Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2007

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

The article was promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Central Coast Mariners FC[edit]

I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A "good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.

As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.

In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #33 is missing.--Rmky87 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is - it somehow got lost. Restored from history, so  Done. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:

  • Image:Dean Heffernan2.jpg has a watermark, which is generally disallowed in Wikipedia images.
     Done, with the removal of Heffernan from the section which the image was in, the image went also.
  • "The Marinators also have a Mariners fans forum and web site." - 1) "web site" > "website". 2) Rather trivial information, anything it's notable for?
     Done; not really, no - it is, in effect, unreferenced, so I've removed it.
  • Separate the notes section from the references, seeing as the first note contains improperly formatted references. It might also be confusing for the readers.
    May I ask, how? Use {{note}}? I wasn't sure how to do this.
    Yes. Take a look here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Looks much better, thanks. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacks references for achievements, records, and personnel.
    Doing.
     Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
     Done for Notable players; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
     Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Socceroos" > "Australia national football team players". ...coping financially.[19] but after forming > No need in a punctuation here, move the reference to the end of the sentence. "They participate in the A-League, and are one > Remove the comma. ...local businessman John Singleton the clubs financial worries were eased - Add a comma after "John Singleton". The Mariners have been able to secure > The Mariners secured. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Thanks very much for raising those (I've converted your comment into dot-points for ease of use, I hope you don't mind). Any advice on what to use for the ref/note split would be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:

  • Why is Hefferman listed as a star player?
     Done. I don't know, exactly :) I originally thought when it was added he was a Socceroo squad member, but on further checking he isn't. Removed (with the picture, see above).
  • A rivalry with Newcastle United Jets is mentioned in the lead, but is not included anywhere in the body of the article.
    Should I create a separate section for rivalry, or include it in one of the existing ones? I can't see which existing one I could put it in, but on the flip side, The Mariners are only two years, and SFC and NUJ are the only rivals (ie. "F3 derby" and "NSW Cup").
     Done, moved to History section. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of tenses is mixed in places (I might fix this one myself in the next day or two)
    I would be very greatful if you could - I am hopeless with stuff like that :)
     Done, I believe. Oldelpaso edited this to make some minor copy-editing changes; I presume this was to fix these tense problems. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Colours and crest section is a little thin. The second paragraph is a description of away form, which is not connected to the kit itself. The use of "clean sheet" in this context seems odd. Don't know if its different in Aus. Eng., but in Br. Eng. the term is nearly always used when talking about the defending team. Either way, "failed to score" is easier for a non-sports fan to understand.
     Done for the wording. There isn't all that much information on the strip, hence your concern. The most notable part about it is actually the 05-06 away form with the strip, hence why it's there. I'll look around for a little bit more info regarding the colours/badge.
    Haven't been able to find much else, sadly. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is the Central Coast Leagues Club "the home of the Mariners"? Oldelpaso 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, removed. It is, really. Directly across from Bluetongue, all post-match stuff occurs there. However, because I recognise that it is really a POV, as such - the CCM offices are at Wyong - and because the reference doesn't point to that info, I've removed it. Thanks for all these suggestions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer some suggestions regarding the comments I made above. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly there now. My one concern is that some of the prose in the history section isn't cleanly presented. "Media speculation prior to announcement of the franchises in the new league suggested that the Mariners bid may be favourable due to its new blood, and backing from former Australian national team player and club technical director Alex Tobin, as well as Clean Up Australia personality Ian Kiernan, who would act as club chairman" is the biggest example of this, and should be two or three sentences rather than one. Oldelpaso 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That particular sentence is checkY Done; however, I'm trying to arrange a copyedit for the full section from an unrelated person. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.

  • The lead mentions a rivalry with the Newcastle Jets, yet their is no further detail in the prose. If their is more to add then it should go into the history. If not, that paragraph should be move to the history.
    This issue is mentioned above. I'm actively considering doing as you mention and moving it to the history section (with an appropriate rephrasing), which should solve the problem. The only trouble is, will this make the lead too short?
     Done exactly what you said, see above. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notable players section lists five players and in its current format shows a POV. I believe this section should detail why and what these players are notable for. The references in this section are also all for either the CCM website or the ALeague website. If these players are indeed notable, then shouldn't they be mentioned in a reliable external source. I personally find it hard to believe that a 2 year old club has had so many notable players.
    I have reworded this section so it clearly states the bar of inclusion in that list is playing international football. This list includes 5 players (Australia: 4; Scotland: 1). I will try and find a couple of references, probably at the same time I add a little bit of content outlining that players' international (notable) career in <two sentences :)
     Done for notable players/personnel; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • One thing that this article is definately good for is references. However they are in the wrong places. Achievements and Records should have at least a refernece each, and they should be from an external source. In addition, does the Achievements section need to be completely bolded.
    As noted above, I'm in the process of doing the further referencing. Regarding the bolding of achievements, I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note: MOS). I'd appreciate some further clarification on that point.
     Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
     Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.[1]Todd661

Thanks for the input. I'll try and clean everything up over the next couple of days. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional[2] Support. Good article, but a few things:

  • "The Mariners have a strong rivalry with Newcastle Jets, often referred to as the "F3 derby".[6]" May be a bit biased, but I can't believe that a two-year old derby is that "strong". I'd recommend that the Newcastle Jets rivalry information be included in the fans section, by the way.
     Done, moved from lead.
  • "The Central Coast Mariners' bid for the Football Federation Australia's (FFA) new A-League aimed to fill the space for one regional team in the competition.[8]" I don't understand that at all. I presume it means that the Mariners looked to fill the franchise spot designated for a certain area. But that's not clear from that sentence and needs rephrasing.
    Indeed, it isn't the best wording. Will sleep on it.
     Done, I think that should read better. Daniel Bryant 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the 2006-07 season, the Mariners secured the services of then Australian international Tony Vidmar from NAC Breda for two years.[31] This was the Mariners' first marquee signing, following the lead of Sydney FC (Dwight Yorke) and Adelaide United (Qu Shengqing).[32]" What defines a "marquee player" sounds like a bit of arbitary description to me.
    A marquee player is one whose salary falls outside the salary cap. Each club can have one designated marquee player. This is explained in references like [3] (probably the best for an article reference), [4], [5], [6] and [7]. I appreciate the concern, and will continue searching for the perfect reference to add to the article to clear up this issue. By the way, I've looked into it, and can link "marquee player" to two places: Salary cap#A-League or A-League#Clubs. Each is unreferenced, but I'll fix that :)
    I think if you just wiki-link "marquee player" to Salary cap#A-League that'll be fine. Cheers, HornetMike 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, too easy :) Daniel Bryant 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""We all follow a yellow football team" (as the Mariners wear a primarily yellow strip when playing at home)." That can be cut down to "(a reference to the colour of the team's kit)" HornetMike 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Thanks for that, and all the other, suggestion. I would love a response regarding the marquee player, though. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.

  • The use of WP:DASH, e.g. the en-dash, for seasons such as 2003-04 ought to be 2003–04.
     Done. Ah, yes, the dashes. Thanks for that.
  • Highest attendance - against whom, was it a significant match, when was it?
    checkY Done, added details; they were in the records anyways, but can't hurt to add it there as well.
  • "..only one football manager.." - it's a clear football article so I'd ditch "football".
    checkY Done
  • Records section, this would be nicer in prose rather than a simple list. See Arsenal F.C. for a good guide on what I'm looking for.
    Will do; I like Arsenal's much better than the present CCM one. Added to to-do list.
     Done, I've converted the recors to prose. I estimate that the Records section is currently at 80% completion; I still want to add a paragraph about how they hold the A-League record for longest undefeated streak at home (nearly 12 months), which recieved a lot of media attention. Shouldn't be too hard, I'll do it in a couple of hours' time. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
     Done fully, see below. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 1, 11 & 44 are in the wrong place if you follow WP:CITE strictly. And the citations in the notes section.
    checkY Done for 1 (and 2), and 44. 11 I can't seem to see anything wrong with. I've also fixed the notes section.
    checkY Yes, ref 11 is fine, don't know what I was talking about. The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the supporters section there feels to me like an overuse of parentheses, it detracts from the excellent prose.
    checkY Done, fixed.

Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it helped lots, thanks so much. I'll get to work regarding the Records, and if you could have a look at Ref 11 for me, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you've rewritten the records section and I'll add my support The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a ping when I've done the last 20%, per above. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 Done, I had to scrap the last 20% because I was mistaken...thank goodness for WP:V :) Notified as per request. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, so now, as promised, I offer you strong support. The Rambling Man 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and thanks for all your suggestions (and help, with the en dashes - I still hate swapping them over, despite all the practice I'm getting :D), Daniel Bryant 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Regarding the ownership, I believe that this has been covered in the History section. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Before we jump to conclusions ("excellent prose I must say"), let's take a proper look. I've chosen at random the "Colours and badge" section, which I see comprises three stubby paragraphs.

  • "The Mariners home jersey is yellow with a navy left sleeve and stripe on the right sleeve. The companion shorts have a yellow cut up the seam and are matched with yellow socks. Their away uniform is similar, with white jersey and socks and slightly different shorts." Apostrophe missing from the first word. "A" before "stripe". "Running" before "up". "Away" seems very loose in this formal register; is there another word you could substitute for non-expert readers (maybe not)?
    Apostrophe missing from "The"? I don't understand
    I would guess he means the second word - i.e. Mariners' The Rambling Man 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make sense, I guess.  Done. Daniel Bryant 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stripe  Done
    Running  Done
    No, "away" is a formal term in this situation, quite clearly meaning "playing away from home".
  • "Away strip"—Do you mean "trip"? Sounds as though they performed a naked display, but that would be reserved for the calendar, surely. This link might be piped to the specific subsection in the related article.
    "Strip" is the common Australian English word for "Playing clothes". WP:ENGVAR; do you know a term which works for all, which admittedly would be better than the current situation.
  • "Whilst"—nowadays, "while" is the norm; please use plain English.
     Done
  • "It is within walking distance of the Gosford railway station"—Remove "the", which is unidiomatic here.
     Done

Then further down:

  • "Stadium" section: lots of subby paras.
    I dispute this; I (and the others above) believe that the paragraphs here are of sufficent length. Instead of waffling to increase the, concise wording was applied. However, I will try and see if there's any more info related to CCM to flesh out the second and third paragraphd (which are shortish).
  • "membership based group"—hyphenate the double epithet.
     Done
  • "and have sponsorships from local businesses in the Central Coast region"—"Have" is ungainly here; where else would "local businesses" be but in the CCR?
     Done

Please don't just correct these issues; they're examples of why a thorough copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Tony 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this has already been done. However, I am currently trying to find at least one more copyeditor to have a look. Cheers, and thanks for the comments, Daniel Bryant 03:06, 31 March 2007 (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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Mayan languages[edit]

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.

  • I think the third paragraph of the lead section could use some work - possibly the removal of the second, third and fifth sentences? These are fairly jargony for the non-specialist. This material (the link with the Mesoamerican linguistic area) doesn't appear to be treated in the 'geneaology and classification' section' - in fact it appears to be contradicted by the statement "Mayan languages as a family are unconnected with any others."
  • This is a technical issue a linguistic area is not afamilial unit in a linguistic sense - a linguistic family is a group of languages with a shared ancestor - the languages of the mesoamerican linguistic area do not have shared ancestry but have converge only because they were spoken in the same area - sort of like english loanwords in chinese for example do not imply a shared ancestry between chinese or english. This is very basic linguist so it will be hard to specify in the article without writing very longwindedly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might read the old nomination as there was a rather extensive discussion regarding the technical level of the lead already. Awadewit 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to read the previous nom, which sheds some light on it, but I stand by my comment. I think reducing the lead section by a few sentences and expanding the Genealogy or possibly Grammar sections by a few more would make the article considerably better. The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are some very short paragraphs that can be merged. However I wouldn't go too far down that road, as short paragraphs are best when dealing with technical material.
  • Could the number of present-day speakers be made more immediately clear - for instance, in a table? It's just a thought.
that is why we made the List of Mayan languages·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that's an impressive table - I can see why it's not in the main article!! The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Final Fantasy XII[edit]

Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.

The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckiller 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-nom and support, a lot of work went into this article and it's quite impressive. I, too, am hoping that this FAC will be a good opportunity to improve the article. If this passes, it will be the fasted turnover from release to FA status of any FF game so far. Axem Titanium 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things...
  • The comma in the second sentence seems unnecessary (I might be wrong).
  • I'm a bit of a comma fan, so it doesn't really bother me. — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the serial comma the standard for this article? It jumps back and forth.
  • Yeah; that should be standardized. I've always found the serial comma more intelligent and professional and less old school, but that's just me :) — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Gambits" be capitalized?
  • Should "Summoning Magic" be capitalized?
  • Should "License" be capitalized?
  • a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" exists and is the key energy might sound better as a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy or even a phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy.
  • Last sentence in the "Battle system" section seems awkward (again, I might be wrong). --- RockMFR 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm feeling a little sick right now (24 is really starting to make me frustrated, plus the brown bread), so I might not get to them quickly. — Deckiller 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I capitalized "Gambits" for now so it's uniform, and I reworded the mist part. Darthgriz98 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took a look at my game and decapitalized "summoning magic", "gambits" and "licenses" because they're common nouns. "License Board" remains because it is proper. Axem Titanium 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all issues have been addressed. Feel free to find as many as you can! Correcting fixable errors on FAC (except the nonsense 5MB source/spoiler tag/plot length debates) not only improves the article, but helps everyone spot these mistakes at a later date.— Deckiller 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may want to double check your fair use rationales. It seems the ones of the screenshots are refering to cover art in a couple places, and I'm not sure what the intent of those lines was. Jay32183 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref for the "Square Enix Product Blog" bit at the very end of the article used to point to some blog source or some crap like that. That site referenced another site, which in turn referenced the SE blog. I've changed it to point directly to the original source, but I can't read Japanese. Someone with that skill should check to make sure the original blog actually says what we are saying it says, and maybe try to get an author name. --- RockMFR 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During my edits, I updated the Game Rankings score, and in doing so, I noticed that FFXII has dropped to the fourth highest FF game, so I removed the bit about being second highest. It's not really noteworthy anymore, so you might want to move the Game Rankings score into the table and then merge the remaining stub paragraph up or down. --- RockMFR 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I wish my articles would look like that. Some random stuff I found:
    • ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
      • Sorry, the ref doesn't give a specific date.
    • "Final Fantasy XII US - fansite" and "Final Fantasy Wiki" - Remove per WP:EL as non-reliable websites.  Done
    • ..a special Final Fantasy XII package, which included - "which contained" would be better in this context.  Done
    • ..brand in Japan - ..Japanese brand.  Done
    • ..commercially available on March 7, 2006, in Japan - ..commercially available in Japan on March 7, 2006.  Done
    • No need in an English indicator for the second external link, as the first is the only non-English one.  Done
    • ..it was the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 - was?  Done
    • ..most released and upcoming Final Fantasy games up to the newest releases - "up to the newest releases" redundant.  Done
    • Any references for the Japanese and Australian release dates? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
        • I've interlaced the things I've tried to address within your comment above. If you have anything else to add, please do. Axem Titanium 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good enough. It's impressible the polishing of FF pages (all of the main series are GA or FA...). igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of lack of notability of the topic. 69.140.155.148 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well done, PresN. That's the kind of self-control I wish everyone had. Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after reading it over several times, it looks like FA material to me. Darthgriz98 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Firm, well written prose with a multitude of interesting facts and a comprehensive, yet uncrufty treatment of the gameplay. My only objection is to the review table but as that's a personal preference, this nomination has my full support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written and easy to follow. It's about time this article joined all the other FA Final Fantasy articles. ZenSaohu 06:11, 31 March 2007 (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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

George Washington (inventor)[edit]

This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks nice. I haven't any major things prepending FA status (and I agree it'd make a fantastic MP one for April 1!). there are a number of little things that should be fixed,though:
    • Multiple uses of the same ref should be collapsed (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once about that)
    • Full dates (i.e. in references) have to be linked for User preferences to work properly
    • Maybe the patents should be listed on 2 or even 3 columns? They take an awful lot of screen space.
    • There are a number of one-line paragraphs. They have to be refactored.
    • The parallel to Ouspensky looks unnecessary and distracting to me.
  • Overall, though, I'll be glad to support after those are tweaked. Circeus 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I've now cleaned it up per your suggestions.--Pharos 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Made a few tweaks to the refs, and I think it's all good now.Circeus 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed have university database access; not sure if it's through that company. It would be impractical, I think, to keep decades of newspapers in my basement.--Pharos 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My feeling is that it's too short to be a FA. It could also conform closer to {{Biography}}. -Malkinann 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Congratulations on writing such a comprehensive article in such a short space of time. The output is exceptional, and deserves FA status. Bensmith53 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can we mention that he invented this after the Boston Tea Party? (In this case, several decades after the Boston Tea Party, and not as a direct result, but we can leave that out.) My wise-guy comments aside, here's a couple questions: "There have been several "American Party"s in history — in 1920, former Texas governor James E. Ferguson actually ran under that label." This is confusing. I don't think this is a fact about George Washington at all. Similarly, is the following quote from a Brooklyn polician about George Washington, or James Ferguson? Other than that, I don't think I have any major concerns. Even though this is a quirky article about a relatively unimportant topic, it can get to FA status. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've relegated Ferguson to a footnote. The Brooklyn politician was talking about George Washington, in a joking context that reflects the color of the time period. I hope it's clear that the nomination of Washington was entirely non-serious, and that Washington didn't even know about it till the New York Times reporter tracked him down.--Pharos 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a picture of him? Raul654 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks pretty good. Since we're on a tight schedule, I've made a few minor changes myself and will probably make a few more tomorrow. --- RockMFR 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article done in a short space of time, though some of the prose could be tightened. I've tried searching for a picture on the web, but its a complete nightmare - George Washington, George Corbin Washington (politician) and George Washington Carver (also an inventor) complicate matters, and the fact that along with the above two this inventor also had a surname beginning with c conspired against me. RHB Talk - Edits 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rare photo of George Washington in his army uniform
Well, based on a tip from RockMFR, I found a rare photo :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I like this, too. But I suggest uncropping a bit to show the entire right forearm, and perhaps to show the entire helmut. GW looks better as a soldier in uniform. :-) --74.14.18.41 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to do is to hide both the spoon and the words "prepared coffee" so it is more ambiguous. But also keeping a square 100x100px image that is commonly used on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been lending a hand, and ferreting around the article, but not adding substantially. Looks good. Carcharoth 11:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — despite the apparent lack of dates. I have a few comments if you really have nothing else to do:
  • 29 March 1946, 4 January 1920 - Change to constant formatting.
  • Create a new "Notes" section to avoid confusion with references, see here as an example.
  • ...and also attained - "also" redundant.
  • At this time > At the time.
  • He died just three years after his company was sold, on March 29, 1946,[2] after an illness, at the age of 74. - Reword the sentence. Remove "just" for NPOV.
  • Link all full dates at the image captions. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:49, 31 March 2007 (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 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Cholangiocarcinoma[edit]

Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Except for the staging section, metastasis isn't mentioned anywhere. Metastasis significantly influences prognosis and operability so I think this should be added (even though cholangiocarcinoma rarely has metastasized at the time of presentation). --WS 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Distant metastases are rare, and it seems that it doesn't really matter if you have locally advanced disease or metastatic disease; basically, if the tumor can't be resected for whatever reason, the outcome is poor. Do you have refs for metastasis specifically affecting prognosis? I haven't found any but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only for lymph node metastasis: PMID 17278119 PMID 17006609 PMID 11224627 But it is also interesting to mention what the most common sites of metastasis are and like you say that distant metastasis is rare. --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: after resection a five year survival of 17% is mentioned. Both emedicine and the oxford textbook of surgery pu it at 40%. Any idea which would be more correct? --WS 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There are a range of survival statistics, depending on the location of the tumor and which series you look at. I've expanded the section considerably to reflect the varying estimates of long-term survival - please take a look. MastCell Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. Support --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done. The lead could use some additional context to make it more accessible to the average reader. A large percentage of readers would not know where the bile ducts are or what they are. The second sentence tell us they're in or near the liver, but that would be better in the first sentence to ease the reader in. The picture helps, but not quite enough. In the sentence mentioning the left and right hepatic ducts that wording is really only useful to medical practitioners. It's particularly important that the lead is as accessable to everyone as possible. Need to reduce the number of short, one and two sentence paragraphs. There are several throughout. Otherwise looks quite good and I'd support with all that fixed. - Taxman Talk 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot. See what you think. MastCell Talk 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs much more on merging or expanding the short paragraphs, I think I saw about 6 or 7. Now the lead has one. But that simple fix did make the lead more approachable. Now just expand it a little bit. - Taxman Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and tried to merge these. I think the short paragraphs don't look as awful or eye-catching to me because I'm using an 800x600 monitor (stone age, I know). It only takes a few sentences to fill the screen. If you see some more that are sticking out to you, feel free to merge them. MastCell Talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments very good, needs a couple of tweaks though:
    • When you say 'higher prevalence among Asian people', you should specify that (I presume) you mean people in Asia, not people of Asian ethnicity who live elsewhere.
    • I didn't think of this before, but the existence of HIV infection as a risk factor is only mentioned as a possible explanation for increasing rate of occurrence, but it's not strongly supported by the risk factors section. Is the mechanism for this known?
    • Did you manage to dig up any images? The pathophysiology section would be clearer with some pictures.
    • The very last sentence is very long and stringy; break it up into two (or note the use of a semicolon ;) Opabinia regalis 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think. Take a look. As far as HIV, it has only been mentioned as a risk factor in one (fairly large) study. It did hold up as significant in multivariate analysis, but I think there's still a question as to whether HIV is directly involved or whether it's a marker for increased risk of hepatitis B/C and cirrhosis, which are clearly linked to cholangiocarcinoma. The mechanism by which HIV might predispose one to develop a cholangiocarcinoma is unknown, as far as I could find in my reading. Images: unfortunately, so far we've got what we've got, unless someone out there has something to upload. MastCell Talk 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the suggestion that the epidemiology section call HIV a 'potential risk factor' or somesuch. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MastCell Talk 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Thorough, well-written article, nicely organized into sections and with neat, uniform citations. Here are a few suggestions, though, which are really just some loose ideas, because the article is very good as it is currently.
    • The article was understandable to a reader as unfamiliar with the subject as myself, but, as FAs are intended for a wide readership, I'd still recommend a few tweaks for accessibility. Perhaps more in-article explanation of technical terms would help. It's not a major concern, though, and the wiki-linking of technical terms already present in the article is very helpful.
    • The only national incidence statistics under the "Epidemiology" section are for the United States. Perhaps more data from such countries as Canada, the U.K., and Australia would be useful for comparison (although the difference between incidence in the Western and Eastern world is clear). Perhaps these data could be assembled into a table, which could be right- or left-aligned, if there was a concern that integrating this information into the section's prose would interrupt its flow.
    • Some illustrations of particular locations where cancer can develop in the bile ducts might help readers to better understand the points relating to the different effects that these different locations can have. This could be as simple as taking the bile duct diagram and adding a coloured dot. -Severa (!!!) 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for the table. It's my first table, so I'm sure if it helps or hinders the article, but we'll see. I tried to de-jargon the article a bit. As far as the illustration, I've seen a couple of beautiful illustrations of the various sites at which cholangiocarcinoma can arise, but all such images I've seen are copyright and not freely available. I don't have the skills to create one on my own, but I'll keep looking. MastCell Talk 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, very helpful addition. Support. Although further reccomendations for the table would be to rearrange the country statistics in alphabetical order, formalize abbreviations like "U.S.A." to the full country name, and wikilink the names of the countries. This is the standard I've witnessed on articles that feature by-country tabulations of information. Maybe if you asked around WikiProject Medicine, someone might be able to help you find an illustration, or even create one. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid my illustration skills are far too amateur to be of any use in creating anatomical diagrams. -Severa (!!!) 21:09, 30 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Armament of the Iowa class battleship[edit]

