would support FA. Kosebamse (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Forms of molecular oxygen" could be unclear, for example 16O=16O and 16O=17O could be considered to be two different forms of molecular dioxygen. Also is the solid metallic allotrope mentioned actually molecular? Guest9999 (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Metallic substances are not molecular (see metallic bond). Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, so "Forms of molecular oxygen" would be an inaccurate title for a section that includes a metallic alotrope, irrespective of how awkward the wording sounds or how uncommon the scientific (but accurate) title is. Guest9999 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's something slightly alien & Spock-like about the phrase Humans produce oxygen in para 3 of the lead section. Much though I prefer the active voice in general, I think that in this case something like Oxygen is produced industrially ... would be preferable. And do we really need to say Human uses of this oxygen? Why not simply Uses of this oxygen or even just Uses of oxygen? There's no real ambiguity here.
    You are right, and your point really made me laugh. The version now gives the same information without bieng Spocky :). As for the intro, you are right. Me and Mav spent a lot of time and edits on it, but it seems we still missed some points. Thanks for the observations. Nergaal (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A fresh pair of eyes is always useful (I've certainly found this to be the case when I've been heavily involved in preparing an article). I'll continue scanning some of the other sections, though I'm certainly no expert on chemistry. I'm just playing devil's advocate & trying to represent the poor ignorant layman ... Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concentrating on the lead section because of its great importance in setting the tone for the rest of the article—not to mention the fact that many readers aren't going to read much further! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I've gone ahead with my suggested changes. If you're happy with them I'll strike out the comment above. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is it true that Lavoisier also renamed 'azote' to nitrogen? The fact remains that the modern French for nitrogen is still azote. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS According to the French WP article Azote, Lavoisier coined the term azote. Why would he then have gone to the trouble of renaming it nitrogène? (The latter term does exist in French, but it is rarely used.) Could someone please check the source (Cook 1968:500)? Alternatively, you could just drop this sentence, which isn't really relevant in this article. If you do retain the sentence, the French spelling nitrogène should presumably be used. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS A quick Web search suggests that it was not Lavoisier but Jean-Antoine Chaptal who coined the term nitrogène (in 1790). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I rechecked Cook and sure enough, it does not say that Lavoisier renamed azote to nitrogen. So I removed that statement. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Para 2 states that The common allotrope dioxygen (O2) is produced from water by cyanobacteria, algae and plants during photosynthesis. Shouldn't that be from water and CO2? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The O2 in photosynthesis really comes from the water. The CO2 ends up in glucose. Of course, CO2 is also required for photosynthesis, so this is a matter of how you read the sentence. --Itub (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite right: I think my attention was wandering when I wrote that! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think this is an excellently written article, and I learned quite a bit even though I have already made extensive studies into the properties and history of oxygen. I see no obvious problems. J.delanoygabsadds 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Several of the citations could be moved to the References section, where they can be listed alphabetically. For example, P Wentworth Jr & his 12 [sic] co-authors; Evans & Claiborne; & several others. The footnotes would then simply read Wentworth et al. (2002) and Evans & Claiborne (2006): much tidier. The fact that some references are only cited once isn't relevant.
    This appears to have been done in some cases: eg Daintith (1994) & Cook (1968)—though for some reason Cook's co-author Lauer doesn't get a mention in the footnotes.
    • A separate issue is whether to have a separate section of References for online sources: many articles do this as a matter of course. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Any reaction to my remarks on footnotes & refs above? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through and wikiciteified all book, journal and conference references. That was a hell of a lot of work - this really needs to be automated and I don't think I will do that level of wikicite templating again. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all your hard work! I'm sure if I hadn't pointed out the need for it, someone else—perhaps with the initials SG, who knows?—would have done so at the last minute. I hope you agree that it looks a lot tidier & more user-friendly now. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS ISBNs are missing in 3 book references: Crabtree, Smart & Walker. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done with the forst 2 but not very sure about the alst one. Nergaal (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This sentence in Occurrence needs to be amplified: The higher solubility of O2 at low temperatures has important implications for ocean life, as polar oceans support a much higher density of life due to their higher dioxygen content. Higher than what? What are these important implications?
    In the same section we read it would take at least 5,000 years to strip out more or less all dioxygen. This is very flabby: I'd rewrite it myself if I understood what it meant!
    I tried to rewrite both issues. Here is what was their meaning: 1) the O
    2     is more soluble in water at 5 degrees C than at 25. 2) is photosyntheses were to stop completely, it would take 5000 years for all the oxygen to be consumed assuming organisms could keep up their respirations (which won't happen since for example humans breathe in at 21% and breath out at about 16%, so probably only 16% is deadly for us). Basically 5000=total amound of free dioxigen/annual rate of oxigen being burnt by all the biosphere.
    In Anthropogenic Industrial production the text says that the price of liquid dioxygen in 2001 was approximately $0.21/kg. Do we want to include the price from a specific year already receding into the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndsg (talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is useful to give the reader a measure of the price. An exact price is not necessary, but something like 5kg per dollar sounds fine.Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've now worked through the article, making the odd change here & there—& learning a lot in the process. I still think that dioxygen could be changed to oxygen in many places (admittedly not in every case!) throughout the article; and my personal preference, expressed above, would be to move most of the detailed citations from Notes to the alphabetical bibliography in References. But the overall standard is definitely FA. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the weekend is upon us I’ll be able to address your remaining concerns about dioxygen and the list of authors. It is a pity that MediaWiki does not automatically generate an alphabetical list of authors. -- mav (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try OttoBib, which will generate a biblio from just the ISBNs. It seems, however, to put each item in its own box, so that each one has to be pasted individually—or so it seemed to me when I tried it out. Potentially it looks like a very useful tool. I'd be interested to see if you can get it to work in a useful way. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whew - Notes section is much cleaner now. I didn't get around to doing the same for the web references because they change so often and really should be switched with book/journal/conference references. But I won't object to anybody else wikiciteifying those. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First. I would include a drawing of oxygen with only one bond and two radical electrons to get the wrong picture of the double bond out. I personally would change the wording from simplified in description as a double bond to wrongly or over simplified, because singulet oxygen is a diradical and acts accordingly. Second. The What Lavoisier did indisputably do was to conduct is right for know, but if somebody reads a article from the time of the Franco-Prussian war for example from Kolbe the acchivements of Lavoisier where critizised. (This was in time of war and overboarding nationalism). If this is only my view than the article has my full Support.--Stone (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added over simplified and a mention that the importance of Lavoisier's experiments were not immediately recognized. --mav (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you have my Support and I wanted to bring a proof of the Lavoisier critics Article from Praktische Chemie 1870--Stone (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Overall a fine article. The only things I found missing was a density of oxygen in its liquid and solid states, and mention of Oxygen's (forbidden transition) role in Nebulium, as explained by I. S. Bowen.[33][34] But these are minor concerns. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes; endashes are needed on page ranges in citations; to avoid correcting them manually, you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script that will fix them. I also saw some WP:OVERLINKing of common terms (like skin and eyes) that should be addressed throughout. There are also WP:MOS#Captions punctuation problems (see difference between final punctuation on sentence fragments vs. full sentences.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Fixed a couple of typos, v good article. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I've removed a number of unnecessary non-breaking spaces: I think a previous editor was rather too liberal with their use. For example, it's true that 90 million should be typed 90&nbsp;million; but it seems to me that to write 90&nbsp;million&nbsp;years&nbsp;ago for 90 million years ago is going to extremes, & leads (indeed, was leading) to some very short lines in the text. And in phrases like 30% per volume there is no need at all for a NBSP (the text previously read 30%&nbsp;per&nbsp;volume).

    This confusion may have arisen because in some compounds you do need to extend the NBSPs beyond the first 2 words: eg 12 sq yd needs to be typed 12&nbsp;sq&nbsp;yd to avoid splitting sq yd. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment In Lavoisier's contribution you state that "Oxygen entered the English language despite opposition by English scientists and the fact that Priestley had priority". Presumably this means "despite the fact that Priestley had called it dephlogisticated air"; but as it stands it looks like a slightly puzzling non sequitur. Needs to be expanded or rewritten. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - having read through the article carefully a couple of times, I'd say it's ready. Nihiltres{t.l} 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Two phrases that might be shortened/omitted in the Intro:
    • At standard temperature and pressure two atoms of the element bind .... I know why this expression is used, but it strikes me as a bit jargony for the Intro. Is there some shorthand way of getting the idea across?
    • ... but Priestley is usually given priority because he published his findings first. This point is discussed in the article, but seems a bit too detailed for the Intro: does the reader coming fresh to the subject really need to be informed of nitty-gritty issues of priority at this stage? Consider omitting either the whole clause or the words because he published his findings first. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:08, 6 February 2008.

    Bath, Somerset[edit]

    previous FAC
    FAR; has been on main page.

    This article, about a city and World Heritage Site in South West England, became a FA in early 2005 appearing on the main page in Sept of that year. In Dec 2006 it had a featured article review and was demoted for the lack of inline citations, poor prose etc. It was in a sorry state, including loads of red links, typographic errors etc and underwent a name change from "Bath" to "Bath, Somerset". A team of editors, including those from WikiProject Somerset, have now done a great deal of work to correct the errors, expanding the article, providing citations & extensive copyediting. I now feel it meets the FA criteria but if others can suggest further areas for improvement we will do our best to respond to them.— Rod talk 12:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, Doesn't neglect major facts and is well sourced, great use of images too.--The Dominator (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments Nearly there Support looks good..just some minor tweaks needed some notes...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ..where the Romans built Baths and a temple - erm, that 'Baths' doesn't need the capital, does it?

    I'd mention it was called Aquae Sulis in the lead as it is a notable name.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response Thanks for your comments (& other edits). I've made the changes as you suggest.— Rod talk 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my internet connection died and I went to bed. I'll continue now:

    ::when the city revived as a spa. - 'revived' here to me sounds slightly odd (Bath sin't alive), though 'experienced a revival' is wordier but to me sounds better.

    ..creamy gold of Bath stone further unified the city, - erm, odd word, know what you mean, odd verb to use and I am having trouble thinking of a substitute. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Last para of Physical geography needs an inline citation. Could probably throw in another fact or two as it is a bit stubby and the springs are a pretty central part of Bath's raison d'etre.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I've tried to sort these as well - I had problems with unified & I'm not sure my replacement is strong enough?— Rod talk 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks good to me. I've used this article in the past. It's come along way since its last FAC. Llamabr (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response - although the link check software identifies 2x 404 errors & 2x 400 errors they all work when you click on them & the URL you arrive at is the same as the link in the ref. The last one is to a journal article & the link takes you to the front page & a subscription is needed to access more text. I don't know what I can do about them? I've left a message on the talk page of User talk:Dispenser to see how these can be overcome. — Rod talk 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow what an extra line of code can do. It was making requests like GET /…/Bath%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%93RoyalCrescent.aspx HTTP/1.1 when it should've been doing GET /…/Bath%E2%80%93RoyalCrescent.aspx HTTP/1.1 basically decoding the special characters an then re-encoding them in UTF-8. This eliminate all those "400 Bad Request" FIXME links in the todo list. The soft 404 are due to cookies not being implemented. And Sandy there's a Summary view, which only show dead or suspicious links and I've also created a monobook.js file that put the link into the toolbox on the side. If you want me to run the jobs at a different time let me know as right now they start at 5:00 UTC (Midnight EST) as this is when general server usage is low. — Dispenser 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

    Mumia Abu-Jamal[edit]

    previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

    • Support Self-nominated It meets the criteria:
    1. It is "strangely engaging",[35] comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable1.
    2. It follows the style guidelines.
    3. It has suitable images.
    4. It is focused on the topic. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1At least, as stable as any biography of a living person can be.

    A suggestion: go to http://www.danielfaulkner.com/. There's an email address in the left column -- support (at) danielfaulkner.com. Email them, and ask if they have photos of Mr. Faulkner that they'd be willing to license under a creative commons license, that we could use in our Daniel Faulkner and Mumia Abu-Jamal articles. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ....has this suggestion been acted upon? Raul654 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A message has been sent drawing their attention to Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission.
    Ahhh. As the only person with access to that queue, I suppose that I'll be the first person to know if they respond ;) Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Support. Just FYI, I'd never heard of Abu-Jamal before I read this article. I read it without referring to the trial article, so you're getting my take on the article without any other knowledge of the case.
      • I'm not familiar with style requirements on this, but when you say in the lead that the case is pending, do we need an "as of January 2008" in there? I also think you might need to state that it's pending (and an "as of" comment) in the "Federal higher appeal" section in the body.
      • set up (in the lead) seems a bit colloquial. How about "framed"?
      • "and/or" is deprecated. How about rephrasing that as "Supporters and human rights campaigners variously assert that he is innocent or was framed; some claim that he did not receive a fair trial, while others support him because they oppose the death penalty." I think the "variously" does a lot of the work of "and/or", and I hope that structuring this as less of a simple comma-separated list reduces the reader's tendency to assume they are mutually exclusive options.
      • the birth of his son Jamal from his first wife: "from" is an odd word to use for this. I'd suggest dropping "from his first wife" and then below make it "Jamal's mother was Abu-Jamal's first wife, Biba, whom he married when he was 19 years old; the marriage proved to be short-lived."
      • I'd change "a.k.a." to something like "usually known as".
      • Abu-Jamal describes in his writings his adolescent experience: could we cite this to whichever of his writings it is from? And I'd suggest putting "suffering a beating from white racists and police" in a form quotable directly to him; it's not exactly unlikely that was who beat him up, but I think we're only asserting that he said this, not that it unquestionably happened, hence we only need to cite him but we have to make it clear that it's a quote.
      • as its chapter: how about "as that chapter's" or "as the chapter's" instead? This construction is a bit slower to parse. And then maybe a comma before "exercising"?
      • a number of semesters: I don't think you can say this; the source doesn't even make it clear he finished one semester. I'd just say "briefly" (which is certainly implied by the source) or maybe "temporarily".
      • Debbie Kordansky and other potential defense witnesses refused to appear in court: this is the first and only mention of Debbie Kordansky in the article.
      • On 1 October 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for writ of certiorari, and his petition for rehearing twice up to 10 June 1991. This is a bit hard to read. How about this, assuming I've understood it correctly: "On 1 October 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for writ of certiorari; by 10 June 1991 the court had also twice denied his petition for rehearing."
      • Singletary's account contained discrepancies which render it "not credible". I think you need to tell the reader who it is who thinks it is not credible; the footnote lets the reader verify the statement, but the statement isn't sufficiently informative. Did the state decide it wasn't credible? The judge? Impartial observers? Journalists? The reader is going to want to know.
      • I think "certiorari" should be italicized; I'd make this change myself but I am not positive on this sort of MOS issue. Here is where I think the relevent MOS comment is. I don't know if legal terms are subject to this sort of formatting.
      • Is there any particular reason to say "Richard Santorum" instead of "Rick Santorum"? "Rick" is the universally used form of his name; I don't think it would be unencyclopaedic to use it.
      • On the 25th anniversary of the murder: how about giving the exact date instead of making the reader check back for it? E.g. "On 9 December 2006, the 25th anniversary of the murder".
    -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed all of the above in line with your suggestions. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support above. I've struck everything except the comment about the sentence describing the SCOTUS denials of petition; it stills seems clumsy to me. However, that's not enough to oppose on. Mike Christie (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Objection due to 1a - I believe the article needs some proof reading

    - "worked with BPP comrades in those cities"is it correct to call them comrades instead of, say, members?
    - "shot and wounded by Faulkner" - ambiguous - "first shot then wounded" or "wounded by a shot"
    I enjoyed reading the article, very interesting.
    --Kiyarrllston 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comrades is clearly correct from the prose. "Shot and wounded" is not an ambiguous expression in English. Of course it doesn't mean that he shot him but failed at wounding him, and therefore got out an axe or something and wounded him with that. --JayHenry (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    haha - it need not have been an axe. - SAK wound have done the job.
    I stand by comrades being inadequate - calling people comrades is already to step into a tone unfitting for an encyclopedia. Perhaps especially so given the propaganda usage of that term in the past.
    I was unable to find a shot and wounded article in both wikipedia and wiktionary. I am familiar with that expression myself. I don't know if wikipedia should not use more precise language instead of these, but I think it should.
    --Kiyarrllston 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Comrades" changed to "colleagues"; "shot and wounded" changed to "wounded by a shot". DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take another look.--Kiyarrllston 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -"a prisoner at State Correctional Institution - Greene near Waynesburg, Pennsylvania." - "a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Greene" would be grammatically correct and would clarify the meaning of that hyphen.
    -"Supporters and human rights campaigners variously assert that he is innocent, that he was framed, that he did not receive a fair trial, or oppose the death penalty. Opponents assert that he is guilty, that he received the benefit of due process and was legitimately convicted of murder. Proponents of execution among his opponents assert that under Pennsylvania law his eventual judicial execution is warranted and mandated by the nature of his crime" - why list supporters and then opponents? I believe a link to the death penalty controversy, separating each topic, - "Supporters and Opponents differ on whether he is guilty, on whether he had a fair trial, and on whether the death penalty was proper" I believe is better. Better than my suggestion surely exists.
    -"Marilyn (known as "Peachie"),[10] was born in early 1978.[12] Abu-Jamal separated from Peachie[Marylin]" -be consistent
    --Kiyarrllston 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've redrafted.[36] DrKiernan (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. I'll take another look.--Kiyarrllston 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Neutral.--Kiyarrllston 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I believe the article is well-written, clear, and such. I do have a number of thoughts. If they are helpful, feel free to use them to improve the article, but I don't consider them sticking points, and if they would not be improvements in your estimation, simply ignore.
      • In Education and journalism career it says he returned to high school, but it's not clear if it's the high school mentioned in the preceding paragraph or even the same city.
      • In Arrest for murder and trial: was he charged with first degree murder at the hospital? When he was charged helps establish how long the case was investigated and what medical condition he was in at the time.
      • In Prosecution and Defense case we have the disclaimer that each section does not include the counterarguments and information after the trial. We have the after-trial info later in the article, but the counterarguments are dangling.
      • Capitalization: "He was a Party member", "his rights had been "deceitfully stolen" from him by the Judge" Should those be lower case? "... said Judge Sato" but "Sato, the judge in the trial..."
      • If certiorai is ital. should pro se be as well?
      • In Life as a prisoner did the schools give any particular reason they wanted Abu-Jamal to give keynote addresses or why he was awarded an honorary degree? Is it because of Live From Death Row? Was Live From Death Row particularly successful commercially? With whom? Did any critics read it?
      • Had I written the article, I probably would have made Popular support and opposition a bigger section. I'm not sure the section conveys the extent to which he's a lightning rod more so than most other death row inmates (because a police officer was involved) and how he divides even the anti-death penalty activist community. On the one hand Rage Against the Machine threw Free Mumia concerts and on the other hand, the ACLU's support of the case has been uncharacteristically tepid.

    I'm surprised a subject like Mumia hasn't drawn more attention at FAC. But I think it's excellently done and I'm really deeply impressed with the neutrality of the article. Not an easy accomplishment on this subject matter, and my points are minor in light of this feat. --JayHenry (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I've implemented some of your suggestions. I'd prefer to leave the details of his trial and first book in the relevant articles, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal and Live from Death Row, rather than expand on them here. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was afraid to look at this again after the last fiascos, but this article looks nothing like that original one. It's actually readable now...and not just readable, it's compelling prose. This is an excellent article now-great job!. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (I now support the FA nom, but I have a small COI since I'm personally invested in the recent editing.)
      • I'm a little concerned with the "Further developments" section. I had separated the Beverly claim and labeled it "bizarre", but this was reverted on the grounds it was my judgement, not the source's. The only reference for it is the affadavit made by Beverly, which can only be trusted to mean that the statement was made, not that the statement is completely true. The lawyers for Abu-Jamal were divided on whether to use this info at trial because it lacked credibility. Also the statement is jarring in that very little of the other testimony agrees with it. I support including the claim, but I think it needs to be separated. I'm interested to see how others view this.
      • As mentioned above, I think the "Popular support and oppostion" section might be expanded a little. I'm not sure it's immediately clear that this is a highly polarizing issue. The ACLU's tepid support is also interesting, but I had difficulty finding a source to that effect. It might also be interesting to show when exactly this issue became a "cause". I've read something about a big newspaper ad from the 90s. There is a recent movie on the subject In Prison My Whole Life which may be worth including.
      • -- Austin Murphy (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your edits to the article. I see no reason why you shouldn't support, I am! I'd prefer not to separate the Beverly claim because it would be a short paragraph on its own, which would break up the text unnecessarily and would give it undue weight. However, I would be in favour of including any sourced critical assessment of the statement in the interests of balance.
    I haven't seen that film, it looks as if it presents a very one-sided view, but I agree it is of interest to include it in the "Popular support and opposition" section as a third paragraph, highlighting the celebrities appearing in it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note; not at all thrilled with the External link farm of support and opposition groups. Can it be trimmed to the two or three most significant, per WP:NOT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

    Super Mario 64[edit]

    Myself and other editors have been cleaning up and expanding this article to get it up to FA. We would appreciate any comments or suggestions that could improve the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • Support. As one of the main contributers of SM64, I think it's starting to look like FA material. Great work everyone! The Prince (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article has been cleaned up nicely since its first FAR. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support - One of the first things I did on wikipedia was vote on the first FAR,, and supported the second FAR, so I've watched this article for a long time, and it has only gotten better and more comprehensive with time. It's time to give it back its FA star, great work. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - looks good enough to return. igordebraga ≠ 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per ZeWrestler, Judgesurreal777 and igordebraga. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support - per above, nice job. Gran2 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes; do these articles not have titles? How are readers to find the articles?

    • a b Edge (Future Publishing) (no. 35), 1996
    • a b Electronic Gaming Monthly (Ziff Davis): 189, January 2004

    Please fix the endashes on the date ranges in references; you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to do it automatically with his script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The endash and caption issue has been addressed, I don't believe I missed any. The information for the issue of Edge was obtained from the Edge Online: Reviews Database. As for the issue of EGM, I honestly don't remember when that was added, so I can't really comment for certain. Most gaming magazines have a list/index of games or a list of games that are reviewed in the table of contents, so finding the specific article in the appropriate issue isn't incredibly difficult. Will this be a problem in meeting FA criteria? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I won't hold it up for a minor issue, but it would certainly be nice if the sources were complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your understanding. If we happen upon those specific issues, we will update the reference information accordingly. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose—1c, 2 (MOS).
      • "It is acclaimed by many critics and fans as one of the greatest and most revolutionary video games of all time.[9]" That's a major claim, at the end of the lead. But Ref 9 looks like something I fancifully posted at a whim. Who's the author, this guy who says he likes making lists? Convince me it's not trashy, this source. It certainly shouldn't be supporting such a claim in so prominent a place. I'm concerned about other refs; please audit the shady ones.
      • Nintendo took its "number-one 2D franchise and convert it flawlessly into 3D."—See MOS on quotes that start within WP sentences. (Punctuation ...). There are others, too.
      • "360 degree range"—Where's the hyphen? See MOS.
      • MOS on captions: Mario swims in the castle's fountain with the mysterious "L is real 2401" message on it—this is a real sentence, so a final period is required. Check all. Tony (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe your last three points have now been addressed and we'll look into the first. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • After looking at the source for ref 9, it is a bit questionable. Would it be better to use the various sources the author used? Most of them are very reputable gaming sources, in fact some are already cited in the SM64 article. I've also switched out one of the questionable references (a privately owned and operated weblog) for a review from GameSpot. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • I think it is unnecessary to vote Oppose just because of that. You could've instead commented and not voted at all. The Prince (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because of what? Let me know when those issues are resolved and I'll have a look at the prose. Tony (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe they are resolved now. Except for your first issue, I had a question regarding how you felt we should proceed with it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Was bold and removed ref 9 in place for various other refs that cite the game as "one of the greatest and most revolutionary". Hope that solves the problem. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

    House Martin[edit]

    Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been substantially expanded and improved since GA Jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looking very good Support - couple of very minor things:
    The House Martin’s aerial skills protect it from most predators - when I think of 'protect' I think of a shield, maybe "The House Martin’s aerial skills enable it to (successfully) evade most predators" - bracketed word optional.
    Also, I am curious as to why the genus is an anagram - find any mention of it anywhere?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, predator bit rephrased as per comment. I've found a better ref (BTO) for the anagram, don't know why they did it, but not unprecedented. The two kingfisher genera Dacelo and Lacedo are similarly derived from a third, Alcedo - laziness? lack of imagination? Jimfbleak (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Snowmanradio added citation needed‎ tags throughout the lead. I hadn't realised that everything had to be referenced in the lead as well as in the text, but I've added the required cites. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations in the introduction have been added. Previously it had none, and I thought they would be straightforward to add. See Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations_in_the_lead_section. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, but it says likely to be challenged - does anyone doubt that House Martins build nests from mud and are colonial? Jimfbleak (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, I will remove that one. Snowman (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put a number of cn tags on the main text of the page. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done My understanding was that if all the facts in group of sentences or a paragraph were from the same source, they only needed one ref tag, obviously I was wrong. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That has always been my understanding too. When did it change? And since when has anything other than highly controversial material needed to be cited in the lead if it is cited elsewhere in the text? I wish citation reviewers would settle on one system, when I was pushing bird to featured article status one user threw in multiple citation required tags only for me to cite them and then get told by other reviewers that it was over cited. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should there be a notice on the talk page or anywhere else that the article is up for FAC? Snowman (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done my error, I set up the fac using the fac template on the talk page, but must have done it from preview and forgot to save. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference 3 appears to be 8 pages of a book. I did not expect so many references to come from the same book, when I listed the cn tags. Should individual page numbers be included in the reference citation? It is currently probably quite difficult to verify any of the references without reading the whole chapter, but without seeing how the book is layed out I can not sure if there is a better way to narrow down the reference 3s to a sub-chapter heading or a page. A notes section could be used to give the page numbers (or sub-chapter headings). Does the chapter point to a way of how references 3s could be subdivided into smaller blocks of text? Could you say a little more about the book or the chapter? Can the chapter name appear in the reference? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the eight pages on the House Martin in Swallows and Martins (which is arranged as series of species accounts ) requires excessive reading, since it all relates to the House Martin. Please indicate where MOS requires listing each ref by a single page number (I do this for isolated facts but not for sources arranged by species like Turner and Cocker, where I just give the relevant range). I have done that for my four previous FAs without objection. I know that some editors use the footnote/ref style, but the style I always use also conforms to MoS, and I have no intention of reworking them all. Basically, if this article is still going to be opposed as inadequately referenced (!!!!!!!!), I'd rather just withdraw it from fac, and abandon Song Thrush ( which I was working up for fac) too. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For book sources there is this: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Provide_page_numbers. Going on what you say about the book, the pages in the book do not need excessive reading to verify the information. You are also confident that the page range given provides easy verification of the text. I have no reason to doubt that. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone asked a question elsewhere about sourcing for this article. I just want to make the point that all the sourcing guidelines have to be approached with common sense. If you have a statement that says House Martins are regularly pressed into service as suicide bombers, we'd need a source, whether it's in the lead or elsewhere. If it's that they build their houses from mud, then no -- if a House Martin specialist ever comes to challenge it, people can find a source at that time. Similarly with page numbers. It's good to have page numbers, but if the issues are straightforward, then don't drive yourself crazy: page ranges are fine, chapter numbers are fine, and if the points are very general and the books are perhaps short, there would be situations where no page numbers were needed. The important point is that this is a really nice-looking, well-written article, so please don't let the letter of the sourcing policies take the fun out of it for you. The spirit is what matters. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link 22 - about the House Martin flea, is not working at the present time in England, not sure if this is temporary. The problem is shown by the testing tool that is just below the "House Martin" heading at the top of this page. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It works for me, and I'm in England - must have been temporary, or the tool is giving a false positive. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too (Scotland). --Red Sunset 20:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still getting the same problem an a Ubuntu 7.10 system with Firefox. I will try on a windows system another day. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    for what it's worth, I use XP/Firefox. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on windows with Firefox. Snowman (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an inconsistency with the linked wiki page for the "martlet", which does not mention the House Martin. Ref 6 discusses the martlet, House Martin, Dove, Swift and Swallow, but I could not find any statement in ref 6 that the martlet is "usually believed to refer to the House Martin". I do not have access to the source ref 5, which might explain it more. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The wikipedia article is not, of course, a reliable source, esp as it lacks in-line references(!). I accept that the web page ref does not specifically mention House Martin (these articles aren't written by ornithologists, so martin/swallow/swift are all a bit blurred), and I don't have the cited book (not my ref), so I've added another ref where the annotated text of Macbeth makes it absolutely clear that that martlet can refer to House Martin. If you are unhappy about the web page, take it out, since the Shakespeare bit could cover that content too. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also changed "usually" to "often", less dogmatic. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think more can be said about the remarkable phenomenon of migration. Are there any resting stop offs, feeding on the journey, distance between traveling hops, weight loss, day or night traveling, physiological changes, triggers that start migration, juveniles first migration, survival rates of migration, effects of climate change (ie in Europe and the Sahara Dessert), navigation, flock forming in migration or not. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added what I can find, quite a bit on survival, but nothing at all on navigation. Jimfbleak (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to navigation - it is unlikely that it has been studied in any one individual species. I guess it is inferred that House Martins navigate in much the same way as any other small passerine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Passerine bird migration on on another wikipage that can be wikiliked? Snowman (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just [bird migration]]
    Is a section on migration needed? Snowman (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's really only one para. Jimfbleak (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Osprey" has a shortish section on migration. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would make more sense for migration to be combined with distribution (since they cover in essence where they are and when. And how.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Jimfbleak (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only guess what a broad-front migrant is. Broad-front is not used on the "Bird migration" wiki page. Do they fly over the Sahara Desert or go around it? Do they fly over the Mediterranean Sea? How long does migration take? Snowman (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    added these except time taken - can't find anything. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "By the end of October, most Martins have left their breeding areas, though late birds in November and December are not uncommon." The source is a book about British birds, so do these dates apply to the birds that have migrated to North Africa, Europe or the ones in the east? I have not got access to the source. Can the migration dates (months or season) be put in the migration paragraph? Snowman (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced with another Turner ref Jimfbleak (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the migration dates (months or season) of the spring migration be included? Snowman (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    done Jimfbleak (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The migration details are mainly in the habitat section (which is not an obvious place to find this information), and other migration information is in other sections, making presentation an issue. Snowman (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The incubation time given on the page is much longer than given here as 13 to 19 days. I have not got access to reference 3, but I checked it in one of my books which also does not agree with the article. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I inadvertently put nestling range as incubation, Turner's normal period now falls within the range you quoted Jimfbleak (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There are records of wintering House Martins staying to breed in Namibia and South Africa." This lacks clarity. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Can't see why it's not clear, but reworded anyway. Take it out if still not happy. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still not clear because this could be 4 House Martins seen twice 20 years ago or 200 years ago and never again, or it could mean that 5000 pairs or more have been seen their regularly every year. It also dose not indicate if there are 2 records or 2000 records. I do not know how important this is and I have no extra information on this, and so I can not do any editing on it at the present time. I guess that if the climate was suitable and there were plenty of flying insects they might not need to migrate. Non migrating House Martins sounds interesting and I would not like to see this deleted, if it was an established regular phenomenon. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SASOL just says "has bred" and map just shows as summer visitor, so presumably rare, but i can't find any more. I suppose the whole point of HM and Barn Swallow heading northe is that they avoid competition with the resident hirundines. Jimfbleak (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are records": sounds like weasel words. Is "Some HMs stay in N and SA ...." consistent with the reference? Snowman (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fledge" - this can mean when chicks have got their feathers or when they leave the nest. Clarity needed. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Jimfbleak (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

    The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson[edit]

    I am nominating this article as I believe it's reached it's peak in terms of information and other improvements. Through the help of several of my WP:SIMPSONS mates, including the great help of User:Cirt, I was able to have the episode reach it's current area of excellence, as it is a WP:GA, and I hope that this article will be promoted to featured status once any issues are dealt with. Thank you! xihix(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Does the FU image of the WTC really add anything to this article? Does it show anything significant that wouldn't be in a free image? You've already got the buildings in the infobox shot anyway. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, I suppose. I had the image in there earlier before that picture, so it just got moved around when I changed the main picture. I'll remove it. xihix(talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As mentioned by Xihix (talk · contribs), I helped out a bit with the article, so I'm not going to formally "Support" at this FAC - but I keep looking it over and really don't see any more room for improvement. My personal opinion is that it is very well-sourced, well done. If there are any problems that Xihix has trouble addressing during the course of this FAC, I'd be glad to try to help out. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I did a quick run-through and proofread, but I think another copy-edit is needed.
      • I know some people aren't a fan of elegant variation, but the repetition in the lead really jumped out at me. "The episode sees the Simpson family going to Manhattan, New York to recover the family's car, which was taken by Barney and left there. Homer, who had a negative experience in the city at a younger age, wishes to leave the city as fast as possible, though the rest of the family enjoys their time in the city. While the rest of the family tours the city, Homer finds the car in the plaza of the World Trade Center with a wheel clamp attached to it, and when he fails to be with the car when an officer comes to unlock it, he decides to drive the car even with the clamp attached. He is later successful in removing it, and races to Central Park to find his family and leave the city." Also, I think "after an officer..." would work better.
      • "...as they would want an area of New York which would be widely known." Why the conditional? "As" is a poor connector.
      • "a very closely detailed replica" and later "closely detailed replica"
      • "Because of the WTC's" If you use abbreviations, you need to introduce them in parens next to their full definition [in this case: "Homer finds the car in the plaza of the World Trade Center (WTC)"].
      • "Later, while driving the drunken men home, Homer allows Barney" The earlier sentences imply that Barney was the designated driver. Is this not the case?
      • "Bart also leaves the group" Why "also"? Implies that others left the group, but this isn't mentioned anywhere.
      • "and finally decide to ride a carriage" And why "finally"? Implies that they perhaps were having trouble deciding what to do, but the reader is left wondering.
      • "when the construction of the towers were complete" Do you mean when the towers had just been completed? Current wording could imply any time between its completion and 9/11/01.
      • "spent a lot of time" "A lot of" isn't very encyclopedic. How much time?
      • "Oakley and Weinstein were very pleased with the final results, and both noted that the buildings, streets, and even elevator cabins were true-to-life in even minute details."
      • "He spent two hours alone to write the song." Somewhat humorously ambiguous. :) "Alone" is most likely unnecessary (unless you really are emphasizing that he was alone when writing the song).
      • The music paragraph in Production is kind of awkwardly placed.
      • "the use of computer animation was not as widespread when the episode was produced" "As" implies a comparison, but none is given. Either one should be given, or "as" should be removed.
      • "suffering cocaine abuse" I'm not a medical expert, but does one "suffer" cocaine abuse? Grammatically speaking, it seems incorrect.
      • "The actor in the musical that part of the family watches, "You're Checkin' In", was based on Robert Downey Jr., who was suffering cocaine abuse during the time the episode was being created, just as the character in the musical was." Awkward sentence. I'd suggest cutting out the unnecessary stuff: "The actor in the musical "You're Checkin' In" was based on Robert Downey Jr., who was in the news for abusing cocaine when the episode was being created." We already know that part of the family watches the musical. "Based on" implies "just as the character...".
      • "writers of Off the Telly" Either link this or explain what this is (newspaper? magazine?)
      • More repetition: "Due to the World Trade Center being a prominent location in the episode, the episode was pulled from syndication after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The episode " BuddingJournalist 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the notices of repetition. I fixed most of them except for the lead, but I am in a hurry at the moment and must leave. I will fix them tomorrow, unless someone gets to it before me. xihix(talk) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. xihix(talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to this source ""The City of New York vs Homer Simpson" wasn't shown for reasons of taste and has never appeared on terrestrial television in Britain". I think this should be noted in the article. --Maitch (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, not sure how I never saw that. Must have confused the two Off The Telly links as being the same. Thanks, I'll be adding it in as soon as I figure out how to fit it in. xihix(talk) 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went ahead and added that new cite, w/ info to the article in the Reception section, 2nd paragraph. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's well written and is put together with as much information as humanly possible for this article, and provides more than enough information for this one episode, so long as a few key points (Most of them already addressed above) are worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVaultDweller (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeProvisional neutral—It's too easy as yet to take pot-shots at the prose. For example:
      • It was Maxtone-Graham, who was raised in New York, who had conceived the idea of the family in New York to locate their missing car, as he believed it was "a classic Manhattan problem." Who ... who, and unnecessarily complex sentence structure; and another "who" in the next sentence. MOS breach: when a quote starts within a WP sentence, the final period goes after the quote; please audit throughout for that.
      • Redundant (indeed confusing) uses of "also", such as "The production staff also contacted Fox to make sure that it would not run commercials during the scene." I see nothing about what production staff did in the previous text. Tony (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All "also"'s gone, and who's are fixed. Thanks for the notice. xihix(talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well written. Well referenced. Excellent work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - What does--"the episode has been highlighted out of the other episodes of the season by newspaper reviewers"--actually mean? I see the three newspaper sources but how do you mean "highlighted"? Do the articles actually discuss the episode, or is it merely a passing mention? What do they actually say, because if they do discuss the episode it would be better to summarize their thoughts. If it's a passing mention then maybe it doesn't need to be said at all. I'm trying to see the context of this statement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go and fix it to make it make more sense. xihix(talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that all there is? Are there any quotes from the newspapers we can use to flesh out that statement a bit more. It just seems to bare.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 (pics) - Neither of the two pics in the body of the article really have any critical commentary to support them. What's there is very vague and weak with regard to justifying their use. For the first image, I read the text in the section and the image itself doesn't illustrate any of that. I cannot tell from a single image the idea behind "pulling out as if shot by a helicopter". I have the image in my head, the text itself is fine, but the image in the article isn't necessary to understand what that means. You cannot really illustrate the helicopter style shooting with a single image. For that matter, any image in the opening credits when the camera zooms into Springfield could be considered the same thing. For Robert Downey Jr., I don't see how an image of the musical helps illustrate the fact that the character in the musical was modeled after Downey. You can't see the character all that well to begin with, and his look is irrelevant because it's Downey's situation with drug abuse that was being reflected, not his appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was asked to have the pictures of the scene of the pulling out while a someone was doing a little reviewing of the article in IRC, but I agree that you can't really tell that it's pulling out with just that picture. Regarding the scene with Robert Downy Jr., I originally uploaded it and put it in the Reception section to illustrate the scene, as it won an Emmy and an Annie award, thus giving it reason to be there. Someone later came and moved it, so I'll move it back. Thanks! xihix(talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the awards, it wouldn't make sense to have a picture at all because the awards are for the music and lyrics, not the animation itself. It would make better sense to have a sample of the music as that was what won the award.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that is not public domain. The best we could do is the illustrative image. But if this is a sticking point, I don't think it would be that big a deal to just remove it. Cirt (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, should I remove it, or keep it there? I'm not quite sure what the consensus is here. xihix(talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait for Bignole (talk · contribs) to reply again - I'll defer to that. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just take a "sample" of the song, not the entire song. See what I did for the Friday the 13th franchise page. The song won awards, that right there is your justification for fair use. All you need to do is add like a 10 - 20 seconds. Per WP:FU, it shouldn't be more than 10% of the length of the song...I don't know now long the song actually is..but 10-20 seconds is pretty long for a sample so that should be enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Done. - I will go ahead and remove that image, and I'll let Xihix (talk · contribs) take care of the appropriate length of soundbite. Xihix, if you need help w/ WP:FURG for that, let me know. Cirt (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Audacity is a good song editor, if you have the song. It can edit and save the song in OGG, which is the file type you have to save in so that song will work on Wikipedia. If you're worried about it, I'll help you out. I just need the song, or a place to download the song.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually upload music for WP:ALTROCK whenever I'm asked or needed, so I know what to do. xihix(talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My sentiments exactly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All is done. xihix(talk) 17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 3 - Looking at the article, it may need someone with good copyediting skills to pass over it. Some of the prose could be tightened some. Also, this statement--"The production staff contacted Fox to make sure that it would not run commercials during the scene."--might need a bit more context. Why did they request no commercials during the scene? Was it to get the full effect of the shot? It's kind of out in the open right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I put that there so no commercials or promos would go over the ending scene. I'll make it more apparent in the prose, thanks. xihix(talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to explain why they didn't want them airing commercials during the ending credits. It just seems odd. I mean, I understand why, but casual readers might not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how much more sense I could make out of it. From the prose, you can tell why they didn't want them to. Trying to make more sense of it would seem like it would become, I dunno, redundant. xihix(talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, if you've exhausted what is already covered about this in WP:RS/WP:V sources, not much more you could add if you wanted to. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, it just seems like it has a weak bond to the previous statement as it currently is. But that's just my opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm sure the episode itself mentions the car accrued several parking tickets before Homer finds it clamped. Maybe mention that? Will (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think it needed that much of a mention, but I'll add it. xihix(talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I'm opposing at the moment because I've found some issues with the article. First, it seems that there was a copy edit to the article, but when I actually began reading I found quite a few simple mistakes. It would seem to me that these would have been the easiest things to find when copyediting. That tells me that it probably needs to be copyedited again, more thoroughly. For example
      • "After an announcement made by Moe, he informs Homer and his friends that one of the frequent visitors of Moe's Tavern is chosen to be the designated driver for the night." -- Who informs Homer? I assume it was Moe, but the statement doesn't make sense with the dependent clause "After an annoucement". Just say, "Moe informs Homer..." That brings me to another thing real quickly, the plot is a little long for a 22 minutes episode of TV. 521 words is a lot when you think about the length of the show and the uncomplicated nature of the plot. I think this has more to do with the wordiness of the plot section and less to do the level of detail regarding it. Scratch that first bit about the opening sentence I just made and lets just look at the first paragraph.