This article was spun off of the current Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the page size. It just cleared A-class on the Military History Wikiproject, so I am now fixed on getting it promoted to FA class. One minor note: I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patience; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-written, lots of citations. Very well done. --Bryson 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Support Well written and coherent. Some claims need to be referenced, "Main battery" section needs some organization (sub-sections), there's only a mention in passing that the battleships have been decommissioned which might warrant a section or at least "see also" on what has replaced them. Some of the specifications of weapon systems might possibly be more appropriate on its respective page than on this page, use {{see also|}} templates. Madcoverboy 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a rather large section on the main Iowa class battleship page that discusses battleship reactivation vs battleship replacement through the eyes of the USN, Congress, and other parties privy to the discussion. Also, I can not cite your uncited claims if you do not mark said claims with {{fact}} or some other template to that effect; note that some claims contained in paragraphs have their citations at the end of the paragraph since one source was used for the section. I will look into the other suggestions forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I went through and cleaned up a lot of spelling mistakes (in Mozilla's spellcheck, at least) and started to throw some fact tags on (see Discussion). I would also get a spot copy-edit job to verify the grammar, verb tenses, punctuation, and other style issues that can crop up, though nothing specifically jumped out at me. Madcoverboy 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fact tags have been more or less addressed. I will check for Spelling and Grammar when my laptop recharges. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is very well writen congradulations. Tirronan 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose This article needs to have information about the year and preferebly month when each of the Iowa class battleships was fitted with or lost the arnaments mentioned in this article. This article omits another weapon the commander of this battleship had at his disposal - Marines and armed sailors, how many small arms (pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns etc) were on board a Iowa class battleship? Mieciu K 12:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a two parter, so for the sake of convience I will split it into two parts to answer the questions: 1) In broad strokes: New Jersey lost her 40 mm AA guns when reactivated in the late 1968 for the Vietnam war, and all of the Iowas had all of there AA guns yanked between 1982 and 1988 and replaced with the missile systems and CIWS systems mentioned in the article. The exact date that the refitting occured isn't mentioned in this article in part becuase that information is considered part of the ships history, and could be better presented in our articles on each of the individual ships, and in part because the dates offered only reflect the times in for the modernization. I will take a stab at finding exact dates, if you wish, but I do not hold much hope of finding exact information. 2) The nature of this question caught me off guard, I didn't figure anyone would raise any interest over thess particular types of weapons, so I didn't do a thorough look into it. Off the top of my head I known that Missouri had 40mm grenade launchers and 25mm chain guns installed in 1987 when called up for Operation Earnest Will, and as you pointed out I would assume that the battleships would carry firearms for marine use. I will do some reasearch into this, and if I can gather enough info create a section for your pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc, I will add a section to this effect; however, it may have to wait until the end of next week because I have upcoming tests I need to study for. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa. The small arms of the Marine detachment on any man-of-war are NOT part of that ship's "armament". It's irrelevant and distracting to the nature of the article. The presumption that because the Marine detachment was aboard, it was at the "disposal" of the ship's captain is dubious at the very least for an Iowa class BB.--Buckboard 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support A great article. Qjuad 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. References are not fully formatted in any consistent bibliographic style. For example, Do battleships move sideways when they fire? is a website link, indicates no publisher, last access date, or author/publication date if available. Examples of reference formatting can be found at WP:CITE/ES, or cite templates can be used. If footnotes are manually formatted, at minimum, publisher should be identified on all sources, and last access date should be given for all websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
    • Well, that was...unexpected. I didn't figure that folks would call me for the refernces. I have taken steps to adress the issue; as far as I can tell, I got them all, but you may notice one or two that need something else. PS: don't forget to sign your posts! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 26 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII[edit]

Self-nom — hello again everybody. I'm also a little nervous nomming this article, because something like this has not quite been done on FAC; it's uncharted waters for everyone. As always, I'd like to provide a brief overview. Character coverage of Final Fantasy VIII was initially spread out among eight character articles and a list of minor characters, all with little or no citations. Approximately two weeks ago, I started a sandbox entry with the goal of merging all the character pages with the minor character list. After this was accomplished, I placed it in namespace. I looked at some old versions of the Final Fantasy VIII page, and noticed an extremely large, sourced development section. I took this and added it into a new section, and then I went to these sources and found information for even some of the minor characters. This allowed the article to have an out of universe perspective. But even better, Teggles added a merchandise section and found image sources. A reception and criticism section was soon created, and more information was trimmed; following this, Axem — one of the people instrumental in the latest surge of project activity — performed a very nice and much needed round of consolidation and copy-editing while expanding on several concepts. Several other editors contributed to the effort as well.

Another Final Fantasy FAC may be coming soon — Final Fantasy XII. I understand that projects should not spread themselves too thin, but we should be able to withstand two fronts (we have done it in the past with Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII).

The article itself features a two paragraph lead; it helps establish the notability of the game as a whole, how the characters were received, and a brief overview of the cast. This is followed by a development section, which outlines the inspirations for creating these characters from the perspective of the game designers. It uses sources that are reliable in relation to this subject at hand, and many are used in current FAs. This section is followed by an outline of the major characters; Axem helped organize the information here so that we had three paragraphs for most major characters, and not four in some cases. Two other character sections follow, and the aforementioned merchandise and reception and criticism sections follow suit. An external link is provided to the Final Fantasy Wikia's FF8 character category, where extreme details of this game's characters belong. Anyway, I'm being long-winded like Laguna Loire, so let the discussion begin! — Deckiller 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on tense — past tense is used to depict events occuring before the game, during flashbacks. Present tense is to depict events occuring during the non-flashback parts, or when introducing a character. This is for clarity. — Deckiller 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading through the whole thing, I'm very impressed. I would've liked to see a "groups" section (with SeeD, Galbadian Soldiers, etc.) and a "cosplay" section, but I realize these are very difficult to source. One problem I *think* exists is that you bring up people/events/things without explanation. In Squall's paragraph you bring up Seifer and Rinoa for the first time, and fail to explain who they are - Seifer could be called a "fellow student", but I'm not sure what to do with Rinoa. Can you also explain what a Limit Break is? This seems to occur later on as well, but I don't think the problem is too big. Another small problem is the merchandise image - it could be free use. Do you think you could talk to the owner of the site about it? Anyway, although I've just presented you with a bunch of suggestion, I'm still going to support - this article is well referenced, well written, has a good use of images, and is quite comprehensive. Well done. --Teggles 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment. The groups section will probably fall under "World of Final Fantasy VIII" when it is started (usually factions are kept separate from the characters). That'll allow locations and factions to be wikilinked. I was thinking about a cosplay section too, but it's so hard to find enough material. As for the image, I can just replace it if it continues to be an issue brought up. I believe Limit Break is linked the first time it appears, as are the other names (the protagonists and main characters are explained in the lead, with wikilinks provided). — Deckiller 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I'm not sure how I didn't spot that. I previously did a search for Seifer and Rinoa and the first results were in Squall's paragraph. I was wrong about the Limit Break too. My apologies. :) --Teggles 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you were spot on about the limit breaks; I added that in after your post. Speaking of a World of Final Fantasy VIII article, I'll start it up in my sandbox. If we can follow something similar to a combo Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Locations in Spira article, with more out of universe information, we might have a chance at another GA. — Deckiller 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for this impressive article. I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be an FA. Not only is it an interesting read, it has been well copyedited by Deckiller and Axem. Well done to all those who edited and created this article. Darthgriz98 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Likewise I see no reason it should not be an FA. I would, however, like to see how the past and present tenses are used in the article explained within the prose. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, can I open a little discussion about the use of past tense? While copy-editting, I also noticed how the shift seemed a odd from a reader's perspective. Would it be possible to shift the past tense into present if it is explicitly denoted (somehow) that it occurs in the "past" of the game? Axem Titanium 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that might work. "During the sequences" and whatnot might work. — Deckiller 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed Quistis' beginning section back to past since it would sound awkward otherwise. The intention is still quite clear though. Axem Titanium 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose anything I say would have to be a co-nom and support because of all the time I've invested in the improvement of this article. Large kudos to Deckiller for initiating this; all I did was brush up the edges and put a nice pretty bow in the top. BTW, this is quite possibly the best character page on all of Wikipedia (that is until we get to all the other FF character pages, mwahaha). Axem Titanium 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. --- RockMFR 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I wish that every character article looked like this. Clear, concise, OR-free, and so well sourced that the reference section is longer than half the articles on WP. I wish I could write articles like this. --PresN 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you can! Are you tired of scrounging the bottom of the editing barrel? Well, just buy my 12 hour training video for 3 easy payments of $99.99 & you'll be able to write FA's like the pro's! But wait there's more! If you order now, you'll also recieve my special somputer software valued at $39.95 absolutely free! That's right, free!!! Just call 0800 65-555-789 to recieve the oppurtunity of a life time & be the Wikipedia editor you were born to be! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hands down support - Great article, no quarrels here whatsoever. I wish more game articles were like this... It's just so great! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the only FF's I played were the SNES ones, but the article is great, illustrated, referenced and well-written... however, I must Comment: why in the FAC and not the WP:FLC? igordebraga ≠ 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Deckiller and I felt that this article transcends being a simple list of the characters because it also includes information about their design and development, their reception, merchandise and a million other things that make it less like a list and more like a full-fledged article. Axem Titanium 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed; this is an article, not a list; lists have much less prose content, and are usually for organization. Thanks for the support! — Deckiller 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article meets the criteria for featured article. Flubeca 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support everybody! — Deckiller 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you aware that Image:Ff8-squall.jpg is marked as not having a source? Jay32183 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The no source tag has no merit. Apparently the tag was added because the location of the original publication of the image was not provided. --- RockMFR 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that he source tag has no merit. The website clearly states that they are character designs are from Nomura. We state that in the image file. If we had to be that strict with images - providing a source of the source of the source - we might as well completely de-feature all our content. I'll go ahead and change the resolution, if people are really that nitpicky about images. — Deckiller 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case AMIB still has issues, I sent a message to the webmaster.— Deckiller 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on images — from image policy: "Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources)." The author is provided both on the image link here and the website, so there should not be a problem. Again, if there are still issues, I contacted the webmaster. — Deckiller 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I suspected, the webmaster e-mailed me back and said that the original uploader stated they were from the V-Jump Art Book. He's in the process of obtaining a copy to verify for himself, but I think it's clear that this is not an issue. — Deckiller 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An article that proves character pages need not be lists or guides to be helpful. Much better than List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which itself is featured. Nice job! Nall 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work. I'm not sure how you managed to get 100+ references for this, but that's super. I can tell a lot of work has been put into this. I think this deserves featured article status. MahangaTalk to me 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full Support Like I mentioned in the GA-nom for this article, going for FA-class is, to me, merely a formality. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:53, 27 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon[edit]

Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid [8]. Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....

  • that she supported apartheid era President PW Botha of South Africa.
    • Or, that she supported the few liberal policies introduced by Botha: interracial marriage – which had been banned – was legalised; the constitutional prohibition on multiracial political parties was lifted; the Group Areas Act, which barred non-whites from living in certain areas, was relaxed; constitutional reforms granted limited political rights to "Coloureds" (South Africans of mixed white and non-white ancestry) and Indians; and he was the first South African government leader to authorise contacts with imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that she often drank a toast at the end of dinner to Margaret Thatcher who opposed sanctions against South Africa.
    • It is also said the Queen and Thatcher didn't like one another, so would be unlikely to drink a toast to her. Mrs. ThatcherAndrew Neil once said to Brian Walden and Woodrow Wyatt, whilst they were discussing the animosity between the Queen and Mrs. Thatcher: "The problem is, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP." Wyatt's comments should be judged with the knowledge that Wyatt was a supporter of Thatcher himself, and that the Queen Mother might say something complimentary to charm Wyatt, and Wyatt might have read too much into it. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that she scolded black Commonwealth countries which had been pressing for sanctions.

**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it) DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • that she described Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia as "an idiot" for demanding sanctions.
    • She may well have described him as an idiot, but not necessarily for demanding sanctions. It could have been for the far more mundane reason that, when dining with the Queen and much to the Royal Family's amusement, Kuanda drank from his finger bowl. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that all these comments either jar with other recorded comments made by her (such as "I love communists") or can be taken two ways, I think it best to avoid them. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also she had no role in politics, so any views that she may have aired are of no real relevance. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKiernan is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a better quality image of her arms- unfortunatly it was deleted when the coat of arms pages were all deleted by that stupid Orphanbot. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.

  • "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity."
  • “During the war, her seemingly indomitable spirit provided moral support to the British public,” - that’s an opinion/perception stated as fact. It needs to be stated in terms of an opinion popularly put forward rather than “the truth” .
  • ”Although the King was initially reluctant to support Churchill, in due course both the King and Queen came to respect and admire him for his courage and solidarity.” => for what they perceived to be his courage and solidarity.
    • This sentence is supported by two sources, neither of whom feel it necessary to qualify this characterisation of Churchill. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Her birthdays became times of celebration” – for who?
  • “she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole.” Needs elaboration and clarification. How did she help stabilise public opinion? And is there any tangible evidence other than the opinion of Lawrence Goldman in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography?
    • Reworded as "regarded as…help[ing] to stabilize the popularity of the monarchy…". DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Despite her reputation as holding conservative family values (after the U.S. President Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips, she said "No man has done that since my husband died."[72]), she held liberal views on homosexuality.” I don’t think the US style political dichotomy “liberal – conservative” is appropriate here. What are “conservative family values” and how do her comments about Jimmy Carter relate? The evidence provided re:homosexuality proves that she was tolerant of homosexuals, not that she “held liberal views on homosexuality”.
    • I'm not sure tolerant is right either. She was more than tolerant - she was supportive of her homosexual staff when it was suggested they be dismissed. Perhaps we can use gays in the military as a comparison - the "conservative" view is "sack gays", the "liberal" view is "gays should have the same employment rights", the "tolerant" view might be Clinton's compromise: "gays should keep their sexuality a secret". On this scale she might be "liberal". I've rewritten the section, so as to avoid using these labels. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have included the criticisms from unreliable American hack, Kitty Kelly, yet as of now there is still no inclusion of the verifiable analysis I have provided above by Francis Wheen, a prominent British journalist.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wheen is a left-wing writer with an obvious political motive, which does not apply to the biographers1 used as main sources. There are already about twice as many citations to left-wing newspapers as to right-wing ones in the article (which is understandable - it accords with my own reading preferences). I am not personally convinced that the current balance between sycophantic hagiographers and their socialist opposers is weighted one way or another. Nevertheless, I may gain access to a copy of Wyatt's journal on Wednesday evening, and I would like to assess that before considering whether to make the edits you've suggested in your comments above. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1I do not include Kelley in the term "biographers", but I think it would prove problematic to remove that material. I imagine other editors would wish to re-insert it. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your changes, DrKiernan. I still worry about the "ceaseless smile.." and the "admire Churchill for his courage.." lines, the first just doesn't read like an encyclopaedic entry. As her smile obviously wasn't ceaseless, it reads as more of a platitude or a Daily Mail caption. The second needs to be phrased in a way emphasising that Churchill's "courage and solidarity" was in the eyes of the subjects. Regarding the Guardian piece, I don't particularly like articles that use random criticism from journalists, and I personally can't stand Wheen but I still feel that his piece represents a notable perception, one that I was well aware myself. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after that accusation I can either claim that the Daily Mail is clearly an underused source of superlative quality, or change the sentence. I've changed the sentence. DrKiernan 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrKiernan. Thanks for getting hold of the diaries. I'll bow to your better judgment on this and put it down to a typical Wheen slur, of which he has become increasingly associated with. I thought about the Churchill sentence, it still reads as though his "courage and solidarity" is a given. I'm not sure the Kurds would agree; "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" etc.[9]-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! In my reply to your request for qualification of Churchill's character I very nearly wrote a second sentence along the lines of: "Indeed, I could claim that 'courage and solidarity' could easily read 'bravery to the point of foolhardiness, and bloody-minded obstinacy', and still be an accurate representation of his character." But then I thought better of it and decided to be polite. Anyway, this is a long way to say, I shall add your suggested qualification. DrKiernan 16:54, 29 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Ipswich Town F.C.[edit]

This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (of course). (As a contributor, I declare a COI) --Dweller 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at the title of this article and the Central Coast Mariners FC article below, I think there should be some consistency in how the FC / F.C. is displayed. Has there been any discussion on which is preferred so that one can change? Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know sheer weight of numbers isn't always the de facto guide to the right answer, but the Mariners article is the only one which says FC and not F.C. After all, F.C. is an acronym for Football Club so ought to be punctuated correctly. But that's just my opinion. Despite the FC vs F.C. issue, what do you think of the article? The Rambling Man 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most football club articles are at F.C. There was some weight behind the idea of changing them all to FC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive6#F.C._or_FC.3F), but it didn't get off the ground. Could be worth a bot request at some point though. Oldelpaso 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Traditionally, Australian clubs have used "FC". CCMFC legally recognise themselves as FC (see this), and basically every reference made to CCM using the full name (FC/F.C. included), which is rare, uses the non-dots version. If Ipswich is F.C., the Mariners isn't changing because FC is more common. There is no real need for consistancy because they are basically unrelated (country, league etc.), and regardless, judge both articles on their merits, not their names. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down, I wasn't judging the articles at all. It just seemed a bit odd that one article was using punctuation and the other wasn't. I thought it was just a consistency issue between our articles, not that some clubs used it 'officially' while others didn't. darkliight[πalk] 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if I came across abrash or incivilly - it wasn't my intention. This is an issue that, sadly, I feel relatively strongly about on Wikipedia. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all. darkliight[πalk] 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article. Could perhaps do with a sentence or two more about the imoprtant Robson period, Arnold Muhren, Frans Thyssen - the first real European stars of the English game - famously beating Man Utd 6-0 in 1980(?). It is overshadowed presently by the unremarkable Llyall period. Then I'd support.-- Zleitzen(talk) 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Oh, and support, my second-favourite team in English football is done justice by this article. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite it being very good already, I have given it a very light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10's support[edit]

  • Comments Support. The peer review pretty much covered it all. A few comments of my own; remove all the fan sites from the external links section as only reliable sources need to be included per WP:EL. Second reference lacks parameters. ...enjoyed brief success - Grammar. ...just two years - POV. Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale. "In popular culture" sections have the lowest priority, thus needs to be added right before the "References" section. Sentence captions should all end with a period per WP:MOS. The #64 reference is a note, please separate it using {{note}} to avoid confusion. ...The Blues, Town or The Tractor Boys - Serial comma. What are the purple/yellow/light blue lines in Image:ITFC record.png? A color map should be made at the caption or at least the image description page. ...resigned in May 1987, after reaching the promotion play-offs - Unnecessary comma. As of March 13, 2007 - Keep the date formatting constant. ...but worse was to follow - The sentence isn't an opposition of the previous. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the detailed response. I'll take the comments to the article talk page and work on them in detail there. --Dweller 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Michaelas10's comments have been actioned or rebutted at the article talk page, with one exception to-date:

I have no experience of fair-use rationale and would welcome assistance. --Dweller 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them myself. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. All done for this set of comments then. Thank you Michaelas10 - the article's considerably improved as a result. --Dweller 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso's support[edit]

  • <Conditional support As youth players are not generally notable enough to have their own article, the list of youth players should not be included. Other than that, its all good. Oldelpaso 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's just been raised at the article talk page. I've removed the section. --Dweller 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Opposes "fierce rivalry with East Anglian rivals Norwich City, their nearest neighbours to the north in Norfolk, with whom they have contested the East Anglian Derby 134 times since 1902" needs to sourced. If there is a source for this somewhere eles in the article as I've been informed this shouldn't be too difficult. Buc 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As already discussed on our talk pages, this statement is in the Lead section, which briefly states the main points covered in the article. The article gives sourced data on this issue (and all the other claims in the Lead section, now you mention it). There seems to be consensus that there's no need to cite the information twice and a casual glance through WP:FA shows this is a common (though not the only) way to approach the lead section. --Dweller 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no piont giving the same information twice. Remove it from the lead if it's mentioned later then. Buc 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way articles work Buc. The lead summarises the main points of the body. As the rivalry is a main point, then it goes in the lead and is elaborated the body.-- Zleitzen(talk) 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is written in the same style as a number of other featured articles, and I can't see how it fails WP:LEAD. It is allowable to mention points in the lead and then elaborate in the body, it is, however, unacceptable to introduce new ideas in the lead. But thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support The honours section should clarify that "runners-up" means league runners-up. The paragraph beginning "Robson left..." and ending "...award for Burley" can be split into two to make it uniform with the rest of the section. Other than that, a good article. SteveO 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honours section clarified as suggested, thanks. The Rambling Man 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Para split as suggested The Rambling Man 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all issues resolved, fantastic article. Excellent work by Dweller and The Rambling Man. HornetMike 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1's objection[edit]

Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:

  • "The club was founded in 1878 but they did not play as a professional club until 1936" - Remove "they".
  • "The club won the league three further times, in 1929–30, 1932–33 and 1933–34" - "three further times" is clumsy; why not remove it altogether?
  • "The club was immediately relegated the following season" - Relegated to what?
  • "Major success came with Ipswich Town's only FA Cup trophy in 1978, beating Arsenal in the final at Wembley Stadium" - what, the trophy beat Arsenal?
  • En dashes are used throughout, so why not for scores, such as "6–0"?
  • Audit use of commas, for example "A poor start to the season, culminating in a 2-0 defeat at Grimsby Town meant that Burley was ..." - Where's the second comma enclosing the nested phrase?

Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on Tony1's talk page and will take these concerns to the article talk page to deal with in detail. --Dweller 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of these concerns have now been addressed, bar "Please don't just fix these examples". --Dweller 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very good article, matches the criteria. Bigmike 19:00, 29 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Andrew Van De Kamp[edit]

Ok, I've worked on this one a bit and I've tried to keep it within WP:MOS. The biography is as succinct as I could make it without losing meaning, and I've interjected out-of-world perspective where possible without disrupting the flow per guidelines. I did a google search on Andrew and trawled through all 37 pages for critical material - all but three articles have been worked into the article. I've gone through it on paper and copyedited it. I think it's ready. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support thoroughly referenced, well organised and constructed, and very good prose. A great article about a wonderfully psychotic character --User:Ahadland1234 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support needs 2 fixes:
    • References WAY overlinked. Only one instance is necessary for each episode, preferably the first.
    • Episode titles should be enclosed by double quotes.
  • Otherwise looks pretty good. Circeus 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. I've put all episode titles in quote marks in the main text. Did you want them in the references as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I a referring to wikilinks in references, not the moment citation.Circeus 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get you. All fixed. It look ok now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Regarding the cite episode debacle. I'm not myself overly fond of that particular template (after all, I don't see anybody requesting people {{cite video game}}, for some reason...), but maybe you could convert only the first instance, and let the others as abbreviated refs? Would that make a good compromise? Oh, and full dates (in the refs) have to be properly wikilinked because user date preferences otherwise don't work. Circeus 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that issue, my qualm is not the actual usage of the template but rather the style, I my self am perfectly content with a consistent style, even if you do not actually use the template to output that style. Matthew 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ref format is fine. If you want to make templates standard go here: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Many editors (myself included) despise the templates. But if there is some objective criterion regarding format that the current refs violate point it out. Aaron Bowen 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are actually fine witha consistent style, why have you opposed for it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't. Matthew 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhuh. Circeus, I've wikilinked all the dates in the refs for you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think that the image in the infobox does not qualify as fair use. The rationale states that it is of a fictional character, but it appears to be an image of the actor not during performance of the role in question. The source website for the image lists it as the bio of the actor, not of the character. I would normally tag this image for this issue, but I'll leave it here for a short time to allow resolution first as FAC is pending. --After Midnight 0001 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official website has the image as both the actor and the character. Certainly Shawn Pyfrom does not look like that outside desperate housewives. It seems to be meant as a publicity photo for both. Is this not ok? Someone else put that image there to update it from this one - would you rather that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be a fair-use expert, so I'm happy to be over-riden by someone who knows better, but I actually do find the screenshot to be a preferable image, for the following reason. I think that the screenshot leaves no doubt as to the character being protrayed, whereas the current image, to me, is of questionable fair-use status. I should note that I don't remember the character ever looking like the image in the promo shot on the actual tv show, but I don't have a DVR or anything to check on. I really don't mean to fuss about this, I just would like to have the fair-use status of the image cleared up by one of the "image experts" to withdraw my opposition. --After Midnight 0001 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have switched the image while I clarify the other's one status. Anything else keeping you from supporting? ;-) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support. Dev920 has changed the image and listed it for comment regarding WP:FUC and I know that he will follow consensus there. --After Midnight 0001 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, episode refs should use {{cite episode}}, combined with usage of the name="x" parameter. I'll have a go at tasking this if I get the strength. Matthew 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. Cite templates are irritating, fiddly and sometimes don't even work. The article consistently uses only one referencing format and I'd appreciate if you'd stick with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me an example where they do not work. They work fine, if used properly, they enable consistency among articles, I'd certainly appreciate your help in converting it though, it'll be a bit of a task :\. Matthew 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I'm not going to bust a gut to change every single reference, which are consistently formatted throughout the article, to an arbitrary template I detest when I don't even need to. I would appreciate it if you would refrain. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looking over it, it's all very impressive. Would anybody like me to standardize the episode citations? I don't think it's necessary to cite each one to the minute. Can't you just use the <ref name=Whatever/> tag loads?~ZytheTalk to me! 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. Look, the references are fine, OK? They're accurate, consistent, and took me hours to do. Why is everyone so keen to take them apart when it is pointless effort? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." and makes it clear that this is purely an issue of personal preference. As the main editor to this article, and as I despise cite templates, I must decline to address your objection. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be doing it my self if I get the time, I advise you to read WP:OWN as well, by the way. Matthew 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tenses need fixing as well, as per WP:TENSE. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't like templates either and when refs are formatted properly (as these are) there is no reason to insert them Incidentally don't throw around WP:OWN every time your minority opinion doesn't get dealt with Matthew. Aaron Bowen 09:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article Dev, I saw it when it was barely more than a stub, and it's amazing how much you've improved it. The references are okay too -Matthew, recheck WP:CITE. If the info that has to be there is provided, it's useless to go changing every single ref with a cite template just because of your personal preference. More than useless, it's horrible, tedious work. I believe you have no basis for your objection to the article. Cheers Raystorm 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency with citations is paramount, every (nearly) other television related is using consistent citations styles. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing is utterly consistent throughout the article. All the previous supports have been made with the current citation style, and I would appreciate if you would cease changing it. WP:CITE says "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." Please obey it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support good article. The reason for weakness of support is that I am not sure this is the right model for fictional characters. Is this following some established template? Homer Simpson, which is a GA, takes a different track and with less quotations, more readable. --ppm 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article, meticulously referenced, exactly what one needs to know about this character. Polymathematics 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The main image is still tagged as unlicensed.... can that be removed, as a fair use rationale has been placed there with an appropriate tag?
    • Doesn't the introduction contain spoilers? Looking around at some other high profile TV characters (Jack Bauer, Jack Shephard, Alan Shore) there doesn't seem to be plot twists/details revealed in the intro? In this article it's revealed Andrew is bisexual, that he is sent to a delinquent camp and that he says he is gay just to get out of camp. It also reveals Bree throws him out and that he comes home under Orson's advice.... need I go on? There just seems to be too much detail without a spoiler warning (which wouldn't look very good at the top of the article I know). Couldn't this intro be cut down a bit?
    • As far as the citation is concerned, I might as well chip in whilst I'm rambling! Matthew, WP:CITE clearly states that citation templates are optional and unless a consensus is reached by the article's editors to change anything, no rogue editor should just insist upon using them. As far as I have read here everyone is happy (including myself!) with the current format and it does indeed seem to be consistent. This democratic approach would seem to override the warning of WP:OWN that all content shouldn't be submitted unless you're willing to have it "edited mercilessly," nor does support of the current format constitute a tag team. Mentality 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the image tag - discussion on the previous image at IfD continues. I'm not so sure about the spoilers though, I checked other character FAs like Palpitine and Amidala and they both have fairly major spoilers in the leads. The spoilers in the lead are over a year old anyway, so does that really matter? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think with those articles spoilers are necessary in defining the character properly in the intro - and no doubt spoilers will be required here. However, my ex-bf got me into desperate housewives a couple of months ago and I only just finished watching Season 1 last week!! If I had read this article a few weeks ago, I would have found out Rex Van De Kamp dies before I'd seen it, which is quite a major event and would have, quite frankly, pissed me off! I'm not saying remove information, just limit it in the intro. His sexuality for example, well that's required. But does the whole thing about him saying he's gay to get out of camp have to be mentioned? And the vanilla/choc ice cream quote?
That said looking through it again it doesn't reveal as much as I thought it did. I guess it's appropriate to refer to someone as the "late" <so and so> but it would have definitely spoiled it for me. All in all I guess it's not that big a deal, it's still a superb article so if you don't think it's worth it, I won't make a fuss! :P
I do think it would be more appropriate to link to the Bisexuality article with the word 'bisexual' rather than the quote about vanilla/chocolate ice cream though. And wikilink the word 'atheist' too. Mentality 22:22, 29 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Freak Out![edit]

Self-nomination. I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. I think that I've done a very good job with it. (Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. Very well written, clearly there's enough cites, music samples, chart info, track listing are all here. This is a quality example of a FA-status album. Good job! Anthony Hit me up... 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is potential for a good article here, and I enjoyed reading it, but a lot of work needed would be needed to bring it to FA standard:
  • Lead contains six short sentences (see WP:LEAD). Three is more usual, four is acceptable if topic requires a lenghty introduction.
  • Many stubby one statement sentances through out the article.
  • Block quotes squeezed between short paragraphs.
  • Audio file would benefit from a caption.
  • The section "Response" is underdeveloped and lacks insight, considering so much has been written about the album by so many. The fact that Gronening bought his copy "from the record department of a grocery store" is wholly trivial and irrelevant.
  • The inline cite in the first sentence is unnecessary.
  • Cites based on interview with Zappa should credit the interviewer as author, not the interviewee.
  • A number of statments are double cited. Why is this, are they paticularly controversial?
  • Needs a thorough copy edit:
  • "debut double album" - The word debut here is confusing, why not just 'first'.
  • "Wilson signed The Mothers...to a record deal on the pretense that they were a white blues band" - Change 'on the pretense' to 'in the belief' - have different meanings.
  • "expanded their music to a wide range of original material" - with a wide, or to include.
  • "initial guitar player Elliot Ingber" - 'initial' here is awkward, plus it is used again in the following sentence.
  • "Although the album was poorly-received when it was initially released in the United States, it was a success in Europe, and gained a cult following in America." - drop 'it was', switch 'initally' to first. Why is the order of the sentence USA, Europe, USA.
  • "The album also influenced" - 'also' is redundant.
  • Why is audio documentary in double quotes.
  • The factoid about the ale is amusing, but too trivial for the lead.
  • These are all taken from the lead, can you please check the remainder of the article for similar issues. Ceoil 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken care of some of the issues you have brought up. Please take a look at the current revision and re-review. (Ibaranoff24 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • The entire text, as I've mentioned, needs revision: "The first song recorded for the album was "Any Way The Wind Blows." The second track recorded was "Who Are the Brain Police?"[2][10] ". Again, one statement sentences, double citations. A larger issue is that the current article lacks insight and context. Ceoil 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have been following edits to the article, and my openion is that it reamins outside of the criteria. Ceoil 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Not what I'd call a well written article. There are simple grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article ("attented", "It was also as one"). Please make sure to copyedit the whole article, not just fix these examples. Other things at random:
    • America as a whole Occurs twice.
    • In the early 1960s, Frank Zappa met Ray Collins, who was supporting himself by working as a carpenter, and on weekends sung with a group called the Soul Giants. Last part of that sentence is ambiguous. Was it Zappa or Collins? If the latter, use parallelism, as that makes for a much less awkward sentence ("by working as a carpenter and singing...).
    • about the Watts riots Link?
    • However, in a 1968 article written for Hit Parader magazine Not seeing the contrast that would indicate a use of "however"
    • Zappa is quoted as saying Where, when, context? Why is this huge quotation plopped down here? Quotations are good to sprinkle around to add some zest to the text, but here, the first three paragraphs of Album production are dominated by quotations.
    • Nothing in Album production about when/where they recorded the album? There's Some songs, such as "Motherly Love" and "I Ain't Got No Heart" had already been recorded. But, what does that mean? Were they recorded before the Freak Out! session or something?
    • posthumous release I'm assuming posthumous refers to Zappa?
    • "Wilson was sticking his neck out..." Who said this? Context?
    • at approximately 11 minutes and 39 seconds That doesn't seem too approximate to me...seems pretty specific.
    • "...at the time, it was, you know,..." Another quotation with no context. Who said this?
    • "it would be best to bring along a Suzy Creamcheese replica who would demonstrate once and for all the veracity of such a beast." You have this in quotations, but it's not cited. Where are you taking this from?
    • neither a commercial or Neither/nor
    • When citing books, you need to give page numbers. Gzkn 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of your concerns have been addressed. Please take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose Every image in this article is at a high resolution. Each needs to be shrunk so that the longest side is no larger than 400px and then tagged with {{subst:furd}}. ShadowHalo 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that this edit cannot be accomplished, as the current revisions of the images in the article are already at an appropriate low-resolution size. (Ibaranoff24 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • They most certainly are not low resolution. For Wikipedia's purposes, 696x683 (the size of the first image) is high resolution. To comply with fair use, our use of copyrighted material needs to be as little as possible and just enough to be used in articles. There's no way we need a 696x683 in an article. Plus, we can't be providing high resolution covers that people can use to produce illegal copies. ShadowHalo 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lucid, concise and well-sourced desription of one of rock history's important non-mainstream releases.--HJ 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written article about an important album. Dan M 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The prose of this nomination needs scrutiny before promotion. Overall it's not badly written, but there are glitches. Here are a few examples at random.

  • "poorly-received" - no hyphens after "-ly"
  • "and on weekends sung with a group" - Wrong tense: "sAng"
  • "said to have been made circa 1965" - Please replace the Latinism with a plain English word.
  • "Freak Out! was finally released with the band's name now changed to" - spot the redundant word.
  • "Featured" twice in two lines; "got" and "get" too close together up top; "released" x 2. Repetition needs to be audited. Tony 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It just doesn't do it for me. Note that this is an inactionable oppose & therefore shouldn't be counted in the end tally - just noting that the article doesn't have the X-factor needed IMHO. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:20, 28 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Norte Chico civilization[edit]

An interesting topic with a side-order of academic mud-slinging. Thanks to Jmabel for help with Spanish, and Sandy for ref formatting. I don’t usually post long nominations, but I’m anticipating some concerns, so:

  • Images. Yes, I’m relying on a picture of anchovies (a nice one!). If I can’t find any I’m confident of for the PD, I can’t find any, so don’t hold it against the article. Reviewers can tell me what they think of pics from here. I’m not sure what our consensus is on press kits.
  • Prose. It’s a bit clunky because I have done prose attribution (BBC has reported, Shady argues, etc.) all over the place. I felt I had to with this one.
  • Comprehensiveness. Everything I could find in English is here. I realize it's not exceptionally long, but there isn't too much out there for now.
  • Neutral and stable. There is serious dispute over this topic, including over its name, and who should be credited with discovery. (This is why I’m attributing everything in-sentence.) I think it's handled well. People can follow a couple of the links to form their own opinion of the "Research controversies" section. Marskell 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should Haas be introduced earlier than the Research controversies section since his name is invoked extensively in the text prior? Cramer is mentioned once before as well. BuddingJournalist 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added first names to all first mentions. Marskell 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I made some extremely minor contributions.) Well-written, well-referenced, structurally sound. Marskell has addressed the controversy very well, and this appears to be the best info on the net covering this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Needs map. Will support when it gets one. I cannot tell precisely where this civilization was from the text, because one of the boundaries given is a redlink. --Golbez 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez, I agree it needs a map. But if I can't find one suitable for the public domain, how can this be held against the article? Marskell 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That which does not exist must be made. Find a map of Peru and shade in the appropriate area. But again, since I don't know what the appropriate area is, I cannot do this myself. So look at the lack of the map as indicative of a larger problem - the bounds of the region are not adequately expressed in the article. (Though it's the redlink that's the problem, so it's the lack of a proper outside article) --Golbez 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "160 km north of Lima," for now. I agree and disagree, more generally. I absolutely agree that this article would be well-served by a map and better graphics generally; I anticipated that concern and said so in the nom. But I disagree with the contention that a lack is an oppose basis. WIAFA wording and general practice has never said you must have X graphic. At the same time, the prose should definitely allow you to "place the place" in your head. Is "160 km north of Lima" sufficient for the timebeing? Marskell 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suitable enough for the time being, I switch to a Weak support. I'm amazed I'd never heard of this civilization before. --Golbez 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez, so am I—at least a couple of paragraphs in the history of the world need to be rewritten, given its age. I very very vaguely recalled the CNN/BBC type stuff from 2001 ("Crazy old Civ discovered in Peru!") but heard no more about it in the mainstream media. And then I picked up the Mann book over Christmas and thought "holy sh*t, why isn't this on Wiki!" :). I'll be really curious to see how Brittanica treats it. They don't have anything yet. Marskell 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thorough, detailed, well-referenced, would look good on the front-page, support Ahadland 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent, fascinating article. A few little nitpicks -
    • 'derived an identical list in their survey further north, while adding...' - so it's not identical, is it? ;) Needs another phrase here.
      • Indeed.
    • First sentence of the maritine civilization section is very awkward. Actually, the same for the cotton section.
      • The first on cotton was a real clunker--changed. I'm guessing you don't mean the first on MFAC, "It is the role of the maritime dietary component that has aroused debate", but the second "Much early fieldwork (prior to the realization of the full scope and inter-connectedness of the civilization) was done in the region of Aspero on the coast." I moved the subordinate clause out of the bracket.
        • Sorry, that's the one. Although I'm not actually a big fan of the first MFAC sentence either, it wasn't the one I meant to complain about ;) 'Role of the component' is kind of weak, and why 'maritime dietary component' instead of 'the role of seafood...'? (Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any 'maritime dietary components' that aren't considered seafood...)
    • In the economy and government section - what is 'significant capacity'? Hundreds of people? Thousands? Several football stadiums?
      • None of the sources hazard a guess as to total population or total groups of workers on one site. It bothered me too, but it will have to remain general. "Significant capacity" was redundant with "considerable power," so I shuffled things.
    • 'a unique emergence of human government, one of two alongside Sumer (or three, if Mesoamerica is included as a separate case)' - why not include Mesoamerica separately? Is the contention that Mesoamerican government derived in some way from the Norte Chico, or just that the presence of government in Mesoamerica is disputed?
      • I'll reply to this one fully when I have the book in front of my again.
    • 'two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (Aspero and Bandurria) and possibly two more' - very awkward phrasing.
      • Is "Aspero and Bandurria are the only two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (two others have been suggested)..." any better?
        • Much better.
    • 'In 2004 Haas et al. would write...' - where the et al doesn't include Shady, presumably. This is clear from the reference text but not from the main text, where this comes right after discussion of Haas, Creamer, and Shady as coauthors.
      • But doesn't "...while only noting Shady in footnotes" make clear she wasn't a coauthor?
        • Well, yeah... you just have to trust the reader to hit the end of the sentence and remember the beginning. That's not always a given.
    • Should Shady's article include mention of this controversy? Opabinia regalis 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it probably should. I haven't paid as much attention to the blue links as I ought to have. I would worry about one general wiki-problem: a "Controversy" section creating a lopsided BLP.
        • It seems like this is probably a major aspect of her professional work, though, which would merit a mention.
Thanks for the comments. I've been wondering where everybody is... Marskell 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd which articles people pick to review, isn't it? Opabinia regalis 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the intro claims that the culture "was largely without art". That probably needs to be reworded. Even if we take "art" to mean narrowly visual representaions, there's no way of knowing whether little "art" was found because they produced little, or because it wasn't made of lasting materials. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Largely without" was already a re-wording of an apparent absence. I agree with you. I'd worried that saying they did not have art so far as we can tell now might be OR. I've qualified this with no "archaeologically apparent" art, (in brackets) in the intro. Note, near the end of the page, a similar point is made: they did, apparently, have instrumental music, so "no art" doesn't hold. Marskell 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — another solid work by Marskell. — Deckiller 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support attribution isn't too distracting and the article seems to make the most of the meagre information available. (Love the anchovies picture, maybe a picture of a shoe horn next to it would help) Yomanganitalk 17:30, 26 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Kansas Turnpike[edit]

Because the old nomination had no outstanding objections, and per user:SPUI's request, I'm renominating this (previous FAC). Raul654 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- Personally, I believe that it fits the criteria. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What a freakin' article. It's not the most exciting topic in the world (to me, at least), but it's very well done. Fantastic job. JHMM13 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Don't see any problems meeting the criteria. Manderiko 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Warhol13 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In "early history" the paragraph on funding could be improved, and in the next paragraph, "After considering..." doesn't have a subject. Perhaps use a synonym to avoid "... travellers travelled..."? When talking about the speed limits, it says 80 was fixed, then the next sentence says it "would not be enforced anywhere again until..." I was confused - was 80 changed at some point? Might be nice to wikilink "trumpet" once in each subsection of interchanges - the link is at the start of the section but this might be easier on readers. Gimmetrow 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "After considering a number of different alignments, including one bypassing Topeka via the present route of I-35, an "airline" route was chosen between Wichita and Topeka" does have a subject, "route" (see italics above). I've clarified the speed limit section and fixed "travellers travelled". Trumpet links have been added. I'll have to think about ways to improve the funding paragraph. —Scott5114↗ 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • NE2 has further revised that sentence. —Scott5114↗ 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support About time USRD gets another featured article, but ultimately, this article is ready.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Map has no context. Maybe it might be better to show the entire state and/or to add labels for major cities. Also, I think it might be useful to add an exit table (or put a prominent link to an existing one at the top of each subsection of the Interchanges section). --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a more detailed map with city names in the Routing section. Also, it did once have an exit table, but was converted to the interchange section, which provides more detail than just a flat table.—Scott5114↗ 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That second map you're referring to is useful only once one knows the context. The map in the infobox is still useless. At the very least the entire state of Kansas and parts of neighboring states should be shown. A featured article is aimed at a general and global audience. Something similar to what Ridge Route currently has with the entire US shown might even be more useful here. In terms of the exit table, I personally find having to read through lots of text cumbersome. Tables make it easier to just quickly pick up the key points. A "See also" link to exit tables in the Interstate articles is probably sufficient for this purpose. It is a well-written article and deserves to be featured but at a minimum the map needs to show more context. Exit tables are not critical. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A map showing the entire USA has been added. —Scott5114↗ 09:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great article, with terrific sources. It is also well written as well with good pictures too. -- J-A10 T · C 2:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The lead looks a thin to me. The prose length should put the lead at about two - three paragraphs. Morphh (talk) 4:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, fails 1c, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used to reference another article—Wiki articles are used numerous times as sources. Numerous sources indicate no publishers, and references are not consistently formatted. See WP:CITE/ES, or the cite templates for examples of how to format references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references to the email on the wikipedia talk page are a problem. Refs to National Bridge Inventory should perhaps have an explanatory text saying "a database available at xyz.org". Gimmetrow 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, just found a reference to a Usenet post, not a reliable source: Ben Prusia, New East Topeka, KS Turnpike Exits Open Today SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All refs use the cite templates. This was addressed in the other FA. The email is from the Kansas Turnpike Authority -- if KTA isn't a reliable source, then what is? No wiki articles are used as sources. I'll see what I can do about the Usenet post. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think what User:SandyGeorgia could be referring to are the links in the references to Wiki pages (the maps, etc). In our defense, those aren't articles, they are images attributed and sourced. But I am not that user, so I cannot say what they mean. --MPD T / C 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have to agree with MPD here. I don't see any reason why referencing an uploaded picture is a problem. Unlike a Wikipedia article, an uploaded file is effectively static. Raul654 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also don't see a problem with a link to an image. Gimmetrow 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • [ec] Usenet post replaced by a KDOT press release. I'll see what I can do about replacing the KTA email, but finding that kind of information is difficult at best. —Scott5114↗ 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links to Wiki images are problematic for the following reasons:

  1. We should directly attribute our sources, not link to Wiki which *then* links to another source that needs to be evaluated for reliability. As an example, the second referenced image in the article is to an image that comes from http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/ so that site should be listed as the source.
  2. Reliability of sources for images; for example, what is ajfroggie.com—is that a reliable source for this info?
  3. ajfroggie is public domain ?