        After an announcement made by Moe, he informs Homer and his friends that one of the frequent visitors of Moe's Tavern is chosen to be the designated driver for the night. The task falls upon Barney, who is frustrated that his friends are free to consume their alcohol when he must stay sober. Later, while driving the drunken men home, Homer allows Barney to use the car to drive himself home, expecting Barney to return it the following morning. In his distressed state, Barney disappears for two months, leaving Homer without a car. Barney returns to Moe's Tavern, unable to recall where he left the car.

        This could easily be trimmed into...

        Moe makes Barney to be the tavern's designated driver for the night, forcing him to stay sober so he can driver everyone home. Homer allows Barney to use his car to drive himself home, but Barney never returns the car. Two months later, Barney returns to Moe's Tavern unable to recall where he left Homer's car.

        I cut that paragraph in half by simply removing some extraneous details about the events that led to Barney losing the car. This can be done for the entire plot section. Done.
        • I have shortened the plot section a bit and I did some copyediting. -- Scorpion0422 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ""The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" was written by Ian Maxtone-Graham and directed by Jim Reardon." -- Unnecessary. When you come to the first usage of their names (in this case, Graham is mentioned again in the next sentence) just identify them as "writer Ian Maxtone-Graham", or "director Reardon.." It cuts back on the wordiness of the paragraph. Done.
      • "...had conceived the idea having the family travel to New York to locate their missing car. He believed it was "a classic Manhattan problem."" -- Periods and other such punctuations go on the outside of the quote marks when the statement is not a complete sentence (per WP:PUNC) This is just one example from the Production section, there are probably others in the article if there are more direct quotes. Done.
      • Incorrect use of the word "were", it should be "was" in the Production section. For "Production staff", you should start the sentence with "The" and then change "were" to "was". It should be "was" for the sentence about the construction of the towers just above this one. Done.
      • "Alf Clausen composed the music for the "You're Checkin' In" musical number, and Ken Keeler wrote the lyrics." -- Same thing as with the writer and director. Cut the words and mention who they are when you discuss what they were doing specifically. For example, "Ken Keeler, who wrote the lyrics for the "You're Checkin' In" musical number, spent two hours ...." Done.
      • "Some of the lyrics were rewritten after feedback from other writers." -- what was their feedback? This sentence seems to break off in mid thought. I would try and reword it and work it into the sentence above it. Done.
        I'll stop here for now. I'd have someone look over the rest of the article using some of these suggestions as basis.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I have have addressed your concerns. -- Scorpion0422 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - I'm changing to neutral. The article has some good information, and is on the right track, but I think the prose could be tightened up. My copyediting skills are not perfect and I miss plenty myself, not to mention some of the sentences seem to be weakly strung together, and someone who is good with copyediting could probably tie some of that stuff up in a nicer bow. You can always request Tony to come back and give some suggestions. He's typically the go-to editor on that sort of stuff. A lot of my concerns were addressed, but as many times as I'm told that the copyediting has been address I see myself finding more things in the article that apparently slipped through the c/eing. Good article, but I think it still needs some tweaking. But, since this is more of my personal opinion I can't stay "opposed" to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I'll try to go through and give it another once over as far as copy-editing/prose, perhaps other editors will as well. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see at least one dot before the final quotes, where the quote started within a WP sentence. I see an ellipsis without the required space. Tony (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed the ellipse problem, that was my fault. I was cleaning up all the excessive spacing inside the citations and just got carried away. As for the quote mark, I searched and there are only 3 quotes that have periods on the inside of the quote marks, and they all appear to be part of the quotation. I didn't check the sources on all of them though because they are DVD commentaries, so I'm not positive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All fixed. xihix(talk) 06:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Bignole and I discussed the three quotes, and we came to a conclusion that they were properly placed. Do you object to this, Tony? If so, I'll look at it tomorrow, must sleep right now. xihix(talk) 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support looks good to me. Jonathan 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

    200 (Stargate SG-1)[edit]

    Recently attained GA status. It has less references than the average FA might, but that's mostly since I relied heavily on DVD commentary for sourcing. David Fuchs (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - images have incorrect fair use rationales (10c). Will (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, right. Fixed. David Fuchs (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Well-written, and not short of references - some Simpsons FAs have less. Will (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Oppose - Reference 1 returns a 404. May just be a temporary issue, but keep an eye on it. Main issue is with Reference 6, which is used to support the cost of the puppets and the use of CGI, but makes no mention of either fact. Feel free to strike this if/when those two bits get a cite (provided Ref 1 is working again). GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Might have been an editing mistake. An old fancrufty version of the article (which I had been responsible for sourcing) gives three other sources for the puppet-related facts. I'll leave it to David to fix it. – sgeureka t•c 14:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the reference to the puppets, sgeureka was correct, i swapped around the article and the commentary; as for link #1, I can see it via archive.org or google cache, but they say that the website is just being fixed up and so that's why the links won't work. In the meantime, I've referenced the archived version. David Fuchs (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking good. The prose reads clearly (and a damned sight more lucidly than I could manage), all contentious points are referenced, images are used appropriately (poignantly, even :P), and most amazing of all, you seem to have deciphered every code implanted into the MOS and written the article accordingly. I Support and look forward to the cries of "O NOES POP CULTURE" on August 18 :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, it has all that is needed for a FA. --Tone 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Covers material very nicely, well sourced. Clear, concise plot summary. Excellent work. J.delanoygabsadds 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixes needed; there is a lot of citation cleanup needed, see my edit summaries. Also, what makes the Ask Joe Mallozzi forum a reliable source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe Mallozzi is (was) SG-1's executive producer. David Fuchs (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When it refers to the show itself, it's italicised. When it refers to the organisation within the show of the same name, it's not. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted 00:09, 2 February 2008.

    Joseph Priestley House[edit]

    previous FAC withdrawn


    The Joseph Priestley House was the American home of Joseph Priestley and is a museum today. The article has had extensive helpful comments in both a peer review, and on its talk page. The talk archive chronicles the development of the article, which is jointly authored by Awadewit and Ruhrfisch, with useful comments and edits from several other editors. We have chosen not to have an infobox (one is not required) because it would force removal of at least one and possibly two of the images currently in the article. We believe the article meets all FAC criteria and the MOS guidelines (the previous nomination was by a user who had made no edits to the article, and was withdrawn quickly). Thanks in advance for any feedback, Awadewit | talk and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I have been waiting for "A" and "R" to finally nominate this. It is thoroughly researched and is well written. It is most certainly worthy of FA. Dincher (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Awesome work. From my perspective coming from WP:NRHP, I appreciate its early incorporation of official NHL and NRHP definitive references/sources, and its fully covering NHL and NRHP aspects of the site. doncram (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Wow. I couldn't find anything to change, and I looked hard! Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support yup, looks excellent. To say more would be knit picking.--Docg 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Thanks everyone for your kind words and support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I gave a Peer Review for this article a couple weeks ago and my few comments and suggestions were handled with ease by Awadewit and Ruhrfisch. This is a (surprisingly) interesting article that is comprehensive and very well written. In my opinion it passes with flying colors! María (habla conmigo) 13:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "an eighteenth-century woman" "15 US states" - numbers over ten should either all be spelled out or all be numerals. This includes ordinals. Epbr123 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Thanks for catching this. I just switched 10 different instances of numbers over ten to numerals, except for the number "seventy-seven" in a direct quote. (Awadewit, please revert and change to all spelled out if you prefer). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: For the record I also offered some suggestions a couple weeks ago prior to the candidature. All dealt with. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 13:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 00:09, 2 February 2008.

    Giant Otter[edit]

    After much work, I think this is ready. The most obvious article to compare to is the excellent Sea Otter. This page is somewhat shorter, with fewer individual refs. The Giant Otter is a much rarer species and comparatively under-studied. There are two essential papers on the animal; as they are both large and cited frequently here, I have treated them as we normally do books, with a separate listing in References and individual page numbers in Notes. Two or three sentences can probably be added to the Interactions section, but otherwise I don't imagine much needs to change. Upper case is in use for the species name; a significant minority of sources do the same, so it isn't unusual. (If you do want to change it, bring it up on article talk first—certain sentences won't make sense with lower case.)

    Thank you to Sandy for looking for Spanish refs, Casliber and Clayoquot for some pics and other pointers, and UtherSRG for his usual MSW3 addition. A couple of people have shown up in the edit history doing a read over and I don't think there's typos left. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And a special thanks to Pharos for adding info on mythology. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: After Pharos' additions to mythology and the incorporation of Spanish refs from Sandy's sandbox, the Interactions section is now robust. This was the last possible comprehensiveness concern I could think of. Marskell (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comments Conditional Support sod it, they aren't deal-breakers... once a couple of tweaks taken care of ok, I'm goin' in....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given Taxonomy is how something is named, I generally rename naming to etymology and make it a subsection of taxonomy (it's also nicer for heading heirarchies)

    globular appearance (??) - makes me think of Pac-man, I know what you're trying to say, just how literal folk are really.... 'snub-nosed' ? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Agree this is really hard, as OR can't be veered into, if round/spherical/ball-shaped/globular was what the writer intended/wrote so be it..choose the best...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments.
    • "The animal is susceptible to a variety of diseases, including the Parvovirosis that also affects domestic dogs." Should this be, or be piped to, Parvovirus?
    (I just fixed that on my readthrough) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The metric -> imperial conversions aren't handled consistently. In the Habitat section, for instance, only metric measurements are given, whereas in Physical characteristics metric with an imperial conversion is given. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I think Cas got the first, and I've converted the numbers in Habitat. I made a point of checking for that and missed an entire patch. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    • Page ranges need en-dashes.
    • Brightorange helpfully took care of the en dashes. Marskell (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyphens shouldn't by used after -ly words.
      • I found (ctrl-f) and removed one instance. Adverb-adjective compounds never take a hyphen? Hm. Marskell (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistant formatting of numbers over ten, eg. "within twenty years of 2004" "this may increase to 17"
    • Changed "twenty" twice. I do watch for it and wouldn't have done it with compounds; I don't see "thirty" or "forty."
    • En-dash needed in the External links section. Epbr123 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Content-wise, I think this is a stellar overview of a relatively poorly researched species. It will be a good reference point (perhaps even too high a bar!) for analogous article in the future. The capitalization of the species name is inconsistent with other otter articles, but that seems to be an unresolved issue throughout the wiki-animal-kingdom. Also, the references might be more attractive in two columns. Otherwise, no comments. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I tried hard to find something to kick on with no real success. I don't know very much about these animals, but the PDF in the external links section (Duplaix, Nicole (2002)) focuses a lot more on dens and scent markings, information sort of missing in the article. I'm not sure if this is necessary, but maybe adding a sentence about it in the habitat section would solve this? ("about twice as long the inner fur" in the Physical characteristics section, is this really proper English?)
    / Mats Halldin (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an enormous amount from Duplaix; I had to be selective, as we're not writing a book here. The second paragraph of habitat does have some of what you mention but I'll go back and see if anything more can be added.
    I think that's proper English! The second sentence of the article includes "About the length of an adult human being..." Sometimes I think it better to give a more visual description, rather than number after number. Marskell (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back to that PDF and managed to add a couple of extra things, including on habitat. Marskell (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentSupport close to supporting, but there are a couple of places where it lacks cohesion. In no particular order:
    • In the "Physical characteristics" section we are told that little research has been done on the animal's vision, but in the hunting section we are told it is "visually oriented" and "relying on its sharp eyesight to locate prey".
    • I provided a fuller description. They seem pretty clear that relying on eyesight is easily inferred
    • In the threats section, the pattern of habitat destruction through logging and farming is established and we are then told that other threats include "unsustainable mahogany logging" and "water pollution from...agriculture". Surely these aren't other threats.
    • Fairly significant reworking of the section.
    • "Considered "vulnerable" for years" - "for years" is a bit loose.
    • Unpacked.
    • "Schenck et al., who undertook extensive fieldwork in Peru in the 1990s, suggest specific "no-go" zones where the species is most frequently observed, offset by observation towers and platforms to allowing viewing. Limits on the number of tourists at any one time, fishing prohibitions, and a minimum safe distance of 50 metres (164 ft) offer further protection." - do the measures in the second sentence exist already, or are they also proposed by Schenck et al.?
    • The latter; clarified.
    • "Populations in Bolivia were once widespread but became a "black spot" after poaching between the 1940s and 1970s..." - the country became a black spot? Or the population was represented by only a black spot? I'm guessing the former.
    • The former; clarified.
    • "The species has likely been extirpated from southern Brazil, although decreased hunting pressure in the critical Pantanal may have led to recolonization; a rough estimate suggests 1,000 animals in the region" - it can't both be likely extirpated and have an estimated population of 1,000
    • The Pantanal is W-SW, not strictly in the south (i.e. the sort of cube that juts down to the east of Paraguay). I'll go back to the paper to see if I can better clarify.
    • Thanks for clarifying yourself. The paper: they "inhabit south-eastern and central western regions of Brazil, but they are believed to be extinct in southern Brazil." I read it in other places.
    • Wikilinking is all over the shop.
    • I'm blue-linking less and less. I don't think it's totally inconsistent: I dab words I think might make people for clarity, as well as standard things like countries. I'll try to add a few more.
    Fix those and I'll support as it is a good piece of work, and I'd guess it wasn't easy pulling all the information together. Yomanganitalk 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Yomangani. I'll do this in bits and pieces. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the wikilinking, I wasn't complaining that there weren't enough, but you have (for example) Brazil linked when it is first mentioned, but other countries not linked at all until (and unless) they appear in the list of countries in the distribution section; Black Caiman not linked until the second mention; anacondas linked every time they are mentioned (I think); Neotropical Otter linked twice... Anyway, that's not enough to deny it FA status, so I support its promotion now. Yomanganitalk 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to improve some of the wikilinking. Thanks for the review and support, Yomangani. Marskell (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 00:09, 2 February 2008.

    Le Père Goriot[edit]

    Frequently cited as Honoré de Balzac's most important novel. It has been listed as a Good Article, with a detailed review during that process by Awadewit. Subsequent peer reviews were done by WillowW, Maclean25, and Qp10qp. – Scartol • Tok 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC) (self nom)[reply]

    • Support. I found this an engaging, well-proportioned read which gave me an excellent introduction to all aspects of the book. qp10qp (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per qp10qp. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support: ack, I promised to do a PR for this article, but time got away from me and Scartol (rightfully so) couldn't hold this gem back. :) qp10qp is correct in that the article is an engaging and excellent introduction to the book; I personally knew nothing about this novel until I read the article. It's well written, as usual, and a great example of what a novel FA should be. A couple comments to go along with my enthusiastic support:
    • Le Père Goriot is widely considered as Balzac's the most important novel.: random "the".
    • The novel is set in 1819, during the Bourbon Restoration, which brought about profound changes in French society: is that first comma supposed to be there?
    • The city of Paris also impresses itself on the characters –: I've had this drilled into me, so forgive me if it's a French idiosyncrasy or something; should this be an em-dash? There are others like this in various sections, so it doesn't seem a mistake, but I just wanted to be sure.

    Other than that, this is a wonderful article. I love learning new things about literature, and this article definitely has a lot to offer. María (habla conmigo) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Last time I looked, en dashes are fine if spaced. I use em dashes (fine if unspaced), but only because they remind me of my Auntie Em. qp10qp (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally forgot you were going to do a review, Yllo. Thanks for the feedback; I've fixed the typos from the lead. As for en vs. em dashes, see Wikipedia:DASH#Em_dashes. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, I just wanted to make sure. Great job! :) María (habla conmigo) 17:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 00:09, 2 February 2008.

    E. Urner Goodman[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been reviewed at Scouting WikiProject and is believed ready for FA consideration. All known reliable sources are cited throughout the article. JGHowes talk - 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Good job. Karanacs (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have a few concerns about the way some of the information is structured and feel that a few more citations are needed.
      • Need a nonbreaking space between a number and its unit or qualifier (for example, 183,000 members)
      • I did a little copyediting in the Personal information section, but I think the first paragraph wavers too much between talking about church, talking about writing, then talking about church again. I know that much of the events happened concurrently, but I think you should still segregate them into different paragraphs (or at least group them together in this paragraph).
      • Need a citation for the information quoted from his diary about joining the church
      • What was the song not selected for?
      • The article doesn't need to include his age as a volunteer scoutmaster.
      • Image captions should not end with a period unless they are a full sentence
      • The section headings are misleading in the Scouting career section. The first two have a date range, leading the reader to think that the third one takes place after 1951. Instead, it overlaps both of the other sections. What if you rename the first section to "Local service" (and move the first paragraph of the 1918-1951 section into that section), the name the second one National Program Director?
      • Need a citation for the fact that "The brotherhood of Scout honor campers with its American Indian overtones was a success "
      • I'd move the big quote from Goodman about the Order to earlier in the section. You can also take out the "almost 50 years ago" because people might be reading that sentence in 2010 or 2020, giving them an inaccurate idea of the timeframe.
      • The Later Years section has several places where he is referred to as "Urner" or "Urner Goodman" and it should just be Goodman.
      • The paragraph on family life in Later Years does not flow well.
      • I'd move the information on his further involvement in the Order of the Arrow from Later Years to the Order of the Arros section.

    Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply: I've made some edits per comments by Karanacs; however, I believe the use of "Urner" in the Later Years section, in the context of the discussion about his wife Louise and son George, is in accordance with WP:NAMES#Family members with the same surname, is it not? JGHowes talk - 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a stab at rewriting bits of that section to remove some of the Urners. Can you take a look and make sure it reads clearly to you? Can you list out, also, which points you've addressed (I won't be back online until tomorrow so it's fine to wait and then say "everything but XXXX".) Karanacs (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed Everything but sub-section headings in Scouting career section have been addressed. Thanx for your rewrites, which did improve the article. The sub-section headings are a challenge, because the Order of the Arrow is what the biographee is most remembered for, and it really was a recurring aspect of his entire Scouting career (and, indeed, even his post-Scouting retirement), so it seems best to leave as is, I think. JGHowes talk - 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the rest of the nbsps for you (it counts for stuff like 24 years too). I understand that the Order of the Arrow was recurring, but I think if you rename the sections so as not to focus on dates but on roles that he played within scouting it would make more sense at first glance for the reader. To have two of the three sections be named with a date range and the third go across several date ranges is confusing. I am also unsure why the other information about the Order is in the Later Years section vs in the Order section. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see Karanacs' point. How about "Early Scouting career" and "Professional Scouting career" or something similar? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point and have renamed the Scouting sections, as well as changing "personal information" to "early years and marriage". About ndash, this was changed by another editor to a hyphen and I've encountered this on other articles as well. There seems to be a belief that the use of ndash is now deprecated (as one editor wrote in the edit summary for another article). JGHowes talk - 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed hyphens to en-dashes re SandyGeorgia's edit summary note JGHowes talk - 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

    Sirius[edit]

    I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, fully referenced and the prose has been massaged well by a few other editors as well as me. It is currently a good article and has been expanded, referenced and copyedited since that point cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: Well written, well referenced. I see no major problems with the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Support: Very well written and informative with no grammatical or spelling errors to speak of and adequately cited. Though I do sometimes have a tendency to advocate more citations than are necessary, I did see two areas that should probably be cited better.
    The first is the first half of the "Observational history" section that contains challengable statments such as "The Ancient Greeks believed that the appearance of Sirius heralded the hot and dry summer, and feared its effects on making plants wilt, men weaken and women arouse." and "Sirius served as the body of a 'Great Bird' constellation called Manu, with Canopus as the southern wingtip and Procyon the northern wingtip, which divided the Polynesian night sky into two hemispheres. Just as the appearance of Sirius in the morning sky marked summer in Greece, so it marked the chilly onset of winter for the Māori, whose name Takurua described both the star and the season. Its culmination at the winter solstice was marked by celebration in Hawaii, where it was known as Ka'ulua 'Queen of Heaven'.".
    The second area is the first paragraph of the "System" section, which contains these sentences: "Currently 10,000 times less luminous in the visual spectrum, Sirius B was once the more massive of the two. The age of the system has been estimated at around 230 million years." All of those statements should probably be cited.
    Again, in my opinion, not having those statements cited is not enough to prevent this article from being promoted to FA because most of them would probably be easy to verify if you knew somewhat of where to look, but it definately wouldn't hurt to cite them. Thingg⊕⊗ 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs. The cites at the end of the respective paras actually refer to them as well, but I can have duplicated/tweaked to clarify. Thanks for your support.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments. Kudos Cas, for taking on this important object. I'd like to return the FAC favour by plowing through this, but it's late for me. On the lead:

    (OK, I have readjusted the intro - tricky as I didn't want to mention things twice)
    • Necessarily, brightness is a function of both intrinsic luminosity and closeness.
    (OK, I readjusted " is not its intrinsic luminosity " to " is not so much its intrinsic luminosity ", as I still wanted to highlight it is mainly its proximity as it is pretty feeble when compared with many of the supergiants etc.)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Before commenting further, I'd like to make a comparison to some of RJH's great work, such as on Vega. Marskell (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (sure, I sure as heck did more than once while developing this article.. :) ) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, now I'm embarrassed... thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Surface temperature of Sirius A and rotational period of both (if possible) should be in the body.

    (ok, one done, the rotational velocity is already in but not the rotational period. I am surprised the fairly comprehensive source paper doesn't mention it. Might be tricky...)