Terraserver-usa.com should be identified as publisher on maps, and there is a blue-linked reference that should be expanded ( http://www.route56.com/photobrowse.cgi?photo=10112 ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is being cited to support some fact, then the source of the image could be given along with a link to the image. In general, if an image were being displayed in the article, it would need to be hosted on en or commons, and the source information would normally be on the image description page. How is this really different if the image is linked in a footnote? The authenticity of such an image is a separate issue, and would be the same issue whether it was displayed or linked. Gimmetrow 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it now satisfies the FA criteria. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 26 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Archaeopteryx[edit]

From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! -- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as a contributor and helper. I feel the article is as comprehensive as it can be and the prose is good. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it is comprehensive, well illustrated, well referenced and well written. ArthurWeasley 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is good but lacks information on the ecology/lifestyle of the birdie in question. While this is some cases speculative it is at least speculation by the people actually studying it. For example, there has been debate as to whether Archaeopteryx was a ground living or a climber, or both. What it actually was is a separate question to what it evolved from or hiow flight evolved. More importantly the islands that it lived on around are well described, being semi arid with little ground cover, so its unlikely it was principally a glider from trees. I think it needs a bit of this type of information before I can support. I have been collecting info on just this so I will try and add it myself, if you like. I'm just sort of swamped, which is why I haven't done it yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if you can do it, that would be great, but we'd prefer to have no guessing in the article unless it's cited. A quick reference to your point in the Paleobiology section would be great if it's referenced, but I don't know if the other guys have any books on the subject - maybe why it would be better if you would be able to do it or lend us the book or something. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My last FA had 60 refs, so I understand the importance of refs! That's why its taking me some time. I'll try and do it this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds great. We can go over it once you've added it to make sure it's all polished & acceptable. Thanks SS... :) Spawn Man 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that the section on paleoecology is added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I gotta say, you guys do excellent articles. Very thorough, yet not overly verbose, grade-"A"vian work! The only suggestion I have is in the summery section in the taxobox, where the "see text" line could be changed to a quick-link within the article ([Archaeopteryx#Summary|see below]) just to make things more accessible. Just a little quirk that isn't required; you have my support regardless. Nall 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support, kiind words & for the great suggestion. I've made a link in the taxo box now. :) Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - in the lead the article compared the size to a magpie - that name refers to about 20 different birds which is confusing for the "international" reader, could we have a more specific comparison (the exact magpie species) or just mention the wingspan and length in the lead. Second, the taxobox says that the article is about Archaeopteryx lithographica, but the lead says that there are 11 species identified so far. Is it an article about the genus or the species? If it is an article about the whole genus then it could use a list of the accepted species. I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition. --Peta 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the magpie. Will tweak to reduce ambiguity. The article refers to 11 specimens (as opposed to species) which are 11 individual fossils not species. Now that you've pointed it out maybe fossils is a better term here. Spawny? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree we should make it plain in the text that there is only one recognized species. ArthurWeasley 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, why are you looking at me Cas? I only write the articles... ;) Erm, not quite sure what to do here, but I know the article is about the genus, not the species as the article is Archaeopteryx, not Archie lithographica. Other than that, I'll leave it to the people who can tinker around with that sort of thing as I'm not that experienced, sorry guys... Peta - "I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition" - The article already has a paleobiology section? Erm, maybe you were refering to the environment section that's going to be added by sunbird? Never mind though... :) Thanks for your comments... Spawn Man 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe there may be copyright issues with the photos of the Oxford University Museum reconstruction. This is essentially a sculpture, and would be assumed under copyright, unless it is very old.--Pharos 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you've convinced me; this is indeed a sculpture, not a casting, so your point seems correct. As such, this issue deserves attention. I cannot find information on when this piece was created, and it seems likely to me this sculpture was created after 1922. There are indications Australian law allows "sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display (in a public place or in premises open to the public) may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner"[10][11] but I didn't find much about U.S. copyrights on derivative works (where Wikimedia's servers are located) or U.K. derivative works laws (where the sculpture is held) for sculptures which are on permanant public display. I must then assume a "fair use in.." rationale might be more appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Came back today to this rather unusual discussion. Yes they are sculptures. However they have been donated for use of the museum. The question is, does the museum permit photographs of those sculptures? If the answer is yes, then that is a form of free use liscencing as the museum has allowed you to take pictures of the art work. If the answer was no, then the images would count as illegally aquired images & would not be allowed to be shown anywhere else. I know for a fact that in most cases the museum in which the sculptures where taken does allow photos for this kind of display & therefore have waved their copyrights. Plus, many other examples of this go on throughout Wikipedia & unless a huge overhaul is made, it will continue to do so. So I hope this answers your concerns, but no, these are legal & there is no need for you to worry Firsfron... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing picture-taking in the museum is not carte blanche for allowing unlimited numbers of freely-distributed copies of those photos to proliferate on multiple web sites, some of which (Wikipedia) are non-profit while others (some Wikipedia mirrors and data-scraping sites) are for-profit entities. I think perhaps a fair use rationale should be established for these images, especially when considering these images would appear in a Featured Article: no copyvio (or perceived copyvio) should make it through FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the case if it was an oil painting or the like (which is why you're not allowed to take photos in galleries) But if a mueseum makes public their sculptures, then it is allowed to be reproduced to an extent. A possible resolution would simply be for someone to go to the mueseum & say "Hey, is it okay if I put 1 or 2 of these on wikipedia? Thanks"... They are not fair use, as the photographer created the photograph & it is not entirely of the sculpture or work. Let's face it though, when someone donates a scuplture to a public place, they know it's going to be photographed. What about street sculptures that have been recently added to streets? Are they under copyright too? No, the reproduction of the exact same sculpture is illegal, but taking a photo of it is not. Taking a photo & saying it is your sculpture is, but giving credit to the artist is not. And besides, I've seen this argument before on here & I'm making the same points which they were... Spawn Man 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this whole debate is silly. If I take a photograph of a sculpture, it doesn't matter how old the sculpture is or who made it. My photograph of it constitutes a brand new work and is copyrightable to me not the sculptor. Here is what our very own Featured Article Director has to say on the subject (from Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ):

James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.

So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian, Pharos, and Spawn Man. Brian, I really appreciate your clearing this up with the link to the FAQ. This is very good to know (and I don't think the discussion was at all silly), and may prove helpful with later Dinosaur FA Candidacies. User:Ballista took many of our photos of dinosaur life sculptures in UK museums, and although we always thought there was no problem using them, it's good to know we really can. That is a huge relief. Last night, I attempted to add a fair use rationale to the first picture, when I discovered it had been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons, which obviously doesn't allow Fair Use images. The image would have been deleted as a copyvio; it could have been moved back to en.wikipedia, but this is much better. Anyway, thanks everyone for the input. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! I knew I was right, even if my wording was a bit off... :) Spawn Man 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just trying to discourage you from considering all stuff in museums PD. No ones-upmanship intended, I assure you :)--Pharos 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a contributor and helper. I didn't want to support until individuals from both WP:Birds and WP:Dinosaurs had worked on the article and added their input. Now that that has happened, I feel comfortable supporting. This is one of the longest dinosaur articles, and it appears to me that all the important details have been covered: each of the specimens is discussed, there's a synonomy section which discusses the taxonomic mess, the Hoyle and Protoavis controversies are touched upon (but not given undue weight). I cannot judge the prose, as I'm too familiar with the text, so I will leave that to be judged by someone else. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yet another good article on prehistoric animals (since this isn't technically a dinosaur...) igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God, not this debate again - I had enough of it during the Dinosaur FAC... ;) Spawn Man 04:10, 28 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

FairTax[edit]

This GA article has gone through an FA Drive and Pre-FA review on WikiProject Taxation, had two peer-reviews, and a prior FAC. I believe we've handled all points and issues presented. Morphh (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It's an excellent article. CloudNine 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good to me, although I would like to see more images on tax code compliance section, like a nice little graph. Other than that, great article, well done to everybody who contributed to it --User:Ahadland1234 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I recently reviewed it from the POV of a non-American, and had my minor points speedily addressed. It's a comprehensive article. Winklethorpe 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from a liberal economist. I find this article fascinating from an economic point of view, though I wish it could have just a touch more info on the impact on major accounting firms since they employ so many people in this country. What programs might the government put in place to get these people new jobs? For the last hour or so I've been trying to do calculations on the progressivity of this tax, and it looks good so far, as long as assumptions about the MPC and MPS hold true. If people actually are going to consume as much of their income as they do now, this looks very, very interesting. JHMM13 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks pretty good, but I have a few concerns:
    • I think it's a bit too internal-links happy (I count well over half a dozen of them). A well organized article needs no internal links, and certainly none to previous sections.
    • Also, when linking to a section in another article, the link should make that clear, in the form foo#bar, not bar
    • There should be no such things as "main sections" (under "predicted effects")
    • I'm not too fond of two headers following each others directly. Some buffer text summarizing the section (much like the lead is a summary of the whole article) shouldn't be difficult to add.
    • Circeus 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a MoS link that discusses these points. I'd like to understand this further as I don't remember reading anything regarding them. Personally, I find the suggestions to be reader unfriendly but I'll go with it. Morphh (talk) 1:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
None of them are actually covered by the MoS (Do we need to justify every single comment on FACs via the MoS? That's a new one.), but in the case of, say "main sections" if people are still reading instead of having gone to read the Main article that covers the parent of these sections, they don't need to be reminded that such a main article exist. The section links is a usability basic concern: links in the form xxx makes people expect that they are going to an article titled "xxx", while the "#" makes it clearer that the link is to a section. Circeus 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address the section linking by using ": " instead of the "#" and linking the entire title (not just the section title). While a strung together link with a "#" in the middle is certainly clear to us, I'm not sure how clear it is to the normal reader. I wouldn't expect to see such formating in a paper encyclopedia when it makes reference to a subsection of another article, but I understand your point and have tried to address it. I've removed the "main sections" statement and I've added summaries to the double headers. So I feel I've addressed points 2-4. I disagree on point 1 and have not made this change. This would assume that people generally read an article from beginning to end and in order, which I know that I rarely do - I skip to particular sections of interest. In some cases, it would also assume that the reader understood all the concepts and was able to link similar effects/impacts, which usually takes time. Minor internal links that reference the details of points made earlier or later in an article can be very helpful. I don't see the drawback. If this is a big issue and there is more consensus, I'll make the change. For now, I hope that you will still support the article for FA. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No, no, no. Please tell us how "Fair Tax Blog" is a reliable source ???? And many of the sources seem clearly partisan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the blog source. It was mainly used as a secondary source to validate that proponents make the claim. It was a well written article and it only validated an proponent opinion, but I understand your point. I'm not sure I'd say that many were partisan, but many are from proponent or opponent sites. Americans For Fair Taxation (non-partisan org) puts out much of the proponent research. I've tried my best to weigh all the good neutral sources to the top and with the most references, but a lot of the detailed research is found on proponent or opponent sites. You don't find a WSJ article going into detail on such issues so to get any comprehensive article, you have to use such sources. I'll take a second look to see how I may be able to ref things better but this may never be achievable. I certainly see many FA articles that use citations from proponent and opponent sites - otherwise such articles would get little detail. Please tell me how I can fix it to your satisfaction. Morphh (talk) 1:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the blog is gone, and I'm going to be traveling, I'll trust you'll clean anything else up, and strike my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent example of how group consensus can produce an unbiased article about a subject which is easy to take a position on. Should be promoted on the front page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a rationale for the fair use image at the top of the article? The book whose cover is shown is only one reference about this issue. A cynic (who, me?) might think the purpose of the image in a feature article is to advertise it. The cover page of the bill submitted from thomas.loc.gov would be public domain and serve a similar role in the article. Also, I see some POV issues with the revenue chart, which shows everyone paying the same or less at a marginal tax rate of 23%, without showing the impact of a 28% or 36% rate as discussed in the text.204.186.60.102 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rational for the Fair Use is discussed on the image page. The book was a NYT bestseller for several weeks and remained in the top 15 of Non-fiction for quite some time (both hardcover and paperback). The book is co-authored by the bill author, Congressmen John Linder and it is the most known and recognizable image of the FairTax plan and appropriate for the article. We don't have any source data in regard to the 28% rate suggested by Gale to formulate an impact (though it would still be lower then the current average marginal rate of 32.53%), nor do we have the data for the 36% rate by the JCT, which was not an analysis of the FairTax plan. We also have to take into account undue weight policy. This section is a summary style and more detail can be found on the sub-article. I replied to your earlier comment on the article talk. Morphh (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Actions along the Matanikau[edit]

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II event for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors in the military history project. Cla68 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, thoroughly excellent article, as usual; all the issues raised during the peer review have been dealt with. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per above.--Yannismarou 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a prose comment:"These two particular engagements, the first taking place between September 23 and September 27, 1942, and the second between October 6 and 9, 1942 were two of the largest and most significant of the Matanikau actions." Is here the repetition of "two" necessary? Couldn't it just be: "These particular engagements, the first taking place between September 23 and September 27, 1942, and the second between October 6 and 9, 1942 were two of the largest and most significant of the Matanikau actions."--Yannismarou 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question: Why the ridiculous disambiguation?? Circeus 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the dates in parentheses in the article title? That's to distinguish these actions from several others that took place in the same geographical area during the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)<[reply]
Well... I don't see a disambiguation page at Actions along the Matanikau, nor at a possible Battle of the Matanikau, so it appears to fit the bill for "no need for disambiguation". Circeus 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other Matanikau actions are, or will be, articulated in the Guadalcanal campaign article. Cla68 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is clearly no needfor the lengthy page name,as there will be no other similarly-named articles. A disambiguation link at the top of this one should be more than enough.Circeus 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: To keep the references section uniform, put <div class="references-small"> and </div> around the other subsections: books and web. Cheers, S.D. 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Aye, I think it is good. Thanks for giving it a better name. The old one gave me a headache.--Pupster21 16:10, 26 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Metabolism[edit]

A broad overview of the chemical basis of life, dealing with metabolic processes in microbes, plants and animals. Self-nomination. The article is 78 kb in total size with 43 kb of readable text. It has recently been peer-reviewed. TimVickers 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Dr pda returns less (34KB) prose size; oh, my, those External links! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just added a "Further reading" section. TimVickers 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After reading this article for peer-review (along with Zephyris and BirgitteSB), I'm more than convinced it meets FA criteria. It is comprehensive and not long-winded, uses summary style throughout as needed, is very lay-accessible in my humble opinion and is nicely illustrated, something I find important for such a topic (ooh, pretty pictures! ;) Fvasconcellos 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very well-written and well-organized, as usual ;) A few comments:
    • Examples of proteins: fibrous and globular, but not membrane proteins? I know they're just examples, but it's still an odd omission.
Added transporters.
    • I like the glucose animation, but can it be slowed down a bit? I'd be surprised if anyone watching could follow what was going where without watching many iterations.
I can't do that myself, but there is Image:Glucose Fisher to Haworth.gif, would this be an improvement?
I think the one in the article is 'nicer' - the animation is smoother, and there's no weird antialiasing issues when it rotates - but hard to 'get' without watching for a long time unless you already know what's happening. It's up to you - I thought there was a way to set the frame rate for an animated GIF, but I also know nothing about animations. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put this in as a request to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. TimVickers 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and then withdrawn it, since I worked out how to do it myself. Slower animation substituted. TimVickers 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These section headings seem a little strange: why 'coenzymes' by themselves, and then group cofactors with minerals? The latter is almost all about inorganic ions anyway. Also in this section, the first sentence ending with 'minute concentrations' could mention that these are nevertheless crucial; currently the importance of trace elements doesn't come up till the last paragraph.
Reworded. Coenzymes are separated from cofactors as these two classes of molecules play very different roles in metabolism. I wanted to emphasise this difference as it is not usually discussed well in textbooks.
    • 'The amino acids or sugars released by these extracellular enzymes are then pumped into cells by specific active transporters' - mention that the transporters are proteins.
Reworded.
    • In the proteins section, there's no definition or wikilink to alpha-keto acid, and I wouldn't expect that to be something most readers are familiar with. Actually, in the nucleotides section, the same for 'pyrimidine' and 'purine' - just a link to pyrimidine etc. would be good, as I think the distinction is described earlier.
There's a link in "The amino group is fed into the urea cycle, leaving a deaminated carbon skeleton in the form of a keto acid." was this the section you were meaning? Purine and pyrimidine links added.
    • Three notes numbered in the hundreds is long and crowded in the text - maybe condense refs 119-121 to one note, since they aren't reused.
Done
    • Are any of the images unusually large in file size? This page loads rather slowly for me, though other pages are loading normally.
I don't think so, this is 81kb in size now. Perhaps we should remove the animation?
No, I like the animation - I'm the only one with the problem so far. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the external links seem to be well-chosen; this section is long, but useful. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! TimVickers 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- quite well written--ppm 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (non-expert). This isn't an overview of or introduction to metabolism that is fully accessible to the general reader. However, such a big topic would probably require an article the size of a book to achieve that. Reading through (which took me over an hour) I did learn and I was amazed at the complexity of life. I dare say that if I concentrated on a section and followed more of the (over 600) wikilinks I could learn a fair amount. The technical words and phrases are all wikilinked – it is great that there are so many articles to support it. Colin°Talk 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is very difficult subject to cover in a general encyclopedia article. Well done!--BirgitteSB 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Minor suggestion:
  • Nucleotides act as coenzymes in several important group transfer reactions. (a reference would be great)

Anyway I'm going to support it as a perfectly referenced, well illustrated article. Really one of the best works of Wikipedia. Well done, Tim! NCurse work 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added specific ref for this and a general textbook ref for several other things in this introductory section. TimVickers 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Thank you! NCurse work 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Multicellular elephants" sounds a bit strange. It forces one to contemplate the existance of unicellular elephants, if only breifly. Not sure how one would rephrase that sentence though. Kaldari 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight rewording to "...the unicellular bacteria Escherichia coli and huge multicellular organisms like elephants." TimVickers 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. A great science article that includes substantial scientific detail (or summarizes and links to more detailed pages for those who care) but also in a style and with enough introductory material that makes it accessible to non-scientists as well. Couple of concerns:
    • Image placement quirk: images are in the section before the section describing them, relying on layout/wrapping to place their associated text next to them. At best, that "works, sort-of, on most standard browsers". Better to place the image in the relevant section. I fixed one case, but it looks like a general problem throughout the article.
I've moved the right-aligned images down, but this is the best option for the left-aligned images in subsections. If you put a sub-heading over a left-aligned image then it is separated from the text it refers to and looks like it is a title for the image.
    • Image+table layout problem: a left-side thumb followed by a table forces the table to be to the right of the image, even on narrow monitors. That means side-scrolling...yuck :( Fixed.
Thanks.
    • Fisher projection problem: In the ring/chain image, the convention for a Fisher projection is to place the backbone vertically—otherwise the implied stereochemistry is confusing (and may even be enantiomer for this specific case).
Replaced with different animation.
    • Anabolism intro section confusion: The text describes two types (autotroph vs heterotroph), the flowchart finds six types, and the table has four. Are photoautotroph and chemoautotroph subtypes of autotroph, or is "autotroph" a completely separate thing, or is autotroph both a superclass and a catch-all/"other" subclass of itself? Would this thing be clearer as a tree with tri-state branching ("light", "inorganic oxidation", "other") from each of autotroph and heterotroph roots? Or as a table with rows for light/inorg/other and columns for auto/hetero? Or is this whole flow-chart un-necessary, since a single additional sentence in the preceeding paragraph could explain it all, like: "Organisms can be further classified by ultimate source of their energy: photoautotrophs and photoheterotrophs obtain energy from light, whereas chemoautotrophs and chemoheterotrophs obtain energy from inorganic oxidation processes."
I never liked that flowchart much - ZAP! It is gone. Your text added. Thank you.
    • Pedantic biblio formatting stuff: Some References and Further reading cites use "and" and some use "&" in author lists, and some use periods after first initials while others do not. There's also some inconsistency in what text is the hyperlink, especially for web publications (Buchner's Nobel lecture, for example), presumably as a result of using "raw" formatting instead of the {{cite}} templates. I wouldn't hold up this FAC for failure to use the templates, but at least need to be consistent if doing it manually sometimes. For articles with a PMID, the PMID automatically links, so an additional explicit url that takes one to the same place seems redundant. Only really makes sense if the article is subscription-only via PMID but is available free from some alternate/reprint site.
I've directly linked only the articles with free full-text access, to make it easier for the majority of the readers who don't have web subscriptions to see at a glance what they can access. Fixed formatting for the journal I found. Unfortunately the book cite template produces a slightly different output than the journal cite! TimVickers 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lanosterol synthesis image: The methyls at C13 and C14 look skewed...probably "correct" in a ChemDraw/geometric sense, but would look better being completely vertical instead of slanted due to the 5-membered ring. Also the color-coding is weird...indicates bonds not atoms, so a place where a blue line meets a red one is an atom of indeterminate origin. If we believe the lanosterol page (which is questionable, since the lead structure is wrong?!) biosynthetic and if I follow the colors correctly here, the C14 methyl is the wrong color. DMacks 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I vectorized the image, so I'll take responsibility for the "skewed" methyl groups—those are due to ChemSketch's auto bond angles, I'll fix them if you like. The color coding wasn't mine, so I'll steer clear of that one :) Also, I can't believe the lead structure in lanosterol is wrong; that's not one of mine, but I'll fix it anyway. Fvasconcellos 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the original is one possible pathway, as DMAPP and IPP can condense to form geranyl-PP, two molecules of geranyl-PP condense to form farnesyl-PP and then two molecules of farnesyl-PP condense to form squalene. However, several pathways are possible, see link. TimVickers 17:57, 29 March 2007 (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 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Ridge Route[edit]

This was recently demoted for being not very good. I received a book through interlibrary loan and rewrote it. I feel it is now ready for FAC, and the book is due back in a week, so I would like to know before then if anything should be added or expanded. Thank you. --NE2 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should be a little longer per WP:LEAD as it doesn't currently summarize the whole article the way an ideal lead should. Don't make it too long of course, that's worse. Otherwise it looks really good, nice work. Without time to evaluate in depth, I'll still conditionally support. - Taxman Talk 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lead summarizes the key points; what do you think is missing? --NE2 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:LEAD calls for 3-4 paragraphs, so expand a little bit on all of the most important topics in the article. - Taxman Talk 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will look into that, probably tonight. --NE2 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had an expansion written, but accidentally hit refresh and lost it. I'll give it another go after a short break. --NE2 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The intro text should mention the current status of the road. Is it still used as a through route or local route, or is it closed to traffic completely, or is it now a park? I haven't read the rest of the article yet but I'll post comments later. --Polaron | Talk 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading through the article, I am voting to support as it looks complete and well-written. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never expected that I would enjoy an article about a road that much! I would like, of course a wider variety on sources, because the article relies on 90% on one book. But ... as I said, I like it very much; therefore I support.--Yannismarou 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and all around a good article. --MPD T / C 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With two Featured article candidacies and a review, this article sure has been through a bumpy road of its own, but it seems to have arrived here fine. Nicely done, a good read. Nall 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a little more information about the current uses of the road, or at least the segments that are left. The talk page seems to indicate that part of it is in use as a fire road. Also, when it says, "the old Ridge Route has been largely covered by construction of the Ridge Route Alternate and Interstate 5", does "covered" mean that the old road was literally buried underneath the alternate and the Interstate, or does "covered" mean that traffic is now routed onto those roads and there's no reason to use the old Ridge Route any more? Overall, though, it looks like a solid article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you look at the overlay map, portions of Ridge Route were/are now underneath I-5. Ridge Route was a two lane highway that became Highway 99 and eventually I-5. I-5 is interstate freeway with a minimum of four lanes on each side of the median that covers portions of the old routes. Ronbo76 20:12, 26 March 2007 (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 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Tom Pryce[edit]