    My main concern is rationalization. Observational history covers both culture and some of the science. The System section subsequently seems weak in comparison. And then at the end we return to culture. Hm. I must say a fine job has been done tracking down cultural references and ancient observation. Marskell (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Yep. Has been tricky to figure out what goes where. Originally the Observational History section began with a sentence from antiquity and then jumps to Edmund Halley, whereas I figured ancient material directly related to observation and navigational use e.g. heliacal rising etc. should go there instead of at the cultural significance section, which I left for symbolism etc. I suppose one could quite easily put the 3 paras, say, on discovery of Sirius B/spectrum of Sirius B and Hertzsprung/moving group para into the system bit. If all the astronomers think its a good idea I am happy to do it for consensus' sake.) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no astronomer :). Just an editor that thinks ToCs are critical. OK, one possible reorganization would be something like this:
    • Everything in Observational history after the paragraph beginning "In 1844..." gets moved to the System section, with para's into Sirius A and B, accordingly.
    • Move Visibility and System above history—this prioritizes the science.
    • The now smaller Observational history gets renamed Early observation (and navigation, maybe).
    Note this would break up the attempt at a chronological presentation but it would keep the scientific data together. This can be discussed on article talk, to avoid lengthening this. Marskell (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it becomes hard to fulfil all criteria but am happy to follow consensus. Hopefully the others will voice opinions there. I can see issues with varying order as most other astronomical FAs have history of observation as a first or section, and I do like ordered sequence of sections for conformity.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most astronomy articles don't start with an observation section. Those are typically shuffled after the physical characteristics with a "Discover and naming" section first (if it applies—not here, except for naming). This does follow the ToC of Vega, however, and every article calls for something different. But I can't support without better rationalization of "Observational history"—there's just too much in it, and too much jumping between topics and dates. Marskell (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think it has a rather nice ancient to modern chronology. The excellent Jay Holberg book on Sirius follows the same order too. FWIW I get 34 Astronomy Featured Articles have some form of history of observation or discovery vs 23 which don't.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—Nice work in transforming a somewhat dry article into an interesting read. I don't have any issues with the organization. The one entry that did catch my eye was: "...one of our near neighbors", which sounds a bit odd. Apparently it was edited from "nearest neighbors", but a "near neighbors" seems redundant and I would hardly consider it "near". =) On another note, it's interesting that the orbital motion of Sirius B is just now taking it sufficiently far from Sirius A that the binary can once more be split by amateur astronomers. They reached their minimum separation in 1993.[37] It would be nice if some day a diagram of Sirius B's orbital motion, as seen from Earth, could be included. I've seen that portrayed in various places but it's probably not PD.—RJH (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RJH - happy for anyone to tweak neighbours wording again. Not a biggie for me. Agree about plotting out graph of motion, as I have seen it in books and thought it would be great to add but wasn't sure under copyright whether it was permissible. If you had a ref for the widening and easing of visibility for amateur astronomers and thought it was appropriate to add then I'd be grateful if you did so.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've checked what is a really well-written article for accuracy, and it's excellent. My one quibble is that I wouldn't quote the time taken for nuclear reactions to account for 100% of energy (the casual reader is unlikely to know what the other sources might be, and also this number is highly model dependent) but instead quote to zero age main sequence lifetime, given in the same source as being approximately 4.5 million years. This is a minor point, and otherwise all is well. Chrislintott (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and the Voyager comment seems out of place where it is now. Chrislintott (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree (sort of) in that it sort of doesn't fit anywhere particularly well. I wasn't the one who placed it there. It may go better in system section I guess, not sure really. I don't have strong feelings about it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If no one else has a problem with the structure I won't hold you up on it. The important thing is that all of the main information be there, which I think it is. So support.

    Any mention of possible planets you've come across? With such a high metal content it seems possible. Marskell (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, the 3rd companion seems to be just about (but not 100.000%) excluded too..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The article is comprehensive, well written and has a long list of references. I think however that the article would be better if it had a paragraph (several sentences) comparing Sirius with Vega. Both stars have similar masses but Vega is a fast rotator and Sirius is a slow rotator. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. Not a bad idea again, but needs to have been discussed somewhere first. Comparing them de novo without a source which already does so could be straying into OR. However if you know of one I am all ears..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

    Judy Garland[edit]

    Nominator Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

    I believe it meets the criteria following extensive work over the last several weeks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Looks pretty good. But where is the filmography table or list? (See Wikipedia:FILMBIO#Filmography.) Also, I think a straightforward awards table or list (not the succession box at the bottom) listing her major awards would not overly lengthen this article. To my eye, the separate article, List_of_Judy_Garland_awards_and_honors, seems extremely thin as prose -- it doesn't seem like the list it supposedly is, and the "Other honors" section of that article seems overly padded with trivia. I think it would be more appropriate to incorporate the five important awards types into the main article in a separate "Awards" section as a list or table (see Diane Keaton and Angelina Jolie), incorporate just a few of the "Other honors" into the prose, and then nominate the other article for deletion. --Melty girl (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I can't agree with your assessment. The article right now is 50KB. The awards article is ~13KB and List of Judy Garland performances is ~15KB. Even stripped of what you're calling trivia (which, I disagree with that assessment as well and also with the suggestion that the article be deleted) you're talking about adding 15-20KB to the main article, which then implicates WP:SIZE, with the performances and awards becoming logical split targets putting us back where we started but with less information. Otto4711 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing me toward the List of Judy Garland performances, a title which I did not interpret as a filmography. That article does seem to be a genuine list, and indeed is very long and full of helpful information. I disagree with you, however, about the awards "list." The typical awards table or list is much shorter than the prose in the awards and honors "list"/article, and the actual awards she won are not very numerous, so your estimate about the bytes that an awards table/list would add is inaccurate. (And sorry, but I do think that much of the "Other honors" section -- the bulk of the "list" -- is trivial, compared with other things that were necessarily left out of the main article for length. After all, many books have been written about this worthy subject, and I'm sure they didn't dwell in similar proportion on honors trivia; I'd prefer to hear more about what Garland's influence is considered to be in acting and singing, and about how her performances were received and are considered historically, than to read about how a rose was named after her or a long paragraph about postage stamps.)
    I also want to add that I think the lead, while decently written, may not be quite detailed enough to serve as a short, stand-alone article, as per WP:LEAD, given the significance and the length of the article. Still, these are just my suggestions based on a quick look; I'm not going to oppose based on this. Good luck with this FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : very strong article and well worth the effort to bring it to FA standard. I don't think it's quite there yet, but it's close. I have made some changes, rather than simply list them here. I'll describe what I've done and why, which anyone is free to disagree with/revert :-).
    Changes made:
    1. Moved filmography and discography links out of "see also" into their own sections. This is to comply with project guidelines for film and/or music articles, as well as "common practice" in numerous other articles. This also allows them to be quickly identified and selected from the TOC. I'm concerned that if an experienced editor such as User:Melty girl didn't immediately see the connection, a novice could well miss it entirely.
    2. restored the Garland/Rooney image. Of Garland's co-stars, Rooney is arguably the most significant and the one most identified with her. We've already got a bunch of photos of Garland alone, so the Babes in Arms image of her alone doesn't add to our knowledge. We've got a free one from the same film, showing Rooney, and I think it's a better one.
    3. reworded several instances of "Garland would .... (do something)". For example, rather than say "She would later characterize...", I think it's easier to read "She later characterized..."
    4. a few instances of information being contained within brackets, have reworded so that the same point is contained within the sentence. I think it flows better this way, and no relevant information is lost.
    5. general rewording, nothing to change the meaning.
    6. Should try to avoid use of industry "jargon". Most words probably are familiar to most readers, but best to stick to common English. For example, this is why I replaced "wrapped" with "completed". It means the same thing but is more general.
    Work needed:
    1. Lead para is a bit choppy. Could be rewritten to flow a bit more smoothly and to summarize the article. I think it's close, so it won't take too much.
    • Can you offer some suggestions on what additional information should be included in the lead? Otto4711 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it needs to give a clearer idea about what type of performer she was. I think just mentioning that she was successful in both musicals and dramatic roles would help, and I think mentioning something about her vocal style (ie emotional etc) would help distinguish her. I think there needs to be a clearer link between her health problems and the damage her unreliability did to her career. That's about all that I think should be added. The more I look at it, the more I see the lead as the article's main weakness. The lead needs to be paraphrased somewhat as there are a couple of points that exist in it, that are not directly supported by the information in the article. There are three phrases that I think are a problem. "attained international acclaim in nearly every arena... etc". I think that's too broad. For an encyclopedic article, I think it should be specific. ie she was successful as a film actress, a vocalist, live entertainer and recording artist. "Nearly every" doesn't really address this correctly. Also " a Carnegie Hall concert considered one of the greatest nights in show business history" fits well in the article because it's attributed to one source. In the lead it reads as though it was the general consensus and this impression is not supported by the sources cited. It looks like POV (even though it's not). I think that it would be more effective if it was downplayed a little and summarize it to it's main point only. I would suggest "including a critically acclaimed Carnegie Hall concert, and a highly regarded but short lived television series". (to avoid using "acclaimed" twice.) Also "the film with which she would be forever identified" - forever is a long time, and I think that one word should be replaced with something that is a bit more "measureable". I'll fix the bits that I think are choppy, and I'll reduce the number of mentions given to MGM (currently 3), but I'd like to hear your opinion - and User:Melty girl's - before anything is too greatly changed. Often the lead is the hardest thing to get right, and often the part that draws the most criticism, so I'm being fairly pedantic in my comments. Only for the good of the article though. :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I did some more work on the lead. I changed the "nearly every" reference to detail film, recording and stage, adjusted the Carnegie Hall and TV series references per your suggestion and re-arranged the personal paragraph to make it a little more chronological. I also made some minor wording changes to reduce what read like they established cause-and-effect relationships between events (separating the financial problems from the divorces, for instance). Otto4711 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's superb! Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's much better now. Just one suggestion: I think it's a little odd not to mention any of the significant people in her life in the lead. Coming at this from a WP:LEAD perspective of offering both a strong stand-alone mini-article and summary of what's in the article, perhaps Mickey Rooney, a Minnelli or two, and perhaps a couple other people could be mentioned. What do you two think about this? --Melty girl (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought of that, but I think it would be appropriate. I've had a look at a few featured articles for actors and Angelina Jolie, Vivien Leigh, Sharon Tate, Katie Holmes and Jake Gyllenhaal all make reference to individuals. Just pointing them out as examples to refer to if necessary. Garland and Rooney did 9 films together, which is quite notable, and Liza and Vincente Minnelli are/were both sufficiently notable. Rossrs (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (reset) My only concern is that there's a fine line between a summary lead and a lead that's overloaded. If you mention one co-star why not another? If you mention one husband why not all (even though they're listed in the infobx right next to the lead)? If you mention Minnelli and Luft in the lead do you also mention all three of the children? And so on. I tend to err on the side of not wanting to overload the lead and trusting the reader. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You do it like you did for all the other details you selected to be in the lead -- you pick the ones that seem most notable. After all, how did you decide to mention the movies you did as opposed to the ones you left out? It's not as mysterious as you say here. About "overloading" the lead: the lead size should be tailored to the size of the article, which is long, and it should hit all the major topics in the body, as per the community's guideline, WP:LEAD. (Not sure what you mean by "trusting the reader".) Major collaborations and relationships -- just a few! -- should be mentioned. I'm not saying to greatly lengthen the lead, but you do have a little room, especially for an article of this length and significance. And the lead section takes precedence over the contents of an infobox. --Melty girl (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these things could be briefly mentioned without adding much to the length. Mickey and Judy were a notable couple and nine films together is one of the most successful collaborations of this kind. Nothing major just "Judy appeared in films.... including nine with Mickey Rooney...." That adds 5 words. I don't think any other of her co-stars merit inclusion, because they were far less notable in the overall context of her career. As for relationships, on second thought, I'd be inclined to not mention any of the husbands, rather than just single out Minnelli (and they were divorced after all) but I think Liza Minnelli is noteworthy enough for mention, perhaps (but probably not Lorna Luft). Once again, keep it simple "Garland had X children, including Liza Minnelli" - adds very little to the length. Rossrs (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is exactly what I meant about length -- it need not add much. And the logic here makes sense. I think it's fine not to mention Vincente Minelli, but I think Liza should definitely be mentioned in a children clause or sentence. After all, it is one of the things Judy Garland is most noted for doing (creating Liza!). --Melty girl (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I have inserted a couple of phrases. "There she made over two dozen films, including the film with which she would be most identified, The Wizard of Oz." now reads "There she made over two dozen films, including a string of "backyard musicals" with frequent co-star Mickey Rooney and the film with which she would be most identified, The Wizard of Oz." "Garland died of an accidental drug overdose at the age of forty-seven." now reads "Garland died of an accidental drug overdose at the age of forty-seven, leaving surviving children Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft." Honestly I don't think either adds a great deal of value, especially the latter. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed a couple of words. "Backyard musical" (in quotation marks) is a term that is not explained and which some readers may not understand. The main point is that of just over 24 films, she successfully paired with Rooney in 9 of them. It shows that it formed a significant chunk of her output at the time. I also removed "surviving". I know it means that the children survived her, but it could also be interpreted that as they were the "surviving" children, there had been other children that predeceased her. I think it looks good, and disagree about it adding value. It only adds a small amount of value, but I think it makes it more complete. Rossrs (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Film career needs to be expanded a little. Some early successes are discussed in sufficient detail, but then equally important films are mentioned only. This makes the discussion of her film career seem a little unbalanced. The late 40s seems to be the area most effected, but the overall discussion could be expanded. There is also a little overlap. The same films mentioned at the end of "Adult stardom" are also mentioned at the beginning of "Leaving MGM".
    • I've tweaked the two sections a bit. Are there specific films that you feel should be discussed in more detail? Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks good. I've had second thoughts about my comment here. No, I can't identify anything in particular that I feel is lacking. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3. A sound sample would be great. Ideally something free of copyright but I think a fair use claim could be made with little difficulty. She is one of the most notable vocalists of all time, so a sound sample would enhance the comprehensiveness of the article. Not mandatory though.
    4. I also think that a short paragraph about her awards, would be appropriate. It could refer to the main article in which it's discussed in more detail, but it seems to be pretty standard to include a summary of awards. I think it could be done without adding too much to the size of the article.
    • I really think that the awards being documented throughout the article along with the succession box covers the awards adequately.Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the succession box up to a stand-alone Awards section, a la Rossrs' moves with the discography and filmography/performances sections. Now it can be found in the TOC and within the body of the article instead of stuck at the end below External links. I don't like succession boxes, because they take up a lot of space for tangential information; I think a list or table of only Garland's wins for these awards would be more compact and contain only the info relevant to this article. --Melty girl (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Change header for "filmography". As Otto rightly says, it's not just films on that list. I don't know what the best header would be, so I'll leave that for someone else....Rossrs (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed it to "filmography and performances." Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot better. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've copyedited it with (hopefully) clear edit summaries regarding my changes. I only have one remaining issue: American English prefers 'theater'; 'theatre' is primarily a British English spelling. I changed one instance of 'theater' to 'theatre' to make the usage at least internally consistent prior to posting it for discussion here, but it has already been reverted, with the baffling summary 'buildings are er.' Note the following at American and British English spelling differences:
    Theater is the prevailing American spelling and is used by America's national theater as well as major American newspapers such as the New York Times (theater section) to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to buildings where performances take place; yet theatre is also current, witness Broadway and The New Yorker.
    'Theater' is the most widely used term here. While I would not object strenuously to 'theatre' used throughout, I can't support employing both 'theater' and 'theatre' in the belief that they refer to two different things. Maralia (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went in and changed the three instances of "theatre" in the Early life section to "theater". The edit summary was intended to convey the letter spelling. WP is very inconsistent about its application of -re and -er in regards to structures. Category:Theaters redirects to Category:Theatres but the subcats vary between the two. I prefer -er to describe American structures but I don't care if it's changed to -re. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Mmm, okay, theater it is. I fixed one lingering instance of theatre. Maralia (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - everything that concerned me has been addressed, and I think this now meets all criteria. It's well written, well sourced, comprehensive without being exhaustive - everything is of a high standard. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of fixes needed. There is incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of endashes on date and page ranges. Solo years should not be linked per WP:MOSDATE. There is WP:OVERLINKing (common words known to most English speakers need not be linked, only first occurrence of most words should be linked, some words are linked repeatedly). 1c, reliable sources, is findagrave.com a reliable source (I thought anyone could contribute)? Is genealogy.com a reliable source? Please reduce all caps in citations per MOS:CAPS#All caps. Inconsistent date formatting in citations, some dates are linked some not, example: ^ Lewis, Richard Warren. "The TV Troubles of Judy Garland", The Saturday Evening Post, 1963-12-07. ^ Awards for The Judy Garland Show (1963). Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Retrieved on December 14, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed the endashes, out of contrition; can't believe I missed that entirely. Maralia (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excess wikilinking addressed; I think I go them all if someone wants to spot me. findagrave replaced with a different reference. Do you have some reason to believe that genealogy.com is not a reliable source? Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I can't find a page on their website that discusses their editorial oversight, factchecking, where they get their data, authorship, anything that would establish them as a reliable source. Perhaps it's there somewhere and I just can't find it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overlinking looks to be solved. I removed a few duplicate interwiki links. Genealogy.com in general isn't cite-worthy in my opinion, but this particular cite is probably okay, given that the credentials of the author include something like 10 mainstream genealogy books [38]. Maralia (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference dates wikilinked. Caps in citations reduced. Missing reference date added. Concur with Marlia re credentials of genealogy.com writer. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