I've been working on this article since the Autumn of last year after seeing his horrific death on YouTube. I first saw Pryce's article was, to be it at best, a stub. I'm very happy about the way the article has taken shape now and I do hope it'll pass this FAC. The only concern I have is the fact that a majority of the references come from David Tremayne's book, The Lost Generation. My "excuse", if you like, for this is because the other usual resources I use, such as F1 encyclopedias and a book by Murray Walker only mention his death and only have either in the encyclopedia's cases: a paragraph and in Walker's book: a single sentence in the profile for Alan Jones - Oh and websites, except BBC Wales' article, are the same as well, either sourcing the Wiki article or just talking about his death and his potential to become a World Champion. Tremayne's book, however, goes into such detail about Pryce I needed to pick out the important bits! Anyway, hopefully that'll excuse the article's dependance on (almost) a single source.--Phill talk Edits 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and Support --Phill talk Edits 22:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I think it reads well and is just about the right length for the importance of its subject matter. I don't think that the issue of limited source material is important, as one of the reasons that The Lost Generation has been a success is that there was previously very little available on any of the drivers featured. However, I can't help feeling that there must be a few more/better images available. The photo of Pryce in the infobox is great, and the circuit diagram is informative, but the Lotus shot is completely spurious and its captioning is tenuous at best. Can we have a shot of a car that Pryce actually did drive, rather than the could have, should have, would have reasoning for the Lotus' inclusion? Pyrope 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Those two images are a great addition, exactly what was lacking before. Pyrope 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Problem; based almost entirely on one source. Also, pls review WP:DASH and correct throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not sure that's going to be actionable. The Lost Generation appears to be by far the best source for details on Pryce's life. I've gone through the material relating to the 75 season against a good hard copy reference for that year, and found that although I can partially replace a couple of the references, I'm really only doing it for the sake of variety, not because it's a better way to reference. By way of reassurance, comparison with other sources confirms the material in the article. The only inconsistency to date is, I think, a mistake in my source, not in The Lost Generation. Cheers. 4u1e 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Was there an inquiry or some other investigation (eg coronial) which established the facts as they arose on the day? (Even one or two lines would address this, or careful editing of what's already there). This is the only gap I can see - the rest seems very sound to me. Orderinchaos78 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As far as I can tell from the chapter on Pryce's death, there was no report for his death in Kyalami, unlike the other two drivers mentioned in the book: Roger Williamson (There is a hell of a lot on him) and Tony Brise (A aircraft crash report). I believe Tremayne interviewed the people in question to get a picture of what happened on that day, such as George Witt (The chief pit marshal); Jacques Laffite and Hans-Joachim Stuck. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question Orderinchoas. --Phill talk Edits 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Provisional, 'cos I've got a few questions, but no serious concerns:
    • I'd love just a little more detail on how Pryce got into motor racing - I assume it was a racing school he went to at Mallory Park (pls clarify), why did he decide to go then?
      • No - Pryce had his first "taste" of racing at Mallory Park. He then went onto a series of school races run at Brands Hatch and Silverstone by Motor Racing Stables.--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what made him do it then? 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. Pryce got into motorracing driving a baker's van. It's in the "Personal Life" section, second paragraph.--Phill talk Edits 09:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "wasn't too happy" about winning the Grovewood award - I've put in quotes - can you confirm that this is a direct quote. I assume so from the language used.
      • I've moved the inverted commas and rephrased a bit.--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK - thanks. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "then found himself racing in the F2 series with Ron Dennis' Rondel Racing outfit" - How did this come about?
      • This came about after Pryce and Royale's successes in F3 and Formula Atlantic, however the plans never succeeded. Soon after Pryce recieved an invitation from RR to test the Motul M1 and after an impressive test, Tom was given a racing seat.--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which plans never succeeded? Did Royale have plans to compete in F2? 4u1e 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, Royale's plans to go into Formula 2 never suceeded. I've had a go at trying to put that in the main body.
            • Excellent, thanks. 4u1e 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a bit of a logical gap at the start of the Token section. Pryce competed in both F1 and F2 that year, but I'm not clear from the article how that came about. Could you expand slightly on the sequence of events?
      • Pryce drove for Team Baty with James Hunt as his teammate, he was replacing Hiroshi Kazato, who died in a car accident at Mount Fuji.--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pryce didn't compete in F2 until June [12] and his first F1 race with Token was in April [13] so did he not have a race deal at the start of the season? 4u1e 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In F2? No. He was given a place in F2 because, as I said before ;-), Mr. Kazato's death and also because of his performance at Monaco.
            • But he didn't have a deal in F1 either (not at the start of the season, which began in January). What I'm getting at is that you have a young, obviously talented and successful driver but at the beginning of the 1974 season, he doesn't seem to be driving for anyone - despite having shown a taste for competing everywhere and anywhere in earlier seasons. It might be, for example, that he already had his arrangement with Token, a very small team, and was just waiting for the start of the rather limited season such a tiny team could put together. Or it might be that he had no deal to race for anyone at the start of the year, and was keeping himself free for whatever F1 offers came his way. That's what I don't understand! :D 4u1e 10:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've had a go at it. Sorry, it's kind of confusing for me too!--Phill talk Edits 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BRDC International Trophy 1974" - retired after 15 or 16 laps? This site says 16, you have 15.
      • The sentence(s) in question, "...until a spin on lap 15 prompted a pit stop [...] He retired in the pits a lap later..." But the thing is, does "a lap later" mean "a lap [the leader made] later" or after Pryce made another tour around the circuit to see if the car was okay. I think what happened was the former.--Phill talk Edits 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, interesting question! When you retire on a lap, whose lap is it?! Hmmm..... 4u1e 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about restructuring so it says 'Pryce retired after a spin/gear linkage failure (which was it?) on lap 15?' That way we don't have to establish which lap he retired on, just which lap the incident occured. 4u1e 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1977 Argentine GP - says pitted with gear linkage failure on lap 45, but suggested he continued afterwards. The results show him as having retired on lap 45. I've edited out the bit about continuing, but can you check and revert me if he did.
      • Well the line in question read this: "...until the gear linkage fell apart on the 45th of 52 laps. After a long pitstop he was too far behind to be classified...". I believe your revert was correct.
    • 1977 South African GP - First practice was on the Wednesday and Qualifying was on the Thursday? This is unusual, can you elaborate slightly in the article?
      • Well, a rather nice picture on the 232nd page had this caption, "A wet road can be a great leveller. During Wednesday practice at Kyalami Tom was uncatchable, outrunning second fastest Niki Lauda by almost a second". So - Yes - Practice was held on a Wednesday.--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But nothing to say why this unusual timing was followed? 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There was a 6 week gap from the previous race, something I read on a forum (see post 22) suggests the teams were there testing for a week or two before the race; That would explain the running on Wednesday - anything to support that in the book? 4u1e 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, about a paragraph.--Phill talk Edits 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about a footnote to say 'Although normally qualifying and practice sessions were held on the Friday and Saturday, with the race itself on the Sunday, on this occasion teams were testing at the circuit for two (?) weeks ahead of the race, taking advantage of the warmer weather.' This would avoid going into the minutiae in the article, but provide a response for readers who know that practice on a Wednesday isn't normal. 4u1e 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For reasons that were never explained" Pryce made a poor start. Is there any significance to this?
      • Well, Tom started on the grid 15th of a 23 car grid. By the end of the 1st lap he was at the back of the pack.
        • If there is no particular significance - other than he made a bad start - I suggest removing "for reasons that were never established" as it implies something odd happened and a poor start isn't all that unusual, for any driver. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "missing Bill by a matter of millimetres" - Is this a direct quote? If so, who from? Hard to substantiate otherwise (Yes, I have seen the video, but even so).
      • No - It came from this line by Tremayne, "He missed Bill by millimetres...".--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest putting it in quotes (i.e. Tremayne reports that Pryce "missed Bill by millimetres"), then it's unarguable. It's the sort of thing that makes picky people (like me!) say 'that can't be true' (if it was only millimetres the aerodynamic forces would likely have sucked him into the car). It also can't have been measured, so can only be someone's estimation and no-one was that close. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've changed this - happy? 4u1e 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quotebox from Stuck ("As we got to the top...") says 'sense' where I would expect 'sensed'. Is this a typo or is that the word Stuck (not a native English speaker) used?
    • "Death was almost certainly instantaneous" Is this a general belief, or can it be attributed to a suitable expert?
      • No - It's general belief, but I guess the fact that it's a head injury kind of supports that belief.--Phill talk Edits 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we get a quote from someone saying that death would have been instantaneous?
          • No, I think someone might of included that claim, because I can't seem to find it here.--Phill talk Edits 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. 4u1e 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, Skully, I've enjoyed finding out more about Pryce. Cheers. 4u1e 01:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a very comprehensive article on someone whose career was cut severely short. I have a few things, mostly stylistic, which I think could improve the article:
    • Sir Max Aitken, 2nd Baronet is linked as Sir Max Aiken.
    • The Grovewood award could do with a stub article to turn the link blue; also, could it be explained why Pryce thought it a jinx?
      • No, all Jack Pryce said was that Tom thought the award had a jinx, no reason was given.--Phill talk Edits 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When reporting the refusal to allow Pryce to compete in the Monaco Grand Prix of 1974, the word "inexperienced" is italicised for no reason.
    • If memory serves, "Jansen Van Vuuren" was the marshall's full surname and "Frederick" was his first name, rather than "Frederick" being an unused name, "Jansen" being his usual name, and "Van Vuuren" his surname.
      • I've had a go at trying to re-word it. But I've kept "Jansen" in as it's the version that people widely use.--Phill talk Edits 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the changes. I now support featured status. Sam Blacketer 11:26, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

William Monahan[edit]

Self-nomination: Hello. This article is about the recent Academy Award winning American Screenwriter for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan. It's a GA currently. I have previously brought the Aaron Sorkin article to featured status. I hope to do the same with this article. They follow a similar template, so you may find making comparisons between them useful. My hope is that Monahan's previous career as a man of letters will receive more attention if this article reaches featured status and appears on the main page. He has had an interesting career and I have enjoyed researching it. So let me know what you think. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.-BillDeanCarter 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's discouraging to see an article come straightaway to FAC from passing GA; four hours before your nomination, the reviewer who passed the article GA recommended a thorough and independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many articles need a copyedit, but I believe this article has reached the quality of a featured article. I hope that the reviewers here at FAC, will help give the article a copyedit if they feel it needs it. Other than User:Fvasconcellos suggestion that it receives a copyedit, all his others suggestions were met and appreciated.-BillDeanCarter 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose 1a, 2. In addition to the copyedit concerns, the section Further information is a jumble having no relation to WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Thank you for your comments and taking the time to read the article. I addressed your concern about the "Further information" section, but I'm not sure exactly what your concerns are in accordance with the rest of criteria 2. I think I took care of 2c and 2b by modify the "Further information" section to be a clearer "Further reading" section. How specifically does the article not meet criteria 2?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On 1a - The article has to date been improved according to many independent copyedits at this point but as more criticism comes in I plan to make further improvements. All the facts are there though. Are there any sentences that jump out at you? Maybe one or two that you could point out?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is well referenced, so I don't think there is any trouble about unsourced material on a living person. I'm not an english major, so I cant say it has 'amazing prose' or whatever the criterion says but it wasn't stop and go or abrupt; rather all the sections seemed to go in a logical order. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments
    • The lead still needs improvement, particularly stylistic. Also, a redlink in the lead immediately throws me off; IMHO, mentioning an ongoing event in the lead is not a very good idea, but if you want to keep it, it would look better if you delinked the film title and added a little bit of context (e.g., "He is currently working on the screenplay for Penetration, an adaptation of...in collaboration with director Ridley Scott.")
 Done I did a copyedit of the lead and removed mention of the ongoing event.
    • The article has improved, but more copy editing is the way to go here. After another read, I find this article to be nicely comprehensive, but the overall style is still lacking; the first criterion to define a Featured Article is "the prose is compelling, even brilliant."
It's true. I'm running out of vocabulary for this article. That's what I've enjoyed seeing from other editors, the addition of words that I know but wouldn't have chosen. I hope others can continue to help me out in this area.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed many of the other redlinks, because they will most likely never be filled in and probably shouldn't be. As for the two redlinks you would like to see explained. I would too. But they're entertainment lawyer-like terms, which I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Law about, and they filled in one of the redlinks: first-look producing deal. The two remaining entertainment lawyer contracts will possibly remain in the red for a while. I don't want to de-link them, but I also can do little to fill them in.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well, done as in the amount of redlinks is no longer an eyesore. I put together a stub for production write-through contract. The other one will hopefully be forthcoming over time.-BillDeanCarter 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Becoming a producer": "Scorsese had originally hired in 2001 former Rolling Stones writer..." don't you mean Rolling Stone magazine? :) Also, the prose in this sentence is a pretty good example of what needs work here.
Thanks. I corrected the spelling of Rolling Stone magazine. This paragraph is basically about deals, and Monahan's production company. I'll work on it. I think the solution might be to condense the last two paragraphs into one, and improve the prose from there.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I completely rewrote the section. It's significantly improved. Hopefully up to par with the rest of the article.-BillDeanCarter 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneI de-linked some of the terms, especially motion pictures, but the other two you mention are very important terms for the section. The writing process section is about screenwriters and how they work with film director and studios.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more, but I'll have to read the article again more thoroughly. I'm very busy today, so I'll see what I can do later. Fvasconcellos 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for your many comments. The problems seem to remain in the prose.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator of this article asked me to look over its prose. I would suggest that this article be sent to the League of Copyeditors or that the editors find a trusted wikipedia editor to copyedit for them. The prose needs a lot of work. I will give detailed examples from the lead and the first sections only.

  • Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He went on to contribute to the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy. - These two sentences suggest that Monaham went to NYC to be a jounralist and then moved on to write for these particular magazines - that doesn't quite make sense. Didn't he write for them because he was a journalist?
This was someone else's copyedit. I changed it to "After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk and Maxim. He was also a writer and editor at Spy magazine in its final years."
A lead is supposed to summarize, so how about: ""After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, Talk, Maxim and Spy magazine."
 Done Okay. I put exactly that in there. He was also an editor at Spy but I guess that's for the text.-BillDeanCarter 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan broke into Hollywood in 1998 - "broke into" is too colloquial for an encyclopedia
I changed the sentence to "Monahan went to work in Hollywood in 1998, when Warner Bros. bought the film rights to Light House: A Trifle, which had not yet been published, and contracted him to adapt it to the screen."
How about: "Monahan moved to Hollywood in 1998 when he was hired by Warner Bros. to adapt his novel, Light House: A Trifle, for the screen." (if that is still correct)
 Done I don't know that he moved to Hollywood. He may have been living in a hotel, and commuting back to the North shore. I believe he lives in MA still.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • released to theaters in 2005 - "released in theaters"?
 Done Okay. It's consistently "released in theaters" throughout the article now. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His second realized screenplay was The Departed, a film which earned him a WGA award and an Academy award for Best Adapted Screenplay. - "realized" is unfamiliar diction for many people; also was it the film that earned him the award or the screenplay?
"realized" was someone else's copyedit. I reverted to "produced screenplay". I mention how he won the award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Both awards were for Best Adapted Screenplay. Is it not clear? Does the WGA award seem to stand alone?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is implied that he won for the screenplay, but the sentence actually states "a film which earned him..." - should it not say, "a screenplay which earned him..."? By the way, is there another word for screenplay? It appears a lot in this article. Nothing is coming to me at the moment, but perhaps you know of something. Is a script different from a screenplay?
"Shooting script" is good, "first draft", "rewrite", but screenplay is the best word to use when the script is over and done with. Maybe there is a synonym. I can't think of one. You never know.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan strongly believes that writing should be authored and is not a fan of the collaborative model in which multiple screenwriters write competing drafts for a film. - doesn't quite make sense; all writing is authored; try starting the sentence with "Monahan strongly believes that screenwriting should not be collaborative but rather..." or something like that
 Done Okay. I did the reversal.
  • He had a Catholic upbringing and lived all over the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister. - how about simply, "He was brought up Catholic" and what does "lived all over" mean?
 Done Okay, I changed to "He had a Catholic upbringing. Over the years he frequently moved, living in many of the suburban communities of the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister."
How about "his family frequently moved" (then you can cut the mother/sister stuff out)
But what is the family? Is his sister and mother, because he wasn't living with the father. It's also more informative. Now you know he has a sister.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Early Years" section is choppy - some sentences could be joined together in order to make the narrative of his life flow more seamlessly.
Could you point out an example of two sentences that could be joined? I guess these two sentences, "His interest in movies began at age seven, when it occurred to him that a screenwriter was behind the story in Lawrence of Arabia. Monahan wrote his first screenplay at age twelve." could be tied together, but it doesn't quite work for me. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about these: "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, and would read frequently from his father's extensive library. Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare." into "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, where he would immerse himself in his father's extensive book collection; Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare's plays." (might change meaning a little - be sure it is accurate)
 Done No, it's accurate. Okay, I put it in. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After graduation, Monahan's ambition was to be a man of letters, which required a commitment to essays, criticism, reviews, novels, poetry and biographies. - "which required a commitment to" is vague - what about something like "which would have required him to master the genres of the essay, the review, the novel, poetry and the biography" or something like that
 DoneI word for word put in your copyedit. It reads better. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that has distinguished him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught - verb is awkward - perhaps "distinguishes him as"? although "distinguish" is not really the right word here
I changed it to "distinguishes". Classified him, marked him, came to mind but they don't quite fit as well. It has distinguished him. No one else, not even the FBI figured out what he did. Do you have a better verb?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"establish"? [14] is a good online thesaurus (you mentioned you were running out of words)
 Done I've been using a thesaurus here and there. Establish doesn't work for me. I would use "marked him" but to me it sounds like he got involved in witchcraft. From my adventures through the thesaurus "distinguish" seems to be the most apt word.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next year, Monahan wrote a provocative article at the Press on heroin. - what made it provocative?
I changed this to "The next year, Monahan wrote an article at the Press on heroin that provoked a rash of letters from readers."
This still doesn't explain why it was provocative. What were the readers writing in about?
Probably pro and con the article. This is a secondary source that mentioned his article. I'd love to read it, but atm it's not available.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like you don't do justice to his novel. A novel, especially a "critically acclaimed" one, as you say this one is, is difficult to write. It is not on the same level with magazine stories.
I later on mention more about the novel in Screenwriting career, how it got delayed, and later in writing process I talk about how he prefers movies to novels because you have a cultural effect. His novel was acclaimed but probably had the readership of one of his magazine articles. He eventually took the novel off the market.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but I still feel it is downplayed. Perhaps a quote from a review?
 Done Okay. That's a good idea. I changed the sentence to this: "In 2000, Monahan's first novel Light House: A Trifle was published and garnered critical acclaim; The New York Times wrote that "Monahan's cocksure prose gallops along," and BookPage Fiction called Monahan "a worthy successor to Kingsley Amis." I'm unfamiliar with the proper use of a semicolon so I hope I got the sentence right.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have copied sentences directly from the article into the lead - try to summarize in the lead.
Okay. I'll see what I can do.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please integrate his marriage into the chronology of his life rather than relegating it to a little line after his list of works.
This was done in the Aaron Sorkin article and it wasn't me but another who thought it was the way to go. I've since followed that style, and I want to keep the layout of my trilogy of articles on screenwriters similar.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a big feminist debate here, but it is awfully condescending to relegate his domestic life to this little line at the end of the article. If this were an article about a female screenwriter or director, I have a feeling that her marriage(s) would not be placed so inconspicuously (I have noticed a strong trend in biographies of nineteenth-century dead, white men to do this same thing but in biographies of dead, white women, to prominently feature their marriages). If you don't agree with this argument, at least consider that, structurally, it breaks the continuity of the article (which is strongly chronological).
The thing is that his family life doesn't fit in with Screenwriting career. I would have to pop in with comments like "he got married this year," and "first baby here", and "second baby here". There isn't much to say about his Personal life. It comes together better if you can read it all in context in a section. I can't see how women or men are slighted by having the family stuff gathered into a section, or brought up in the other sections organically.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Johannes Kepler for a good example. My point is, women's biographies do not usually separate their careers from their families while men's biographies often do. That's what makes it sexist - the overall pattern. Awadewit 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Kepler is then an exception to this overall pattern? The thing is with Kepler there's 2 marriages, and there's a lot to be said. Monahan's wife's name is unknown, and all that's known is that he has two kids. I will give this some more thought.-BillDeanCarter 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say that I am hearing you wrong. Please tell me that you didn't mean that you want to follow the sexist pattern just because it is a pattern. Just because there is not very much information does not mean you cannot work it in. Awadewit 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming to a method in which I could include this marriage stuff. His daughter was born during the production of Kingdom which I talk about at length. His son was born during his man of letters years, and he got married before or after the deal for Kingdom which might have had to do with achieving that success. But am I against newborns? Am I against wives? No. And saying that this is sexism is a huge generalization. I would like to hear what others think about whether this should or shouldn't be done before I make these modifications.-BillDeanCarter 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm generally in favor of including it in the body, especially if you can connect the events to changes in his life and not just as standalone facts, though I understand that it can seem out-of-context to talk about children when we're discussing someone's life in terms of their stylistic periods. MarkBuckles (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdented>There are 4 facts that would have to be weaved into the body. The 1998 birth of his son, which would be out of place in the list of articles, novels, etc... he did in his man of letters years. Then the 2001 wedding, which could go in many places. His daughter's birth, is the only fact that has a place, alongside the production of Kingdom. The fourth fact, is where he resides, which I can't quite position anywhere in the text yet. Is it really worth it to break up the family of facts, and haphazardly spread them around the article? I mean, Awadewit talks about a kind of sexism, but what about breaking up the family? This way, you see in an orderly and contextual fashion exactly what kind of people he has around him; his family. I have tried briefly to put together an edit that works, but it seems clumsy. If it is really a simple matter of style then I won't do it. But if there really is something wrong here, with writing up a section about his family then I'll change it. What's the general consensus among Wikipedians?-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I incorporated his family into the body of the text. Let me know if it flows, and if it doesn't and you can help please edit the article with choice words you think will help. It really does improve the article. Whether or not the article was ever sexist is still up for debate. The facts were placed as neatly as I could, but I remain unable to place where he resides. I kept the "Family life" section, because why not? It has a bit more information, and it's interesting. Brings everything together.-BillDeanCarter 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's not continue with this debate. We can continue with it on talk pages, if you wish. I happen to think it is important. Let's make it a debate about style. Sections with two sentences? I do not think that sections with two sentences have been making a go of it here at FAC. A section has to have a better reason to exist than that. The section looks wimpy, if you will. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, what do you think of including still frames from the movies?Awadewit 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't justify it. I did what you're talking about in the Aaron Sorkin article and during FAC I had to remove 10 images down to 0. Eventually User:ShadowHalo and I found free use images and the article is as it is now.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps ShadowHalo could help you again. I'm not quite sure why single frames are not fair use. I mean what percentage of the movie are they? How many thousand/million frames are there in a movie? Anyway, I thought that it would add to the page. Are movie posters fair use? At least that would add some color. The quotation boxes are a nice addition, by the way. (Insert rant on copyright law here.)
I don't think it would improve the article. It would only make the article look pretty. And I'm scared of the "fair use" debates that would flare up.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw my name, so here's my input. I think ten images was excessive, but I think it would be easy to justify using one or two. For example, there is more than sufficient critical commentary on The Departed to use a cover (or film poster, I'm not sure how films are usually treated). I'll go ahead and write up a fair use rationale for the image if you'd like to add it. ShadowHalo 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That would be good. I guess the quote in the section "Working scripts through production and after" would move to the "Writing process" section to make room for the poster or whatnot.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's room there. I added it in to show what I mean; if you'd rather put it or the quotation somewhere else, feel free. ShadowHalo 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdented> Done It looks good. I didn't think there would be room, but there is. Thanks once again for the help.-BillDeanCarter 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Made some minor copyedits myself. It looks to me llke this has been pretty heavily copyedited since some of these comments were made. It's starting to look like a FA. I'd still like to be able to have stubs for any redlinks - it won't make main page with those there.MarkBuckles (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I filled in the last two remaining redlinks which were turnaround deal and Penetration (film). I like the "Family life" section. It's an improvement, as were the copyedits. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments on the language.
  • Tragically, the theatrical release of Kingdom of Heaven was pared down from Ridley Scott's original 3-hour cut after a preview screening convinced Scott the film was too long. - is it really "tragic" that a movie was cut down? tragedies usually involve death (in the theater, as I am sure you are aware, tragedies end with death and comedies end with marriage)
 Done Tragic can be used to describe a sense of tragedy, and in the most dramatic of terms it was a tragedy that a good film was butchered by it's own director. Clearly not encyclopedic so I did a copyedit that clarifies things.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was poorly received by critics when it was released in theaters in 2005. - can you find some other place to put the date and tell us what the critics said?
 Done part of the copyedit.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridley Scott would later remark that he got carried away with cutting the film in the editing room and learned that "the enemy is previews" because it's tantamount to asking an inexperienced group of people to be film critics. - I think you need to add the word "screening" into Scott's quotation or outside the quotation or something because the general reader thinks of previews as the little trailers before the movie
 Done I clarify that "the enemy is previews" because these test screenings are tantamount to...
  • Kingdom later got a reappraisal on DVD, in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of material that came from Monahan's shooting script. - "got"?
 Done Kingdom was reappraised on DVD...
perhaps Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I reworded to, "Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of footage previously shot from Monahan's shooting script."-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director's cut earned the critical acclaim that the truncated version was denied. - odd use of the passive here - you act as if it was entitled to the critical acclaim (but of course if it was truncated and crappy, why should it have been praised?)
 Done I paraphrased a critic.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Critics can still write poorly. :) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed. Monahan never watched the Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs that he was adapting, and instead opted to work from an English translation of the Chinese script in order to create an original interpretation. - I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have not seen this movie, read about it or heard about it (I live in a bubble). Why are we now talking about Interal Affairs? How is it connected to The Departed?
 Done
  • Jack Nicholson, who played the part - "who was going to play the part"?
 Done made the change
  • post-sexual - is that a word? find it somewhere and I'll retract my objection
 Done it's a word. it's used all over the internet but I changed it to "jaded with sexual intercourse".-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan gives credit to Nicholson's notes for improving the character of the mob boss Costello by sexualizing him. - awkward - most important part of the sentence is "sexualizing him" - make it more prominent
 Done Monahan credits Nicholson's notes for sexualizing the character of the mob boss Costello.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2007, Monahan is working on a film treatment for a follow-up to The Departed, which may be a prequel or a sequel. - sentences requires the "either...or" construction - "which may either be a prequel or a sequel" OR, if you don't like to split infinitives "which may be either a prequel or a sequel"
 Done used the split infinitive.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • which gives the studio the first right of first refusal on any films produced by Henceforth - is the first "first" necessary? it seemed confusing
 Done I thought it was confusing too, but it's saying the first ROFR. You can have second ROFRs and third ROFRs. It's more accurate this way.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How weird. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan is passably familiar with the various stages of the filmmaking process - "passably familiar" is something you say when you want to deprecate someone - is that what you want to do? perhaps "has some familiarity"
 Done I see no evidence that "passably familiar" is used in a deprecating sense. In fact all my google searches show that it's used in exactly the context I've used it. But "has some familiarity" sounds less stuffy. I made the change.
Well, there are a lot of poorly written webpages out there. I've would've been more convinced if you had said The New York Times uses it this way or something like that, by the way. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • raising the finances - there is a better way to phrase this, but I can't think of it right now
There may be, but it's a common phrasing and I even found it used in this exact context.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monahan will be the one adapting - "will also"?
 Done sure.
  • Monahan will executive produce and write the - is this a verb? why not just "produce"? or "will be the executive producer and writer for.."
Executive produce is a verb, and it's different than produce. He's writing the adaptation and executive producing the film. The sentence sounds best as it is.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it just sounds weird to a reader not familiar with filmspeak. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Monahan's second adaptation of a Hong Kong film. - is this typical filmspeak? is it like saying Bollywood film?
Hong Kong films are in a league of their own. It's more familiar filmspeak than Bollywood film.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wikilinked into the FA on Hong Kong action cinema. As further proof there are stubs for Hong Kong film actors/ HK film directors / HK film producers. There's even a nice article on the Cinema of Hong Kong which with a little work could be an FA as well.-BillDeanCarter 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the popular English musical group The Rolling Stones. - "the popular English musical group"? even I who know NOTHING about popular music AT ALL know that the Rolling Stones is one of the most popular bands in history; this seems to be underselling them
 Done retitled them the influential British Invasion group.
  • that the entire second half of Monahan's shooting script was based on the first 105 pages of his book, as well as noting that Kingdom of Heaven is the title of the second chapter in his book - awkward
 Done broke it up some.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know why Reston didn't file a lawsuit? I saw this story when it came out. You make it sound as if Monahan and Fox were not at fault and that is why no suit was filed. But I remember reading that Reston decided not to file, not because he believed that Reston and Fox were not at fault but because he believed he couldn't win.
I couldn't find any mention that he came to some decision. He simply didn't pursue the matter. He never filed charges. Reston made his claims, and 20th century fox made their counter-claims. I searched and found nothing. Reston doesn't talk about it in subsequent interviews. What can you do?-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • he ended up in Hollywood to adapt his first novel into a film - "ended up"?
 Done "went to"
  • His perception is that a writer can retain the authorship of their screenplay if a powerful film director supports the writer, and if at the same time the writer has strong enough ideas that he can successfully advocate his vision, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers. - "perception" seems a bit odd, how about "view" or "opinion"; also, sentence is a bit long and convoluted - make it strong and clear
 Done changed sentence to "Monahan's view is that a screenwriter can retain the authorship of their screenplay if they have the support of a powerful film director and successfully advocate their ideas, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers."-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He prefers writing screenplays over other forms of writing - how about "He prefers writing screenplays over other genres" - gets rid of repetition of "writing"
 Done as you worded.
  • he has reached a level of ability where he is no longer self-conscious about his writing - "level of ability" is odd - in fact, this whole idea is strange - the quote from him would be nice
The quote is, "As far as getting notes is concerned, I‘ve spent thirty-odd years studying English drama, so I’m personally at a point where I’m post-conscious about craft, but that’s a pricey personal evolution, that’s a thing I chose to do, and you have to remember not everyone’s had time for it, any more than you can expect some other guy off the street to know kung fu or biochemistry." I'd like to summarize how he no longer second guesses his writing decisions. Is there a traditional way of describing such? I'd like to not paraphrase or quote.-BillDeanCarter 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would include at least the word "post-conscious" - that is an odd word. Hard to paraphrase that. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I reworded to, "He has studied English drama for over thirty years and has stated that because of those efforts he has reached a level of ability where he is "post-conscious about craft." I find level of ability is apt. I considered skill level, but it doesn't sound right.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These words prefixed with post- are his style of writing. He uses that and some other words quite often. So probably in this article any post- prefixed word should be paraphrased henceforth.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the "List of writings" back over - the list is not that long yet.
The list is 3x - 10x as long. The hope is that some will derive a measure of pleasure from adding to the list. It's a mess atm, and my idea is to make it a featured list eventually.-BillDeanCarter 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Perhaps list it as an imcomplete list, then? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I did what other incomplete lists do, I put {{expand_list}} templates where the part of the list is incomplete. Actually, the practice has been to put one incomplete template in the article and be done with it, but I placed a few of them in the sections that were incomplete, so that at least it's apparent which parts are complete. If there were a {{expand_list-sect}} template I'd use it instead. Anyways, I was looking for a way to do exactly that. So it's good now.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole piece is getting better. Revision is hard work. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. All comments addressed. I'm going to take a small wikibreak of a day or so and then check back in with this article and its nomination to see how it actually looks.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article's prose has greatly improved since its first appearance here due to the editor's tireless efforts to revise it for clarity and accessibility. I cannot speak to the page's comprehensiveness since I do not know about the subject, but there is certainly a lot of detailed information here about Monahan's films and theories regarding screenwriting. While this article does not reference any scholarly sources, I do not see that as a reason to object to this article becoming an FA there are no scholarly sources yet on this person (I did a search of all of the major databases, JSTOR, MUSE, MLA, etc.) It will be a few years before scholars have a chance to publish on these films. The information is thus well-sourced from the sources available. (There does not seem to be a policy to wait for the research to come out or anything like that.) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Phew, that was a tough one. Kudos on your work—the article has improved a lot. I still think the prose could use more work, but I can't put my finger on anything specific. Perhaps a final once-over by the League of Copyeditors would be a good idea? Anyway, after a more thorough read, I found all my concerns have been addressed, and one thing is undeniable about this article: its comprehensiveness. I think we can safely say that, despite its (now very minor) shortcomings, this article has become an excellent resource. Fvasconcellos 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Some remarks to a generally very nice article:

Thanks for the comments Yanni.-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had a Catholic upbringing." This too short sentence in the middle of longer ones makes the prose a bit choppy there IMO.
 Done I reworded to, "Monahan was born in Dorchester, Boston to an Irish-American family and was raised Irish Catholic." Irish Catholic... maybe the Irish sounds redundant but it's in fact a specific thing.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught." I'm not a native English speaker, so I may be wrong, but I'm wondering: is there a mixture of tenses here or am I wrong? And why "the" alternative weekly newspaper? Is there just one alternative weekly newspaper? Or is New York Press an alternative newspaper? And why don't you say that in the previous sentence?
 Done This was brought up above by User:Awadewit and so the tenses were changed. I could write it with either tense, so I'll let someone else chime in here. Originally I used alternative weekly newspaper just to spice up the language. I reworded it so that alternative weekly newspaper goes in the previous sentence as information, and replaced it with the shorthand Press. So here it is, "He moved to New York City and contributed to the alternative weekly newspaper New York Press and the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy.[3][4] In 1995, Monahan wrote a cover story for the New York Press that used the crimes of John Salvi to attack the Catholic Church's teachings; six months later, he wrote another article at the Press that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught."-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monahan ended up winning two Best Adapted Screenplay awards for The Departed from the Writers Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." "Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed, an adaptation of the Hong Kong action film Infernal Affairs." I have a sense of repetition here. You tell us exactly the same things in the previous section, and with almost the same wording. One section is not seperated from the other. Alltogether constitute the same article, and they must interweave and co-exist in harmony.
Hmm, tricky. It was a previous suggestion that I mention his awards in the previous section. It was a word-for-word copyedit from the talk page for the article. It has to be in the section 'Working scripts through production and after'. Should I remove it from the previous section then? It was Fvasconcellos who made the request. The previous section is meant to reflect the workload he picked up before any of his movies were made. So it's not necessary to mention his awards, or reflect on how things turned out in the future. I could remove them. What's the consensus?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would leave them in the previous section, and not repeat them again in "Working scripts", but this may just be a personal preference.--Yannismarou 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be most relevant in the working scripts through production and after. You get to see how he hired a publicist to ensure he got those awards.. or at least had the best chance of getting those awards. And then voila!, he gets them. Without the voila! the paragraph becomes significantly neutered. So I would have to remove them from the previous section, if at all. I'm ambivalent about this.-BillDeanCarter 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In return Henceforth received the film rights to produce John Pearson's true crime novel The Gamblers, which Warner Bros. had acquired the rights to." Maybe a bit repetitive the prose here, but not a big deal of course.
I'm working through the many possible permutations of this sentence. I'll get back to you on this.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The project originated at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films.[52] Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney. In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts. Scorsese recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play from Disney to Paramount.[52]" IMO the prose is getting a bit choppy here.
 Done I reworded to, "Monahans' other assignment is to rewrite a screenplay about the history of the rock music business called The Long Play. The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the influential British Invasion group The Rolling Stones, and was nurtured at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films. Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney but recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play to Paramount.[52] In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts, and Monahan will now do a rewrite of his own."
I'll see what I can do here.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Personal life": I don't like this section. For the following reasons: 1) It is toooo stubby. 2) It is incomplete, and its purpose is not clear; you repeat the same personal info spread in the previous sections about his personal life (marriage, children). By this spreading you initially gave the sense to the reader that he will not have to read a "personal life" section (actually, while reading I was thinking: "why doesn't he makes a proper "personal life" section, and spreads the info around?). But suddenly, the reader sees the section with partial repetitive information he already read, and wonders: why didn't the writer collect all the info about his personal life here, and spread it around, and then to repeat it here again? At least, this is what I wondered!--Yannismarou 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on which position you take. Should I remove the information from the body of the article and place it only in the "Personal life" section? Or should I kill off the "Personal life" section altogether? If I kill off the "Personal life" section I am contemplating summarizing it very briefly as a last sentence in the lead. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I went ahead and did this. Check out the edited clearly labeled "I could be reverted"-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: When I talk about his writings in the "Man of letters" section does it sound like these were the only articles he wrote? Or does it sound like I'm only mentioning the notable ones?-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I get the impression that you are mentioning the notable ones, and he may have written more of them.--Yannismarou 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! And I support. I think that despite some minor issued still open, this is a very nice article.--Yannismarou 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since this article is well-written and well-referenced; it's a job well done. Cliff smith 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was reading the article, and I thought "this should be nominated"... then I checked the talk page.--Orthologist 15:22, 24 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Devil May Cry 2[edit]

There's no doubt in my mind that the Devil May Cry 2 article is close to, if not meets the requirements for Featured Article status. Having recently been promoted to Good Article class, as well as having addressed the concerns raised in the Peer Review, I feel there is no other path for me to take than to present this article for review as a Featured Article and address any and all concerns other editors may have.

Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose — some issues, including: Support, most issues addressed.
  • Inline queries — I added several queries for statements that need clarification.
  • The inline queries were removed; the only one not stated below involves this sentence: "In contrast to the rest of the gameplay, the style judging system used in the game has been cited as the hardest in the series to impress." Clarification or another word may be necessary; is the word "impress" referring to the style judging system, or the player?
  • Reception section — a paragraph of positive criticism needs to be added to balance out all the negative. Also has some referencing issues (see below)
  • References — they need to be formatted properly (author, date published, etc: try to fill out as much of Template:Cite web as possible). Additionally, GameFAQs is usually not considered a reliable source; try GameSpot instead, because their reviews are edited and not user submitted, which makes them automatically more reliable down the line. Also, don't cite GameFAQs user reviews. Cite professional reviews by, say, GameSpot, IGN, and so on. See the reception section for Final Fantasy VIII or Final Fantasy VII for a good model. Another questionable source is the wii60 fan forum review, because it is not a published review with an editorial team like IGN, GameSpot, GameRankings, etc. Both of those sources are being used to cite the "black sheep" comment, so perhaps you should just omit that and say something along the lines of "the game attracted negative criticism in comparison to the first game".
  • Spoiler warnings — generally redundant for sections labeled as "plot" in my opinion, although this is entirely subjective and based on the main editors' preferences, and not the guideline or the reviewers' wishes.
Overall, a good start. Positives are succinctness, most bases covered (except audio — did the game have a soundtrack?), and lack of fancrufty subarticles. It will still need an hour of work or so to attain FA status. — Deckiller 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After a bit of thought, I agree. The "Black Sheep" comment has been excised for now (though I'll add it back if I can find a more reputable source for it). Additionally the marketing section has been restored to make room for information regarding the release of the soundtrack, which will also cover the audio information. The Reception section is in the process of being updated to cover a more positive spin, and going through to take care of the citations and fill them in as much as possible is in progress as well. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Comment The first inline question you raised has been addressed by rewriting the sentence. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. I stuck that part off earlier. — Deckiller 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks like I got everything. I've finished with formatting all the remaining references. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if considerations above are carried out. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Basically what Deckiller said. --- RockMFR 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Image:Dmc2diesel.jpg needs a source (it has the copyright status and fair use rationale, but where did it come from?) --- RockMFR 20:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my restructuring of the "black sheep" comment was reverted by a user. My oppose will unfortunately stand until those two sources are replaced by more reliable ones, or the sentence is restructured to provide a general overview of reception and criticism. — Deckiller 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's is rather surprising to see how an article about a game regarded by some as a "lowpoint in the series", is the best article about the series here, the nomination has my support although the article could have a few small changes to improve like tha addition of some pre production artwork, its format looks good and it's well referenced. -Dark Dragon Flame 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Chensiyuan 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the prose is alright, well-referenced, and after the gameplay pics were added (since there weren't any in the GA nom), I can help this nom. I only suggest to do a table of reviews (included in most VG FA's), and use more of "publisher" in the {{cite web}} template. igordebraga ≠ 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly Support. The Article is good, I can see minor work that could be done on it, other then that, I say: Yes. It's good to go! --Majinvegeta 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Informative, well sourced, and well organized. -- The Hybrid 23:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I have one more consideration: do you think you could add a 'characters' section to join with the plot, maybe under a new major heading? I think it would help to keep the people straight in the summary. Just a thought. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't want to create a characters section as it's already done in the Characters in Devil May Cry page. Maybe more wikilinking? I don't think it links to Matier's entry in the current article. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, scratch that then, I didn't see you had already linked to it as a See also bit. I mean, perhaps you could have Characters, a description, with the Main Article > character pointers, but that's just personal preference to me and doesn't affect my consideration one way or another. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like what I see. Manderiko 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial stuff - This is mostly nitpicking, as the article is otherwise quite nice.
    • The development team is uncited.
    • For cite #1, IMDB is a lousy source, especially for game staff.
    • Describing the controls is a bit excessive; is this necessary? It hasn't been done in other video game FAs.
    • Does ref #26 support the entirety of the first paragraph of Development? That ref only seems to say that he was disappointed, not when he was informed or that CPS4 wasn't involved in the development of DMC2.
    • "Instead, the sequel was granted to Capcom Production Studio 1 and Hideaki Itsuno, the team responsible for Capcom VS SNK 2." Ref?
    • Ref #29 does not justify "Due to the focus of Devil May Cry 2's action on style," as it makes no mention of Capcom's reasoning.
    • Ref #35 does not justify "however, the game still received decent scores from professional reviewers." It's just a list of statistics, and that is an evaluative statement drawing a conclusion from those statistics. Additionally, the evaluation is a tad iffy; many of those publications listed on that page panned the game.
    • All of Reception attributes evaluative claims to "players," then backs this up with citations to professional reviews. I don't have a problem with the content or the cites, but wouldn't it be stylistically better to say that reviewers mentioned these concerns?
    These concerns shouldn't be a big deal to resolve. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To address your points in order...
        • Dev team is now cited.
        • IMDB ref has been switched to a Moby Games ref.
        • Controls have been shortened and instead described in a more general manner.
        • Yep. A little further down, Kamiya states that the first notice he got about Devil May Cry 2 getting a sequel was when someone from another team (presumably Itsuno from CPS1, though it's not stated) asked Kamiya for the original Devil May Cry design documents because he was doing the sequel.
        • So ref'd.
        • See (what is currently) Ref 30. It mentions that Capcom sought the partnership with Diesel, beginning with the lead "Given the Devil May Cry series' emphasis upon style above all else". I suppose I should move (what is currently) Ref 29 down so that both Refs support the paragraph as a whole.
        • I've reworded the comment from "decent" (which is POV) to "mixed" (which is accurate). I'm going to be adding a review table per igordebraga, so that can speak for itself.
        • So changed. Thanks again for taking the time to review the FAC, and if anything else catches your eye feel free to throw it out there for me to handle. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACK. If you add a review table, I'll just add it to my list of nitpicks. It's never necessary to have a review table; it's just a bunch of arbitrary numbers. If a review has something relevant to say, add the comment to the article and cite it. If it doesn't, we don't need its arbitrary number score. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I was sort of iffy on the review table myself. I was about to add it when I realized that I hadn't covered the sales figures for the game. At four paragraphs (which I'll be reducing to three soonish) it's getting pretty bloated. I think I've covered the bases of most people's opinion. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicks mark 2 - Reception edition. Consider any of my nitpicks above resolved, unless I bring them up again. I'll number these for easy reference.
    1. "Many fans of Devil May Cry were disappointed with this sequel;[37] however, the game still received mixed scores from professional reviewers." - Um. What? The change to the second half of this sentence makes it make little sense. Perhaps a rephrase? Also, why are we citing a 1up review (ref #37) as "many fans"?
    2. "Chief among the complaints was that the difficulty was lower than it was in the original game." - Complaints from whom? You mentioned fans of DMC and reviewers in the previous sentence, and it isn't clear what this is referring to.
    3. "The combat system is considered less refined" - "Is considered to be" is almost always useless weasel wording. This is a circuitous way of making a claim without atributing it to anyone, and I'm sure it could be rephrased.
    4. In fact, the rest of the first paragraph suffers from this vague attribution, with lots of "reviewers felt" or vague/non-existent attributions. Dig in an attribute the claims to authors and publications; this is common practice in film and book articles. Make it more like the second paragraph (where PSextreme should be italicized, BTW), but attribute the review authors as well. "Matt Cassamassina of IGN felt..." instead of "Reviewers felt..."
    5. Put the ref at the end. Twice that I noticed (refs #41 and #45), you put the ref in the middle of a sentence when the whole sentence is being attributed to that ref. There's no good reason to do that.
    Getting there... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Iffy Support. Even though the art is, in fact, a great article, with all point in peer review covered, there are still a lot of points left to be covered. We need more information and less cruft. If someone else has said this, this makes 2. I own the game, and I will work on the art furhter to improve it. Then, maybe, we can stay featured. Quatreryukami 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in response to Deckiller...
Yes, I agree there is little cruft, but for FA shouldn't we go for NO cruft??? Although I agree with the rest of your statement
  • Further Comments
I took a night to sleep on it, and have decided my cruft accusations were not correct. I am now retracting earlyer accusations and changing my vote to Full Support. I would cross out earlyer votes, but dont know how...Quatreryukami 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is hardly any cruft in this article. The plot synopsis is four relatively short paragraphs, and the gameplay covers the major aspects, from what I see. — Deckiller 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quatreryukami, could you point out the things you feel are crufty? I might be missing something, but nothing in the current version of the article strikes me as fancruft. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:21, 23 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

History of Minnesota[edit]

I originally started this article as a section within Minnesota when we were getting that article up to FA status. Ravedave decided that the text made a better History of Minnesota article than what was currently there, so I began the process of expanding the article to its current status. It isn't all my own work, though. I'd like to recognize the contributions of Mulad, who wrote many sections that are now in the article, Appraiser, who has helped out with several topics, and others in Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uf-da. Just looking at the article, without reading it, is there any way to cut down that lead section? It's really big and moderately ugly. Grandmasterka 06:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although after looking through a couple featured "history of" articles, I note that the introduction in these kinds of articles is very hard to write without sounding awkward. I'm thinking about how I might help this one, by merging some of the intro content into the lower sections. and cleaning up the prose. Grandmasterka 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did some wordsmithing on the introductory sentence and the first few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Not enough inline references - there are many some unreferenced paras. The lead is indeed a little too long (fails my 'rule of thumb' - doesn't fit on my screen). Glacial history of Minnesota should be moved from see also into a separate section - it is notable and related enough to be discussed in the article, I feel.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree on inclusion of either the contents or a summary of Glacial history of Minnesota in the article. Undoubtedly that is significant, but it is not part of the scope of this article. The candidate article is about History in the conventional sense of that term, i.e., human history, not natural history. Kablammo 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think including stuff about glacial history in this article would be silly. This is clearly an article about human history and is more than large enough without throwing in all sorts of crap that happened before there were any people in Minnesota. As to my original comment (not an objection, but a comment) I'll have to review the article again, but it does seem that there might be no good way to cut down that intro. It summarizes the rest of the article nicely. Grandmasterka 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the introduction, based on the discussion on the talk page. I also went through and found specific references to the MNHS TimePieces series for the uncited paragraphs. Much of the older content of the article came from TimePieces, and I think I was just using one generic citation for several paragraphs in a row. I've now linked to the specific articles within TimePieces. As far as Glacial history of Minnesota is concerned, I disagree that it should be included. The content doesn't really fit within the scope of a general article on the history of Minnesota, since it's at a finer level of detail. Some topics of specific detail, such as this or Sioux Uprising, or the history of Saint Anthony Falls, are better treated as their own articles. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support now that the intro has been cut down. As to Piotrus' third objection... It's clear to me after reading it that the "unreferenced" paragraphs begin an idea ended in a referenced paragraph. There's no need to litter this thing with a lot of redundant references, even though I do it sometimes. Grandmasterka 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. I've only read the article through the "Territorial foundation and settlement". I've found the following issues, but asides from those the article looks good to me. I'll read the rest of the article within the next few days.
  • "Minneapolis grew from the waterfall's power, and by innovating milling methods, became the "milling capital of the world."" That sentence sounds a bit odd to me. What waterfall? How does a city grow from a waterfall's power?
  • "The Great Depression brought [...] trouble in labor relations" That's POV. Leftists might not consider strikes to be trouble, but rather as evidence for "class consciousness" or whatever. "Tensions" or something like that would be a more appropriate term.
  • "The site may be one of the oldest known archaeological sites in the Americas" That sounds ambiguous to me. I'm assuming you mean that what is being researched there dates that far back, but the sentence could also be read to mean that scientists have been researching there longer than anywhere else in the Americas.
  • "The practice of depicting people and animals by carving into rock faces emerged, continuing well into the 2nd millennium." The second millenium BC or AD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carabinieri (talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 February 2007.
Thanks for the suggestions on wording -- I've incorporated them into the article. As far as the second millennium is concerned, I'm not even sure whether it was BC or AD, and the reference doesn't say, so I just lopped that sentence out. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat - I am on wikipeoject:MN and I contributed a couple sentences. I re-read the whole article (phew thats long!) and it looks good to me. I hate to bring it up, but might it be worth splitting the article like History of California? I am guessing it would be a ridiculous amount of work considering how the article is written by topic rather than time period.-Ravedave 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the prose quality is still lacking. I've gone through a section hitting some high points, but more work is necessary. --Spangineerws (háblame) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Support --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC). Object, I'm afraid. Wonderfully thorough, but needs improvement in prose quality, and organization.[reply]
    • "Following the American Civil War and the Sioux Uprising, the state's natural resources were tapped for logging and farming." Implies the latter is a consequence of the former.
    • Native American inhabitation section starts with distinct tribes, even to 1855, then suddenly goes back to 9000 years ago? Needs reorganization
    • "Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Minnesota as the Sioux Uprising of 1862 broke out." - conversational
    • "tribes of Ojibwa" and - "group of Ojibwe" - not obvious you mean the same people. Pick one term.
    • "white traders" links to European people?
    • Sporadically, the fort imposed new restrictions, forcing the squatters to head downriver.- clumsy, rephrase. Unnecessary broken with inner clause, and the combination of "squatters head downriver" made me chuckle, surely not what you had in mind.
    • How did Eliza Winston get freed when Dred Scott wasn't, at basically the same time and circumstances? Needs at least a comment.
    • St. Anthony needs a wikilink, same place.
    • Fort Snelling section, starting with 1805, is earlier than Minnesota Territory section, starting with 1783, Lousiana Purchase in 1803 in latter section also explains why FS was built in 1805. Reorder these. In fact, does one fort deserve such a big subsection to itself? It has its own article, after all.
    • Early white settlement is in the Early statehood section? How's that again? Surely white settlement precedes statehood by quite a bit!
    • 439,000 - needs a closer cite
    • Populist, Ignatius L. Donnelly - no comma
    • but by 1900, Minnesota mills were grinding - either one more or one fewer comma
    • middlings - wikilink uncommon term
    • Jesse Ventura section has no citations whatsoever, and could use another sentence or two about why specifically he was important - one of very few third party governors, and the only former professional wrestler ever. Mondale/Coleman needs a cite.
    • Why does Guthrie Theater lead off Arts and Culture section? Why not chronologically? In fact, why is Arts and Culture between two "postwar" subsections? Reorder.
    • Putting Northwest Airlines in the Postwar Economy section implies it wasn't that important before then - clearly untrue from their article. Reorganize.
    • Our Camp Savage article doesn't say it was for "Japanese-American soldiers", rather to teach Japanese to American soldiers.
    • One of the reasons the Depression hit hard in Minnesota... - the rest of the paragraph doesn't specify why it should have been particularly hard on Minnesota.
    • Hotbed of medical care - Ow! Terrible mixed metaphor
    • Dr. William Worrall Mayo emigrated from ... - don't you think you should say "founded the world famous Mayo clinic" pretty darn early? I had to click on his article to see why he was important, and only then found the Mayo Clinic link in a completely different paragraph. Reorganize, possibly by just shortening from 3 paras to 1. They each have their own articles after all, this is supposed to be the section on medical care in the whole state, instead it's about one family and two hospitals. If they're "it", then the state isn't much of a medical care hotbed (ouch again).
    • The Homestead Act in 1862 facilitated land claims by settlers, which was regarded as being cheap and fertile. - The act was regarded as cheap and fertile? The claims? The settlers?!? (I got to get me to Minnesota...) Rephrase.
    • Falls of St. Anthony, Saint Anthony Falls, or St. Anthony Falls? Pick one, throughout. Possibly first use is forgiven as an archaicism, but not the mixture other two.

This isn't to say there aren't more issues, I'm just tired. Good try, very thorough, but needs a re-edit and re-organization. In fact, it may be too thorough - if some of the details were shortened, the organization task would be easier. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've done some reorganization and rewording as you suggested. In particular, I've clarified that the modern economy (including Northwest Airlines) and that arts and culture aren't strictly postwar developments. I also reworked and shortened the Mayo Brothers paragraph (it's no longer a "hot bed"). I want to address a few points:
  • I've linked middlings, but I need to write an article for it (because featured articles shouldn't have red links).
  • Actually, I wrote an article on middlings purifier instead. It turned out to be a better explanation of the topic.
  • The article on Camp Savage was unclear about the fact that they were teaching Japanese to Japanese-Americans (Nisei). I've fixed that article.
  • The settlers must have been fertile, or else the population wouldn't have grown. (Just kidding. It was a statement about the soil, and I fixed that.)
  • I've standardized the name of Saint Anthony Falls, Saint Paul, and Ojibwa throughout. I don't know for sure if Father Hennepin used the words "Saint Anthony Falls" or "Falls of Saint Anthony", but I'll check.
  • As far as the importance of Fort Snelling is concerned, I think it deserves a section as big as it is. The fort wasn't just a fort to itself -- it spurred the development of Minneapolis, via its proximity to Saint Anthony Falls, and Saint Paul, because of the squatters who were forced to move downriver.
  • I couldn't find any references that said why Eliza Winston was freed while Dred Scott wasn't. Any speculation on my part would be original research. In any case, Eliza Winston wasn't a major figure in Minnesota history like Dred Scott was, so I removed the section on Eliza Winston.
  • I'll have to find references I can cite for Jesse Ventura. I think the few sentences there are a summation of news stories that we've read over the past several years, but to someone outside the state, it isn't obvious.
  • I rewrote those sentences using citeable references. It turned out to be more fact-based that way, instead of being just observations from four years of news stories.
Thanks for your comments. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, I've struck the objection. I still think the Fort Snelling section is too big for what it has in it, it may be important, but the section doesn't say that. For example, the word Minneapolis isn't anywhere in it, (though it is in an image caption way up, it's not connected, and uncited) Mendota is mentioned without explaining that it is important due to being one of the oldest settlements still around, and Taliaferro and Dred Scott's wife are both mentioned but not connected. The mention of Saint Paul is stuck in the middle of a paragraph about some wandering squatters, so I barely found it. Rephrase so it leads the paragraph. Parrant is just a name-drop without mentioning he was the first white settler. And so forth and so on. Tighten all that, fix my remaining nitpicks that you didn't get to above, the few new ones below, and I'll support. By the way, I notice the Dred Scott business isn't even mentioned in the Fort Snelling article.
  • In 1846, he prevented Iowa from including... In 1847, he kept...- how did he prevent or keep? Why was he such a MN backer, being from IL?
  • tourists from southern climates sailed up the Mississippi - what does this have to do with the Civil War? If you're trying to say that tourism was a big industry in MN, move it to the economic development section - as is, it's the only non-war sentence in a section on 2 wars.
  • Say a few words about the Twin Cities being twin, and the most important cities in modern MN.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Supporting, you got basically everything. I'm still not sure how or why Douglas stopped Iowa from taking Ft. Snelling, etc., but presumably from some kind of political maneuver, no big deal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not bad, but needs sifting through to correct problems in language and logic. Here are just a few examples from the top.

  • What is "a more prominent state government"?
  • "the state today is a center for banking, computers and health care." Health care is everywhere; what does this mean? Do people travel to Minnesota for treatment? Computers, likewise, are everywhere; what exactly does it mean?
  • "around the year 7500 BC" - remove "the year" as redundant.
  • "Subsequently, extensive trading networks began to develop in the region." I see a lot of this expression "began to ..." on WP. Get rid of it: "... networks developed in the region".
  • "native people transitioned from hunting big game toward smaller creatures" - what, the native people became smaller creatures?
  • portions of what is now Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada"; match US states with Canadian provinces, please.
  • "At the time of European contact, the region was inhabited by" - Does this refer to the many centuries of Eur. contact, or the initial contact through invasion? Tony 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made revisions to the sections you mentioned. I had to revise the big-game hunting reference a little more than that, because the source said that large animals (such as wooly mammoths) had become extinct, whereas this article just made it sound like they changed their preferences. As far as the references to portions of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Canada, this source just gives portions of southern Canada, without mentioning provinces specifically. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:19, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Tornado[edit]

After nearly a year of improvements, a complete re-write, and several branch-off articles, I think it's finally ready for FAC. Fire away! -RunningOnBrains 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As of the present version, many references need fixing. There are some citations which are just link to external sources. These need to be fixed, that is properly cited, with title, author name, publisher, date of access etc. Again, a few of access dates are not properly formated. Apparently looks to be a very informative article. Will read it soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a need for nineteen images in this article? It corrupts the formatting. Also, footnotes need to go directly after punctuation. Slof 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could remove a few images to help the format, but for a very visual subject such as tornadoes a fair amount of images is necessary IMHO. On the references, I forgot to fix them before bringing the article to FAC...I'm fixing them as we speak.-RunningOnBrains 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very nice article. However, seems to be low in inline citations. Please provide more citations, especially in sections like "Life cycle", "Shape", "Appearance", "Extremes". And I support your view of containing a fair number of images. Their impact is great. The blank space to the right of the list in "See also" can be used for accomodating one or two images in case those become hard to incorporate in main body of the article for formatting problems. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that there are a few sections which could use a few more citations. However, there are some sections where I purposefully omitted references because they contain a wikilink to the subject, and that wikilink provides the needed sources. In my opinion this reduces clutter, but I don't know how the rest of the editing community feels about it. It's quite hard to interpret that "where appropriate" statement in the FA criteria. -RunningOnBrains 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you. The sections I mentioned are quite professional and its imperative that those are based on easily verifiable sources. "Where appropriate" is somewhat vague, especially for the main author of the article. If you say, I can go and add some citation needed tags where I feel inline citations are needed. You can just check them and provide citations. What do you say? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Unfortunately, I don't have guaranteed internet access until Saturday (they're "fixing" the internet where I live) but after that I should have no problem doing the research. -RunningOnBrains 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the number of pictures in this article is adequate, and they serve to illustrate the subject very well and to explain the difference between tornado types. One nitpick: A few of the references are just bare URLs. They should be cited with the {{Cite web}} format. Also, there are several paragraphs in a row that don't specifically cite a reference, but then there's a reference at the end of the series. Does that imply that all of those paragraphs have the same reference? (I suspect it does, but you might want to make those references explicit). As far as the content and readability goes, I support the article fully. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have finished fixing the refs to {{cite web}}. I also introduced a few more refs (or just added more footnotes for refs already on the page) in sections that were a bit sparse. If you see an area where you think there still should be a reference, let me know, or just slap a {{fact}} tag on it. -RunningOnBrains 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have added several citation needed tags in the article. Please address those. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of the {{fact}} tags aside one, which I must take issue with. It seems to me that it's common knowledge that dust kicked up by the winds of the parent thunderstorm, heavy rain and hail, and the darkness of night can make tornadoes impossible to see. I don't really see why that needs a citation. I suppose I could dig one up if you really think it needs one. -RunningOnBrains 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I peer-reviewed this article and I still think that it needs more references, specifically print sources WP:ATT. There must be a lot of published research on tornadoes, so surely some of your research should come from the scientific literature? Also, I also still think that the "Further Reading" section could be expanded. If it is only going to have one book, you might as well delete it. Also, there seem to be an excessive number of internal wikipedia links and external links - can you prune just a bit? I am almost ready to support this article. As I said in the peer-review, I do think it is quite good (and, by the way, I also think the images are very instructive). Awadewit 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went to the library today, and ordered as many good books as I could on Inter-library loan...unfortunately they wont be here til end of next week. Not sure if you just want to wait it out until then, but I will get more print resources in the article.
Also, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but most of my sources are NOAA, AMS, or other official government (US and international) sources. I'm pretty sure these are just as good, if not better, than print sources. Additionally, I did prune the external links a bit, let me know if you think more need to go.-RunningOnBrains 07:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that. I know that those are reliable sources but websites change over time which can make it difficult to be sure that the information you cited is still there and asking readers to dig up cached versions is, in my opinion, needlessly time consuming. Awadewit 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. While I'm sure I will not be able to find a print source for everything, I am sure that I can get rid of about half of the online refs. It may take me a week or more, though, since I don't actually have books to work with yet. -RunningOnBrains 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that everything has to have a print source. I would think that definitions and the basic descriptive facts would, though. I love ILL, don't you? Awadewit 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... Sorry about my recent absence...First, I was waiting to receive print sources from other libraries (which I now have), secondly, my computer was self-destructing, but I believe I have it in tip-top shape right now. I will start work on the article first thing tomorrow. -RunningOnBrains 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runningonbrains, I believe you accidentally substituted the Template:cite book using {{subtst:cite book|...}}. I have changed this. --Kevinkor2 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconspicuous section break[edit]

I believe most-to-all of the concerns have been addressed. I am awaiting comments. -RunningOnBrains 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is an excellent article. It is well-written, comprehensive and reliably-sourced. I feel that it is accessible to the general reader and its illustrations help the reader understand the text. There are just a few minor details that need to be fixed: 1) Not all of the notes are formatted exactly the same way; 2) The "Further Reading" can be removed since the book is cited in the notes; 3) There are still too many external links for my taste (this is less important than the first two). Awadewit 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, the article now has book citations as demanded previously. The image in "Continuing research" section is creating a conspicuous white blank space. Either the content of that section should be increased, or the image removed (elsewhere?). The image can be shifted down to the right of the list in "See also". Any other idea? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I may have made it better, I just removed the {{clear}} and the commons and portal boxes. -RunningOnBrains 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, informative, interesting, visually appealing. Just address the single citation needed template that is still there in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Beautiful article, I like the images, but there are more than a few points that need correction, and while many are trivial, some are serious. Will happily support if you fix them.
    • Detection section apparently only describes the United States (local Weather Forecast Office...). Since you say right at the top that most tornadoes are in the US, that's not fatal, but it would still be nice to mention what other countries do. If you don't have time to do that, then at least specify that this addresses detection in the US, and not elsewhere. The Prediction section is much better for that - how about merging the two?
      • At one point Prediction and Detection was one section, but peer review advised a split. I thought they worked better as one long section, so if there's support to change it back I'd be glad to. -RunningOnBrains 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tornado/archive1 and don't quite see that's such an explicit recommendation. Anyway, if you can say something about detection by other countries, that will do. If the same agencies do both detection and prediction, then a merge does seem called for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess it was discussion outside of peer review. Regardless, I'll get on merging the two. -RunningOnBrains 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Upon further investigation I really can't find a way to cleanly merge these two sections. I have put them one after the other at least, I hope this is enough. -RunningOnBrains 01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • All right, if you can't, you can't, but you can do these things:
                1. In trying to merge, you renamed the section to "Prediction and detection" ... which is still followed by "Detection". If the first section doesn't cover both, it shouldn't be named as if it does.
                2. In the Detection section, specify that the Weather Forecast Offices and National Weather Service refer to the US only.
                3. In the United States and a few other countries, doppler weather radar stations are used, mainly in the United States, - take one of the US's from here. If you can, specify the other countries and/or cite this sentence, in case someone wants to know the other countries. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though scientists have learned much from years of research, there are still many things about tornadoes which remain a mystery. - sounds like a children's textbook. Rephrase, and, if there are that many mysteries, list several of the important ones.
    • Research programs, including VORTEX - since that's a red link, you need to at least give a few words about what that acronym means
    • May 3, 1999 - wikilink per WP:DATE
    • there are precautions and preventative measures that you can take - Wp:mos#Avoid_second-person_pronouns
      • I strongly oppose this change. Rules are meant to be applied logically; they are not meant to be blindly followed. Since this is safety guideline, it should most definitely be "you." Readers remember instructions in the second-person - they believe it applies to them. Safety instructions given in the third person apply to someone else - "them." Awadewit 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. That's not guideline, that's policy. If you make it third person, we can at least argue that we aren't giving instructions, we're discussing what such instructions issued by reputable third party sources usually say, which is a legitimate topic related to tornadoes. If you keep it second person, we're pretty clearly giving instructions, which is against our policy, and opens up a huge can of worms with liability, etc. Yes, it's a fine point, but FAs should be a model for other articles to follow, spotless, as close to perfect as we can get them. Blatantly violating not only WP:MOS, but also WP:NOT, both in the same sentence, is not good. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you might as well delete the whole section because third-person is a pretty thin leg to stand on, in my opinion. If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't buy it. Awadewit 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You clearly haven't looked at how much lawyers will buy :-). Anyway, look at, say, Chess#Rules or Chess#Strategy_and_tactics (a featured article, by the way) to see how we can talk about instructions, without giving instructions. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm afraid I know all too well. Anyway, I believe chess would be a false analogy. No one dies in chess. BTW, the second-person "guideline" is not a policy. Awadewit 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:MOS is a guideline, WP:NOT is a policy, I thought that's what I wrote. Influenza#Prevention may be a closer analogy, also a FA talking about health and safety instructions, but not strictly giving them. If you write that's a false analogy since no one gets blown hundreds of yards by a sneeze, I'll give up. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Don't make me separate you two.  :-P I really don't see how anything is lost by changing the "you" to "people". The point of the section is not to give instructions, it is to describe precautions which save lives, as recommended by official sources. Plus, it's a very unencyclopedic thing to do...i can't see EB giving its readers instructions. So I changed it. -RunningOnBrains 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. -RunningOnBrains 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • North America - wikilink
    • List of Canadian Tornadoes - lower case T
    • The See Also list is long, and its inclusion criteria are not obvious. Why is NLM cityhopper individually in the see also? Presumably we have dozens of articles about individual tornadoes, why this one specifically? Why are dust devil, supercell listed here, but waterspout, landspout and others from the Definitions section not? I'd remove the redundancies, to shorten the list.
    • "Tornadoes are the most violent weather events in the world. As such, they have been recorded to produce some incredible phenomena." - debatable, and meaningless. Hurricanes arguably do more damage as they usually cover more area, and lightning bolts clearly do more damage to the much smaller area they actually hit and can start tremendous forest fires. Let the facts speak for themselves. Strike.
    • Worldwide, most tornadoes occur in the late afternoon, between the hours of 3 and 7 pm local time, with a peak near 5 pm.[34][35][36][37][38] - Yikes! Sure, you need one or two cites for this, but five? How about moving or sharing some with the earlier paragraph "Other areas of the world that have more frequent strong tornadoes" which doesn't have any citations at all?
      • I believe the number of refs is necessary to backup the statement's condition: "worldwide". No source I could find mentioned tornado climatology worldwide, but for each individual area I was able to find mentioned the same time. I cannot back up the statement without using that number of refs. I have consolidated the two previous paragraphs to be verifiable.-RunningOnBrains 03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'll accept that. Can you still cite the list of "other areas of the world" sentence? If you have to, just repeat your 5 links... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. -RunningOnBrains 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now I'm down to nitpicking, but I followed that link you gave to the NCDC, and it seems to refer to the Encyclopedia Brittanica for that bit about other countries; the EB article does seem to have more for that. Can you change to that link? --12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "de facto official" ? What does that mean? How about "authoritative" or some other word? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object until the following are dealt with:
    1. Find a reference for the "popular terms".
    2. The third paragraph of #Definitions is funky, and sounds almost too choppy. "A funnel cloud is a low-hanging vertically rotating cloud, with no associated strong winds at the surface." -> are you sure the comma goes there? It just sounds wrong to the "inner ear", if you want to call it that. "Funnel clouds are not tornadoes, and not all funnel clouds evolve into a tornado." -> should it be "not all funnel clouds evolve into tornadoes"? Wikilink "pressure, by the way.
    3. "Stronger tornadoes are most observed to have multiple vortices," -> Most is awkward there. You mean "Most stronger tornadoes are observed" or "Most multiple vortices are observed in stronger tornadoes"?
    4. Reference needed for the 6-24 hr definition of a tornadic outbreak.
    5. Give a bit more info about waterspouts, then split the paragraph into waterspouts and fair weather waterspouts. Currently, the paragraph seems just like two paragraphs were combined into one by removing the space between them.
    6. Not a requirement, but a Doppler NEXRAD loop of the development of the hook echos would be extremely informative.
    7. Give a reference for 4-8pm, as you've given a reference for 3-7pm farther down the article. It actually said "late afternoon". Fixed. -RunningOnBrains 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8. "here is mounting evidence, including DOW mobile radar images and eyewitness accounts, which suggest that most tornadoes have a clear, calm center with extremely low pressure, akin to the eye found in tropical cyclones." What is DOW? It's a mobile doppler weather radar unit. Have added wikilink. -RunningOnBrains 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    9. "Bangladesh and surrounding areas of eastern India suffer from tornadoes of equal severity to those in the US with more regularity than any other region in the world, however these occur with a greater recurrence interval, and tend to be under-reported due to the scarcity of media coverage in a third-world country." -> plural, again - should it be "third world countries".
    10. Give a reference for the time of the Gainesville Tornado. It is referenced in the linked article, but I provided a reference anyway. -RunningOnBrains 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have followed all recommendations above, aside from merging prediction and detection (I just don't see it working smoothly) and the bit about the waterspout paragraph (I believe that it is ok the way it is). -RunningOnBrains 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few of my points left, above. They'll minor, so I'll withdraw my objection, and will change to support if you fix those. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't find a reference for the 24-hour tornadic outbreak. Galway (1977) puts the definition of a small tornado outbreak at 6-10 tornadoes, but it doesn't indicate any time span. The slang terms have not been covered either; I was hoping Reference #8 contained them, but I couldn't find the book, as the reference itself is incomplete. While the other recommendations have been addressed (and I'm ok with not the waterspout, as it boils down to a matter of style preference), I'll hold the objection until those two concerns (plus the formatting of the reference) are addressed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean to remove the mention of the timeframe. It was another one of those things that was added by an another user without a reference that I never got around to deleting or referencing. As for slang terms, I'll get on it, but it looks like its going to have to be strewn with references to make it work. -RunningOnBrains 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I have decided to just omit the slang section...it's not really necessary anyway. -RunningOnBrains 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -RunningOnBrains 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Some more nit-picking: Wikilink units in the lede. While it is obvious what "mph" stands for, it should be linked once per article, and then at other points at your discretion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done -RunningOnBrains 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. More nit-picking: why is there a link to Wiktionary (wikt:cycle) instead of the corresponding article (cycle)? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because all of those articles are on specialized cycles and do not give a definition for cyclical, which is what the confused reader would need. If you think it should be changed I'll change it, but I think it's ok the way it is.-RunningOnBrains 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fair enough. It's extremely minor anyways. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:17, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Coeliac disease[edit]