    Woody Guthrie[edit]

    Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has previously achieved GA status which was followed by rigorous Peer Review. Kmzundel (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator: I support this nomination as well. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Moni3 Billy Bragg and Wilco's version of "California Stars" is one of my favorite songs. I have a few suggestions.

    • You have a split infinitive: Guthrie was able to easily learn old Irish ballads
    Edited this sentence. Kmzundel (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this language is too informal: son to come to Texas where nothing much changed for the now-aspiring musician. Try Come to Texas where little changed...
    Edited per your suggestion - much better. Thank you. Kmzundel (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This portion: often—literally and figuratively—caused family upheaval reads fine without the aside.
    I hope this isn't a deal-breaker, because I like the aside.  :-) Kmzundel (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch your punctuation here: He said "I have to set[sic] real hard to think of being a dad".[29].
    • Watch informal labels, such as in this phrase: New York upper-middle class left-wingers and This hero worship went to Guthrie's head. You sound like you're making judgments.
    I removed those statements. Kmzundel (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they were cited, or can be. Either way, they add some color, but are not nessary--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How were Bound for Glory and the Asch Recordings received?
    Added content re: Bound for Glory's reception. Will search re: the Asch Recordings. Kmzundel (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The short answer is they weren't. Asch recorded many things but once that happened mostly shelved the results due to publishing costs. Tho something could be added about the reception of the recordings when issued in the 1990s--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information about Joan Baez playing the Los Gatos song should be later in the article, probably where you mention singers visiting him in the hospital and singing his own songs to him.
    Thanks for catching this. I'm going to remove the Baez cover info since we removed an entire section that included (listed) other artists who have covered Woody. Kmzundel (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed a few terms that should be linked to articles. You might want to read through it once more to see if there are more links you can include.
    • Can you find an image of the statue of Guthrie mentioned in the legacy section?
    It's actually the main photo in the Woody Guthrie Folk Festival article which is linked, but can be added here if necessary. Kmzundel (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should either include the statue photo in the article as well, or trim out some of the details about it in the folk festival paragraph. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, I think it's fine the way it is. Kmzundel (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck with this article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Queries
    Are you familiar with a euglogy like text by Bob Dylan called something like "A few words on Woodie Guthrie"? - Bob Dylan says they asked him to write "25 words on Woodie Guthrie"... Do you think it is significant?
    Actually the story is that during a show in the 1960s Dylan revealed to the audience that he had been asked to contribute to a book answering the question ‘What does Woody Guthrie mean to you in 25 words?’ Bob Dylan said, ‘I couldn’t do it’. It's a nice bit of trivia, but not relevant here. Kmzundel (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is mentioned in the Dylan article as it has been recorded by him a couple times, we could add a note about it in the Tributes section, I think the tribute held just after his death was the debut of this piece--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "House member Agnes "Sis" Cunningham, another Okie, would later recall that Woody, "pretended to be something else,"" - could it be clarified what he really was? -or what she thought he really was?
    I interpret that quote to mean he wanted to be known as a blue-collar working man, not an intellectual. (It is an oddly written paragraph.) Kmzundel (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is correct, Sis saw Woody as an intellectual playing up his folksy roots. I'll see if I can clarify --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    --Kiyarrllston 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I thoroughly examined this article during Peer Review, and made many suggestions. All were dealt with. Re-reviewing it now, I see that it's in tip-top shape. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Kmzundel (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have made several copyedits but the text is already excellent. Below are some sentences that caught my eye and may need to be rephrased. Otherwise job well done.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arriving in New York, the Oklahoma cowboy was embraced by its leftist folk music community and slept on a couch in Will Geer's apartment. i would write Guthrie, known as the Oklahoma cowboy, or now known as the Oklahoma cowboy... and I would change the last phrase, to something like "he would crash on a couch in Will Geer's apartment" though not using the verb crash.
    Edited the Oklahoma cowboy wording; can't think of a better term than "slept" (instead of "crash".) Kmzundel (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later Seeger accompanied Guthrie back to Texas to meet other members of the Guthrie family and remembers an awkward conversation with Mary Guthrie's mother in which she asked Seeger's help in persuading Guthrie to treat her daughter better. instead of "and remembers" perhaps "and has recalled" or "would recall"?
    Edited per suggestion. Kmzundel (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guthrie's arm was hurt in a campfire accident when gasoline, used to start the campfire, exploded. perhaps this is a canister of gasoline?
    Not sure if it was a canister. Does it matter? Kmzundel (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the Kline bio woody attepmted to start a fire by pouring gasoline on to smoulding embers, causing a fire to start, tho like most fire related accidents from guthrie's (fire phobic) memory, they are suspect in terms of their objectivity. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The festival is held on the weekend closest to July 14 - the date of Guthrie's birth - in Guthrie's hometown of Okemah, Oklahoma. I believe either an em-dash or an en-dash needs to be used here. See WP:DASH.
    Okey dokey. Thank you! Kmzundel (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Kmzundel (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was NOT in the public domain? I'll look into this, we have a clip but the full song would be better. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, nice, I'll update the ogg.--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pasted from the Woody Guthrie discussion page This article currently uses Image:Woody Guthrie - This Land.ogg, a 30-second sample of "This Land is You Land", claiming fair use. But according to this (and further details here), the song is in the public domain. I believe a full version of the song should be included. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Errr, yes and no... the sheet music of the 1945 version is public domain... not necessarily any recordings of it. But, quite likely some recordings of it are. But, that comes down to how does Wikipedia work on allowing non-renewal evidence on Wikipedia. I have not been up to date on our ever-evolving copyright policies but some evidence will be required. gren グレン 07:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about recordings. As to non-renewal evidence, I think those links I listed above should be adequate. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But I meant non-renewal for any full length sound recording where a notable group like the EFF hasn't assured us it wasn't renewed. I know on the FAC someone mentioned that they would upload a full version I just want to make sure it doesn't get deleted. gren グレン 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. Happily, there are online searches available. See User:Quadell/copyright#Published_works_in_the_United_States for details. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sample on the page is from the Asch recording sessions. This particular track was issued on the Dust Bowl Ballads record, According to this copyright search the copyright was most recently renewed to Rounders Records in 1988, so I think to err on the side of caution we should maybe keep the clip a sample. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, probably a good idea to post this info on the FAC page. Kmzundel (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Writing quality, references and substance are all excellent. Great job! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks for your declaration of Support!  :-) Kmzundel (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes:
    • inconsistent date linking in the footnotes, some access and other dates are linked, some not, and missing publishers (at least at, ^ 15th Annual Folk Alliance Conference: Nashville Sings Woody. Retrieved February 6, 2007. )
    • Inconsistent formatting on publishers, some are listed before title, others after. 8What is "Further information?" Is that supposed to be Further reading or is it an External link farm (see WP:EL, WP:NOT).
    • Some missing endashes on page ranges (Klein, Woody Guthrie, p.192-193,195–231), and why not pp. on multiple pages?
    • Missing retrieval dates (^ WoodyGuthrie.org. "My Constitution and Me" Woody Guthrie Archives. Manuscripts Box 7 Folder 23.1 )
    • This is a print source, owned by the archive, not online, does not need a retrival date? --Dannygutters (talk · contribs)
    • Missing page numbers on book sources (^ Longhi, Jim (1997). "Woody, Cisco and Me". Random House. ISBN 0252022769.)
    • Review endashes and avoid starting sentences with numbers (see WP:MOSNUM, example: 45 million stamps were printed).
    • Incorrect date linking, example: On April 27, 2007, Woody Guthrie was one of four ...
    • Is this hyphen correct? The Ribbon of Highway tour kicked-off on February ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I rearranged your notes so I could work on them individually. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes it difficult for me to review and strike as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Starting over:

    • There is inconsistent formatting and/or unidentified publishers, example: Reitwiesner, William Addams. Ancestry of Arlo Guthrie. Retrieved Nov. 7, 2007. Some sources use cite templates, which list publisher after title, and others are manually formatted, with publisher listed where author belongs. Pick one style, one method, and identify all publishers, authos and publication dates when available.
    • Dates in citations are inconsistently formatted. For example, compare
    • Correct: Reitwiesner, William Addams. Guthrie Family Ancestry. Retrieved on July 17, 2007.
    • Incorrect: CD Universe. What's Bin Did And What's Bin Hid by Donovan. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2007.
    • This is a website that needs a retrieval date no matter who owns it: ^ WoodyGuthrie.org. "My Constitution and Me" Woody Guthrie Archives. Manuscripts Box 7 Folder 23.1
    Actually, the publisher should read Woody Guthrie Archives, this document is not available via the web, it's in the box noted in New York at the WG Archive. If I recall this document was sourced via a trip to the archives in NY. Updated.--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there an order to Further reading? Alphabetical? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further reading now alphabetized. Kmzundel (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well-written article and citations have been fixed Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Oppose' for now over citation issues. There are also a few minor WP:MOS fixes needed.
      • Please add non-breaking spaces between numbers and their qualifiers (for example, 30 plots, 174 times)
    Do Dates need these as well? Like January 25. Also, the style manual suggests pp. ## as inclding a non breaking space? --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, dates don't need nonbreaking spaces (they should be wikilinked and that's it). And yes, the style manual recently decided that pp. ## needs a nonbreaking space between them too. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This little bit of make-work silliness (nbsp on page nos) has been removed from MOS as of today. If you've already done them, they can stay, but it's no longer necessary (and never should have been). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a citation for the fact that "The poverty he saw on these early trips affected him greatly"?
    Removed this item. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for the fact that Guthrie was frustrated at returning to Pampa (California section)
    Removed this item --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a source for the facts that he did not excel as a student but was described as bright, and for fact that friends remember him reading constantly
    Updated. Added citation. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for Seeger recalling "an awkward conversation with Mary Guthrie's mother in which she asked Seeger's help in persuading Guthrie to treat her daughter better."
    Updated. Added citation. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for why he quit the New York show
    Updated. Added citation. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous batch all pretty much come from the Cray Book or the Kline Book, I will source from there. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quotes should be cited immediately after the sentence that quote appears in, even if that means citations are duplicated for several sentences in a row. Please appropriately cite the Library Journal review of Bound for Glory.
    Updated, added citation. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for fact that "Songs to Grown on for Mother and Child" was one of his most popular albums
    Opinion, Removed--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are several times in the article that mention that these years were one of his most productive periods. It got almost amusing, and it might be better served to point out the ones that were not productive.
    Be more specific here, I think the article points out the Mermaid avenue period as his most productive period as a writer and the pacific northwest interms of number of completed songs or even the asche sessions as most recordings done. Tho the word 'productive' only appears once. Maybe this was addressed already? --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • think you should remove the information about researchers finding a gene for Huntington's but no cure. That is not really applicable to this article. As for his children, all I would include is: "Two of his children by his first wife were also diagnosed with the disease, and both died aged 41."
    Updated. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 05:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a citation for fact that archives have been starting point of albums
    Is this necessary? The next statement contains links to pages about the mermaid avenue albums which state their starting point as the archives (infact, they were originated as projects by the archives themselves), and the main article link to the archives page details other recordings with the archives as a starting point. A citation could easily be found though. --Dannygutters (talk ·

    contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd go ahead and add the citation. You never know if information is going to change in the other article, or those other articles might be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Folk Festival section has three sentences in a row that begin along the lines of "The festival is...." Can this be varied any?
    updated--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the references, full dates need to be wikilinked so that people's date preferences work
    I fixed these for you. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation 28 does not have a page number, as the others from that book do. Can you try to track that down, please?
    Updated this. --Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    41 doesn't have a page number either. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation 57 needs to have a publisher listed, as does 60, 73
    Updated--Dannygutters (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dannygutters, have you asked Karanacs to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Karanacs has now given his support above. Kmzundel (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

    Monkey Gone to Heaven[edit]

    1989 single by the American alternative rock band Pixies from Doolittle. Was promoted to GA status in July sometime, but I've finally got around to improving it to A-class and hopefully FA status. CloudNine (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey, what's up?
      -[Oppose --Kiyarrllston 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)] [done]""Monkey Gone to Heaven" is also concerned with man's relationship with the supernatural[numberology], referenced by the lyrics "If man is 5/then the Devil is 6/and God is 7." either that or not referenced by those lyrics really- but by another part of the song? I also feel it's grandiose somehow[reply]
      --Kiyarrllston 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I was unclear, thank you for asking me to explain.
    [done]This would be an example of bad writing in the form of bad organization. That paragraph is about numerology, not about supernatural or spiritual concerns. As the first sentence of the paragraph it would be more fitting to say it is numerology that those lyrics reference. While spirituality and numerology are connected, it is best to put the truest fact on the board.
    I also don't think the word "referenced" is very well used there.
    Again, thank you for asking me to explain. I do not think my original comment was very clear.
    More important than that regarding that section is the fact that it doesn't seem to be referenced to some ... highly respected literary critic who said all those things.
    Thus - who is it that thinks [and says that] "[these are the themes" and this is the meaning -?]
    regarding that section "One of "Monkey Gone to Heaven"'s main themes is environmentalism." - the first sentence would be better off as one saying "Monkey Gone to Heaven" has - and then either "various themes" OR "environentalism, numerology, and ___ as themes" - OR even better ... "Monkey Gone to Heaven" is a song without a definite meaning but rather falls into post-modernism as pastiche [Cited to Literary Critic #39875]
    Improving the article's writing would be the most important necessary improvement to get my support for its candidateship.
    Didn't mean to be unclear, I would love to see this article improve.
    --Kiyarrllston 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    note: numerology concern is addressed--Kiyarrllston 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find your comments hard to understand, which means it's harder to address them. They're very wordy and unclear. Could perhaps phrase your comments in the style of most other reviewers? (Why the multiple line-breaks?) CloudNine (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you once more. You are not the first to tell me that I am unclear, let me attempt to clarify. My opposition is currently based on the quality of the "meaning" section.
    1- The first sentence of the section should serve as an introduction to the section, just as the first sentence of a paragraph should similarly serve as an introduction to the paragraph.
    Actually, the environmentalism theme is the main one; the "if man is 5 ... " bit is more of a reference; I've already included a summary sentence of the song's themes in the lead paragraph. CloudNine (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adequately addressed, Thank you for addressing this objection.--Kiyarrllston 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2- I believe the section may fall under WP:OR. Citing a literary critic instead of the lyrics to speak of what the song means would be a great improvement.
    Where isn't the section well-cited? In the second paragraph for example, the quote and numerology fact is cited to the reference, and the last sentence is obvious. CloudNine (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... I think this impression was due to the writing, as I believed the statement "environmentalism is a theme" was unsupported by any source other than lyrics, please take a look at my comment below- Also, I searched "monkey gone to heaven" on google books and I found Doolittle by Ben Sisario - in page 66 a I interpret that a bandmember says: "It's a good statement of the way I feel about music [...] It's slightly aloof about your own music. Just cut the crap you what what I mean? [...] that's the kind of aesthetic I think that we had". This kind of attitude does not seem ready to note "motifs" within it's work and I believe there should be some note of this within meaning as it is definitely part of the song.--Kiyarrllston 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've got the book.) Black Francis is famous for insisting there is no meaning to his lyrics, but he does talk about it in some interviews. Actually in that excerpt, he's talking about his approach to albums and song length, rather than lyrical meaning. CloudNine (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The original objection was addressed. I hope my comments are helpful, thank you for reading this comment.--Kiyarrllston 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per 1a: "Ben Sisario, author of Doolittle 33⅓, offers a slightly different interpretation of the song" - what the other interpretation was is not clear. I believe the readers are supposed to understand that the following is the first interpretation: """On one hand, it's this big organic toilet."" -What is the it? the world of the song? planet earth? I ask you to be make the article clearer on what "it" is in that sentence - I suggest: "The band's interpretation is that the world of the song is "this big organic toilet [...]"" or "The song's message according to the band is that "[earth's] like this big"--Kiyarrllston 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it would refer to "the ocean" (in the previous sentence), but I've clarified it anyway. CloudNine (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be proper to set up a first interpretation, to then say "a slightly different interpretation [...]" preferably using the word "interpretation".
    I think it would be proper to include the information that Black Francis commonly insists that there is no meaning to his lyrics.
    I think with these done I have no problem removing my oppose.
    --Kiyarrllston 01:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Very nice; also I performed a copy-edit:

    • The music video, the Pixies' first after signing to major label Elektra Records - They didnt release any videos from Surfer Rosa, did they? If not, remove "after signing..." and move "signed to elektra" to the release part.
    • Fixed.
    • The melody section might be construed as OR: especially the toy piano and staccato bits seem like too detailed analysis for uncited stuff.
    • I've got a citation for "toy piano" somewhere. I'm working on the assumption that a Melody section like the one I've written implicitly uses the song as a source, much like film articles implicitly use the film as a source.
    • I've referenced as much as possible, and culled the bits that I couldn't reference. What are your thoughts from here?
    • The second para of the lyrics section has "If Man is 5", but melody section has "If man is five". Pick one, what do the liner notes lyrics say?
    • The "If Man is 5" was in quotes, but I changed it to "five" anyway.
    • I dont think you can link rocklists and acclaimedmusic because of possible copyvio.
    • I don't think AcclaimedMusic is a copyvio (it's only repeating the chart positions, rather than the full list itself). I'll probably replace rocklists with a direct reference.
    • That best-song rank section should be made into a table, making it much more elegant.
    • I did have it as a table, but since it hasn't received a huge amount of awards, I decided it worked better as prose.
    • There are six entries for the table as i count: 4 single of the year lists (nme, rs, vv, mm), the RS 500 and the nme indie list. That would make for a good table. Right now its rather complicated which reviewer ranks it at what.
    • Done.
    • Can you make it chronological? It's better that way, showing how the song was acclaimed at the time of its release and is still considered very good. indopug (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
    • aleceiffel is a fansite, besides, track-listing doesn't need referencing. The cd single itslef is the reference.
    • I wouldn't say it was a fansite (with the connotation of it being unreliable); content from the site has been reproduced in books as Fool the World.
    • fix the allmusic link.
    • The link appears to work fine. What's wrong in particular?
    • Its a redirect, check the external links tab above.
    • Done. Thanks for pointing it out.
    indopug (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support I know nothing about popular music, but I could easily follow this article. I made a few minor copy edits as I was reading - please revert any that introduced errors or ambiguities. Questions and comments:
    • The song was written and sung by frontman Black Francis and was produced by Gil Norton during the album's recording sessions. - Is it unusual for a song to be produced during an album's recording sessions? I wasn't sure why this was being emphasized.
    • It's a little redundant, so I removed it for now. Thanks for pointing that out.
    • The song's numerology is alluded to on the single's cover, which also features a monkey with a halo. - How is numerology represented? Make this clear in the sentence.
      • Done.
    • Do you know what the chord progressions are? I, IV, V, I, for example?
      • The chord progression is Em - F# - A - D - B, but I haven't got a scholarly reference for that. (I suppose, if that's admissible, converting into I, IV etc. would not be original research?)
        • Since there is no reference, I do not believe we can include it, even if it might be obvious to people with musical training. Too bad. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fiacco was surprised to find there were no charts written for the musicians to play - Do you mean scores or parts, perhaps?
    • Fixed. I think the word "charts" was used in the source, so I also used it. It doesn't make much sense as a musical term though.
    • Notes:
    • Note 1 is missing page numbers
    • Note 3 is missing page numbers
    • Note 11 is missing page numbers and volume/issue number
    • Note 12 is missing page numbers and volume/issue number
    • Note 13 is missing page numbers
    • Unfortunately I haven't got access to the sources themselves, but I transcribed the reviews from a book that didn't state the page numbers. (I don't think the page numbers are critical?). I'll look up the volume/issue number soon.
    • When transcribing reviews from sources it is usual to credit those sources (Qtd. from ... or some such indication) and then give the original publication information in a separate part of the note (although not everyone gives the original publication information). This is because sometimes—shockingly—things are misprinted; you want readers to know exactly where you copied the information from. If you copied it from a reprint, that is different from copying it from the original. Awadewit | talk 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on looking again at my sources, I read the reprints on a website. However, I'm unsure of their permission to reprint the articles, so surely linking to them would count as contributory infringement? (Sorry for the late reply on this FAC.) CloudNine (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know enough about contributory infringement to say. We could ask Lquilter. In the meantime, you can list the websites as the source, but not link to them, right? Awadewit | talk 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added "Quoted from Alec Eiffel" for now. What do you think? CloudNine (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - you can't just list the name of the song. You have to list the source you actually copied the information from. Even if you can't link to it, you have to list it. Something like "Qtd. from www.smith.com; originally published in NME (March 1989): 13-15" - or something like that. (I'm not really sure why you are listing the name of a song anyway - it is confusing to me. Aren't these reviews?) Awadewit | talk 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's crediting the website aleceiffel.com. Anyways CloudNine, what you do is simply credit the original source. So basically just remove the website mention. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a website Awadewit; apologies for not making it clearer. I've removed the "Qtd. from Alec Eiffel" for now, but will seek a wider consensus on the issue soon. CloudNine (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see. You do need to list whatever source you got the information from - I can't emphasize this enough. So, as I understand it, it would be something like this: "www.aleceiffel.com. Retrieved on [date]; originally published in NME (March 1989): [page numbers]." Awadewit | talk 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *Note 16 is broken
    • Fixed.
    • Check to see if links have dates. For example, note 18, Rolling Stone article was posted in 2004. That should be indicated in the note.
    • Done.
    • But there are still others that need to be done. This was just a sample to show you the concept.
    • I reckon I've added the dates where they apply to the source now.

    A very thorough and carefully-written article on a popular song - nice to see! Awadewit | talk 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Well written, adequately referenced, and comprehensive. Great work. NSR77 TC 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference NOAA Question of the Month was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ a b University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Hurricanes: Keeping an eye on weather's biggest bullies accessed March 31, 2006 Cite error: The named reference "UCAR" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
    3. ^ Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Random House. July 2005. ISBN 0-375-42599-3.
    4. ^ Harper, Douglas (November 2001). "Earth". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2007-08-07.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2008&oldid=934166725"