Previously nominated 2005-10-08 (old nom). Over the last few months there's been a lot of work on this article, initially from myself but later with the help of Samir and Pdeitiker, amongst others. It now has a lot of supporting content, bags of references, and is fairly well organised. When I'd one a lot of editing, I asked for external expert review by Prof Paul Ciclitira of King's College, London (the author of the UK guidelines on the disease and also principal contributor to the American/AGA guidelines); it was reviewed by one of his researchers and found to be in good form. I think it's ready for featured status. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from nominator. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears excellent, after a cursory look (I will read it more thoroughly later). I am, however, slightly troubled by the seven unsourced statements I counted (tagged with {{fact}}). I'd also like to see more of the redlinks go, such as avenin, zonulin, radiation enteritis (is that a distinct entity? If so we should have an article on it :) and prolyl endopeptidase, even if just stubs. The prose in the third paragraph of the "Genetics" subsection could also use a bit of polishing IMHO. Fvasconcellos 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those articles are on subjects I personally don't know a lot about. I'll have a look at the genetics bit. Generally, this tends to be technical stuff that is exceptionally hard to explain in layperson's terms. JFW | T@lk 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the quick stubs, you don't have to create them yourself if you're not familiar! I'm more concerned about the unsourced statements, and I get that the Genetics bit is difficult to explain—it's not bad at all, I just felt it could be better. :) Fvasconcellos 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Stubs were easy. I'd just been lazy. Any help with the unsourced statements and the genetics stuff is appreciated. JFW | T@lk 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some quick citations for the Screening subsection, thanks to this nice review and a PubMed search. I hope they're appropriate, as I only had access to abstracts. I'll see what else I can come up with tomorrow. Fvasconcellos 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a great article, congrat for the writers. Only some suggestions:
    • "approximately 5% of patients diagnosed with IBS may have underlying coeliac disease." (I couldn't find a reference for it)
    • The Malabsorption-related section, the Epidemiology and the Screening and case finding sections contain several citation needed templates.
      •  Done. Most of the poorly sourced content was speculative anyway. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference No. 19 belongs to the whole Four serological blood tests exist for coeliac disease subsection?
      • This needs work. Seen a good review recently? JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Reworked completely with a useful in-depth reference. Avoided number crunching. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Many doctors consider coeliac disease..." (weasel words?
      • Simply calling for a source. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I've killed it. This practice is nefarious. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints section, there is an external link that should be a reference.
      •  Done Removed two poorly sourced religion sections. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional external links? the leading charity working for people with coeliac disease; www.celiac.com; Celiac Disease Foundation
    • Thank in advance. NCurse work 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a very comprehensive article, and well referenced. It is, however, a bit dry to read. There's a lot of detail but perhaps not enough sentences that summarise or conclude. So the reader has to work hard to extract the information and may miss things. Some of the "Blood tests" section may be too detailed for a general reader. The 2nd bullet-point in particular is eye-glazing and overlong. The "Pathophysiology" section is tough going and may put readers off reading the later sections, which are easier and important (could it be moved). It would be helpful to have an intro paragraph in "Genetics" for the lay reader that avoids the long strings of letter/number codes, which just make you want to skim. I suspect the information in the third paragraph is beyond and of little interest to those without specialist medical genetics training – and therefore should be greatly simplified and/or some detail dropped. Most readers won't persevere with this section and so come away with nothing, whereas I'm sure there are many points they could grasp. Some of the linked refs (and eMedicine articles) are easier to read in places, despite being aimed at professionals. Perhaps a copyeditor can make the language more engaging and expand the audience. Colin°Talk 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Your help is appreciated. Perhaps you could identify the worst examples of dry prose and lack of summary. It always remains hard to gauge exactly how much we can expect from the general readership.
      The driest prose is generally found where bullet-point-lists are used rather than paragraphs, and where there are single-sentence paragraphs. It reaches PowerPoint terseness occasionally. For example: "Miscarriage and infertility", which isn't a sentence. This teases the reader with a hint of information but is unsatisfying. I'd want to know how common and serious those problems are, and whether they go away on the diet. I think almost all of these bullet lists could be changed to prose (an exception is the Marsh classification, which is an ordered list). Merely eliding the bullets to form one paragraph won't fix it, though. The style needs to change from just listing facts.
      An example of inadequate summary is Diagnosis. It currently says "There are several tests that can be used to assist diagnosis." This is too vague. From reading the whole article, and some of the refs, there are some main points to get across:
      • Blood tests are cheap, easy, sensitive and specific. This is often done first (I haven't manage to find why the "order of the tests" might be different. Perhaps if there is little doubt, it is only required for establishing baseline levels).
      • A small intestinal biopsy is widely considered mandatory to confirm the diagnosis. (Clearly this is an unpleasant procedure)
      • There are several blood tests. More than one kind may be required. Older tests were not as reliable.
      • The tests must be done while the person is on a gluten diet (as currently noted).
      • Both the blood tests and the biopsy may be repeated after starting the GFD to confirm its effect.
      (If I've got some of those wrong, it is not important for this discussion.) I think it would help to look at each section (e.g. Genetics) and consider what key points you want to get across. Explain these points, rather than expecting the reader to collate and weigh the individual micro-facts. Colin°Talk 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Most of the serology content is not adequately sourced. I will work on this. That will also be a good opportunity to make the prose more digestable.
      Follow-up: I've emailed Dr Dieterich, first author of the study that identified tTG as epitope. She recommended PMID 12959764, of which I will order the fulltext as soon as possible. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Pathophysiology should remain where it is. I agree the genetics material is technical (Pdeitiker seems to have a research interest here), but the "treatment" section makes no sense without it. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a lot of work still needed, some which can be guided by WP:MEDMOS (for example, there's no prognosis section). Some of the sections are unnecessarily inaccessible to laypersons. Attention to Wikilinking is needed (the first I noticed was IgG—the first occurrence isn't linked, although it is linked later). An independent copyedit may help; for example, the and clause doesn't flow well here in the lead—Symptoms may include diarrhoea, failure to thrive (in children) and fatigue, but these may be absent and associated symptoms in all other organ systems have been described.) It would be helpful if a section heading other than "Miscellaneous" could be found. Prose problems in this sentence: However, the variety of gastrointestinal symptoms that may be present in patients with coeliac disease is great, and even constipation is seen, in some series comprising up to a third of patients. Several sections are listy and could be converted to prose. > could be replaced with greater than. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd appreciate some help in putting through relatively simple fixes (wording, stylistic, links). I could prosaify lists only if the items were conceptually related. At the moment the lists are not in the majority and I feel no changes should be made. I have revised the constipation sentence because I was unable to source it. JFW | T@lk 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Most recommendations adopted. I wish to defend the use of "miscelaneous"; the article states quite clearly that these symptoms have an unclear causative relationship with villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment I've had another read, and the article has improved quite a bit—I especially like the complete absence of {{fact}} tags :). I would have no problem supporting it, if it weren't for the "Genetics" section, which is still cumbersome and makes for very dry, "clinical" (obviously, no pun intended) reading. I realize there's probably not much that can be done about this, but I'd like to see someone have a go at it. Fvasconcellos 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will have a stab at this later on today. I'd really like this to go to FA. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, looking better. There is still room for improvement in the "Genetics" section in my humble opinion, but the prose is cleaner, and the section is (to me at least) entirely comprehensible, although I don't know how it would read to someone with no biomedical "background" whatsoever. "Tissue transglutaminase" could also use some more wikification. I like the recent fleshing out of "History", by the way, and am leaning ever closer to a Support :) Fvasconcellos 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it looks good, except for the extra "o" you put in "celiac"... MastCell Talk 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --WS 11:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It looks good for me too. Nice job JFW! NCurse work 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Western Chalukya Empire[edit]

The article was nominated for peer review two weeks back and did not receive any comments. The article however is fully compatible with recent successful India History FA's. It is well cited, the citations are in the correct format, the format of the sections follows recent India History FA's closely. The Western Chalukyas played an important role in the history of South India in general and Karnataka more specifically, especially in the field of architecture and Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why Western? Eastern should be differenciated in the lead.

Reply-->If the question is why they are called Western Chalukyas, this is what many historians call them to differentiate from the contemporeneous Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. Equally they are called "Kalyani Chalukyas" , sometimes "Chalukyas of Kalyani" and only ocassionally "Later Chalukyas". I have differentiated between western and eastern in the lead now.thanksDineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Text should not be in parenthesis in the lead. Bad flow

reply-->removed parenthesis. working on flow.thanksDineshkannambadi 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fall of the empire could be expanded. How did they lose out?

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 8th century etc. would be more readable if spelled out.

DoneDineshkannambadi 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Imperial eq to metric would be useful

Corrected terminology of measure. Its grains not grams.sorry. added linkDineshkannambadi 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tungabhadra river --> River should be in cap, rem link

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too much blue: Remove excess linking of common nouns, (leopard) and duplicate links

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-breaking space needs to be used between a number and unit. (&nbsp;) -- See WP:MoS

Done by User:Dwaipayanc.thanksDineshkannambadi 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox seems to be missing some data.

Reply-->not sure what is missing. A pointer would help.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavata, Puranas and Vedas. -- rem italics

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Balligavi image would look better if moved to ==Notes==

Done'Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply--> I shall look into this tonight.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The "History" section ends with Chalukya dynasty was ended by the Seuna rulers who drove Somesvara IV into exile in 1189. But the infobox tells that Somesvara IV was followed by Veera Ballala II of Hoysala Empire. Did not Seunas rulers become next kings? This portion needs slight clarification.

Reply Good question. When the Western Chalukyas weakened, four empires emerged from their ruins. The Hoysalas, Seunas, Kakatiyas and Southern Kalachuri. There was a time frame between 1150-1185 when the region which is todays northern Karnataka and Southern Maharashtra may have been in flux untill the Kalachuri themselves (having been the earliest to have taken control of Kalyani) vanished into oblivion by 1190.Then the fight for control of this region between the Seuna and Hoysalas continued when the Chalukyas were still around. Each of the four empires were responsible for the down fall of the Western Chalukyas and I should include names of all kings who brought them down. Kakatiya Prolla took Chalukya Tailapa III captive and released him, Hoysala Narasimha I killed Tailapa III little later, the Seuna drove his successor out of Kalyani. The Kalachuri's were the first to draw blood by taking over Kalyani itself in ~1150 for about 20 years. The reason I mentioned only Hoysala Vera Ballala II is because the Hoysalas essentially succceded the the Chalukyas in Karnataka. But the Seunas did control northern Karnataka (north of Krishna river) for significant periods and should be mentioned too. I will take care of this.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have left out the Kalachuris because they too went into oblivion at the same time as Chalukyas, though they were the first to capture Kalyani.Is that ok?Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Western Chalukyas minted punch-marked gold pagodas with Kannada and Nagari legends... What does Pagoda mean. I thought pagoda means Pagoda! Could not read the whole article, will comment later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply->I shall find a definition for this if I can.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe the usage of the term Pagoda came into existance because of the presence of temple like designs on reverse or obverse of the coin. Please see this link for an explanation. The author, Govindaraya Prabhu is a well known numismatist from Karnataka.[15]Dineshkannambadi 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could not get this - The first song ever written in any Marathi text is in praise of Buddha avatar, in the Sanskrit work Manasollasa. If it a Marathi text, how can it be in the Sanskrit work?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This info was originally brought in by Admin User:utcursch. What it perhaps means is that some of the poems in the writing Manasollasa may have been the earliest Marathi language poems (songs) written in Sanskrit (Nagari) script. I will read the linked web page in the citation and see if I can bring more clarity. If it is not clear what it means perhaps we should remove this citation.Dineshkannambadi 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the Literature section should be used to write only about

great literary classics and poets (a few, given the limited space), important literary developments and traditions.Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC) The Manasollasa is a famous Sanskrit language work.Dineshkannambadi 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I verified from my sources that Manasollosa is indeed a Sanskrit writing (Sastri 1955, p315), (Kamath 2001, p114), (Thapar 2002, 393) (Dr. Jyotsna Kamat [16]). In the citation#84, Dhere may have been refereing to a poem(s) in this otherwise Sanskrit literature.Dineshkannambadi 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Shall I rename this article "Western Chalukya Empire"?Dineshkannambadi 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply IMO Western Chalukya empire is better, because it is more clear. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply If I just made the name change with the "move" option, how would that effect the FA nomination. I guess I would have to go to FA:WAC and change the name there too, right?Dineshkannambadi 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure that the link in the title points to the correct article title. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well sourced, interesting, whatever minor errors may be present are those we can safely assume will be taken care of by Mr. Kannambadi.Bakaman 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Very good article Tomer T 13:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Excellent article, very well written and well sourced. The flow has been impressive. - KNM Talk 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Concerns were properly addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be much easier to locate a specific source if they were alphabetical by last name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Fantastic work. Sarvagnya 10:40, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Durian[edit]

Previous FAC

Self-nomination. The article was prematurely nominated in July 2006 by another editor and failed. Since then I have been working to fix the problems and it appears to be completed now. Any objection will be responded promptly. --BorgQueen 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment for now WP:UNITS needs to be applied to this article. Gnangarra 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I think it has been taken care of now. Please check if I missed anything. --BorgQueen 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I now fully support the article and they really do taste great 8) Gnangarra 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...just reading about it makes me queasy. I gagged, couldn't hack the smell which was to me like armpit mixed with asparagus (yechhh!). But seriously, I think it fulfils all criteria but I am concerned about the flow of language in the lead, especially the first para - the sentences seem clunky. I feel teh label 'King of Fruit' should be in the first 1-2 sentences as it highlights the reverence this fruit is held in in SE Asia - something really highlighting how you either love it or hate it. I am happy to have a tinker but won't unless given permission and you want to try it first. I was also wondering whether teh lead should be a tiny bit longer given the length of the article but was unsure what else should go in it. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, you are welcome to lend a helping hand and edit the lead yourself (if that is what you meant). Although I am a bit nervous that you spell the as teh. :-D But I wouldn't mind if you are willing to fix the lead yourself. --BorgQueen 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha - ok, there. I know I mention smell and taste twice but I was trying to encapsulate what the key points are in the first sentence or two. With this plant i feel no text can overemphasise the issue on smell/taste....(feel free to tweak more) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it looks quite good now, and the lead has three paragraphs, which is the standard for a FA (as far as I know). Thanks for your help.  Done --BorgQueen 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like a bit of botany (which is why I added the sentence in the lead to show what economically important plants it is related to), actually the article is a little light on the botanical side of things but not enough to oppose. Sorry as I write this I am musing on the lead still to see if it is nice and tight yet. I might have to ruminate a bit..but it's improving. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support oh sod it - I keep playing around with it in my head and I can't see a better way of reworking the lead. I am happy now. Congrats (well, hopefully) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Support. Got to taste it once, very strange.
  • Some apparent OR on unreferenced paragraphs, including in the "Durian customs" section and third paragraph of the lead.
 Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and even cappuccino - POV.
 Done Removed "even". BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some durians really do have almost no spines - Reword to Some durians have shortened spines.
 Done The sentence, uncited, has been replaced with a cited one. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alphabetize interwiki links.
They are already alphabetized, beginning with bg:Дуриан, da:Durian, de:Durian, eo:Durio,... and ending with zh:榴槤. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, I got what you meant. I organized the links according to the order posted here. Please let me know if I missed anything.  Done --BorgQueen 02:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...creamy, slightly alcoholic - "alcoholic" improperly linked.
 Done The internal link has been removed. BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference USDA Nutrient database in the nutritional value chart using a regular reference rather than an external link.
 Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...some distance before excreting it, the seed being dispersed as the result - Change second part to ...with the seed being. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done BorgQueen 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little confused. Does this article about the fruit durian also represent the genus durio? --Idda 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just like the article about the black pepper also represent the species Piper nigrum. --BorgQueen 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. P. nigrum as a species is synonymous with black pepper. If I understand correctly, durian fruit is not a characterizing feature of the genus durio, albeit that is what its most known for. My point is the plant itself should the subject. Not that the fruit shouldn't comprise most of the article but I think as it stands the tree (genus) is given short shrift in the lead. --Idda 07:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See WP:NC (flora) for guidelines on articles that deal with botanical products. This article is excellent for its subject matter, but I'd remove the taxobox and create Durio to cover some of the material presented in the "Species" and "Cultivars" sections, then rewrite those in summary style (though they're pretty close as it is). The taxobox is a bit misleading, I think, since the article is about the fruit product and not about the genus. Of course, creation of the article Durio is not a requirement for my support of this article for FA status, but I think it would help make the focus of the article a bit more clear with two separate articles and use of summary style in Durian for genus-related topics in the article. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I tend to agree that a separate article on Durio as a genus in its strictly botanical sense would be helpful for the reader; above all, we have a huge load of material available on its cultivars (actually I had created a big table for the cultivars in 2006 but removed it because it was a bit overwhelming) and the current cultivar section is a summary, which means there is nothing much to be taken out of the current article even when the article about the genus is created, except the plant infobox. --BorgQueen 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now this is fixed. Weak Oppose, solely on part of the 'Medicinal Uses' section. "It is recommended as a good source of raw fats by several raw food advocates,[30][31] while others classify it as a high-glycemic fruit and recommend to minimise its consumption.[32] David Klein, a certified health consultant, instructs those with colitis or Crohn's disease to temporarily discontinue eating durian in his "vegan healing diet guidelines", classifying the fruit as one of fatty, high-protein foods". I'm not sure the sources for this section are medical or nutritional authorities. Do differing points of view amongst different sorts of vegans (quacks or not) really warrant inclusion here? If so, they probably shouldn't be in a 'medicinal' section. Otherwise, very good article, I will eat dozens of them on public transport next time I am in Singapore. The Land 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've renamed the section to "Nutritional and medicinal". Will this do? And why do you have to torture those poor Singaporeans that way? :-D --BorgQueen 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, I edited out the David Klein part and reworded the sentence. Please check if it is better now, in your view. --BorgQueen 12:26, 24 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Simeon I of Bulgaria[edit]

I've devoted quite a lot of time to the article, bringing it from this to its current state. It is extensively referenced using authoritative sources, thorough and, I believe, exhaustive, well-illustrated with media such as own-made SVG maps, miniatures, quotes and a family tree, accurate, neutral and stable.

Very importantly, the article is up-to-date with the modern historiographic treatment of the more obscure moments of Simeon's life (such as the 912 coronation and the proclamation of the patriarchate), for which I consulted Ian Mladjov, an instructor at the University of Michigan, via e-mail. As I'm not a native speaker, I requested a copyedit, which was carried out by Bcasterline, in order to meet the "well-written" requirement.

I chose to have footnotes in the lead section because I generally like to have even the general observations and summaries referenced. The article has had a peer review (though, unfortunately, by only a single person). Todor→Bozhinov 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support - well-written, extensively referenced, has the requisite nice pictures. Also informative, as it's on a topic the general reader may not be familiar with. Biruitorul 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One comment after reading this interesting article: instead of writing "(In German)" or "(In Bulgarian)" in your references section, I believe it is standard practice to use the language icons like this: {{In lang|bg}} for (in Bulgarian) and {{de icon}} for (in German). JHMM13 03:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm...perhaps not. It appears to be a problem with the citation template. Oh well...nevermind what I said then. :-D JHMM13 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Wow! I've never seen an article with that many references before! Puts my Archaeopteryx above to shame! And considering it was in that state not long ago - this is a wonderful article. 10/10 for me - This deserves to be a FA. Well done. Perfect in almost everyway I can see. Regards, Spawn Man 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support -this is really splendid article : ) It has good range of maps and contemporary images which perfectly illustrate the well-written and informative text. --Gligan 09:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very well put-together and thoroughly polished. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per above. A benchmark. Manderiko 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against --Poemsnewly 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)removed as sock by Bonaparte.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspected sock puppet, now blocked. He should have at least provided some arguments, so I could work to improve the article... and to match his standards :) I'd appreciate it if someone strikes the vote. Todor→Bozhinov 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Domitius 19:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An opponent of the Byzantine empire?!! Agrrrr!!!! Well, you know ... I'll support, because it is a great, great, great (I want to make that clear!) article. Just a suggestion: Todor, it is not nice to have 3 or 4 citations in a row as you do in two occasions. You could combine these citations in one in various ways: just check what Sandy did in Tourette syndrome, me in El Greco, and Cla68 in Battle of Edson's Ridge. Just a suggestion you could think about.--Yannismarou 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your support! I really like your suggestion and tomorrow I'll revise the citations so as to leave only one footnote at each place and no rows of two or more. The bullet way to do that (as in your impressive El Greco article) seems most appropriate and neat, particularly where I have three or four citations and simply listing them separated by commas might be somewhat confusing. Todor→Bozhinov 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, though I decided to only merge clusters of more than two citations (per your suggestion), because if I'd merged those of two only, that would have required too large a reorganization of <ref name> tags and at the same time wouldn't have been of too much help. Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Absolutely amazing. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Few nitpicks: 1) "Boris, who had retreated to a monastery" - do we know which monastery? 2) "punish Vladimir" - how? 3) possible article to be stubbed (I notice the article has no red links - this is not good, as it discourages creation of new articles): assembly in Preslav, Gavril, Nikephoros Phokas, Byzantine navy, Leo Magister, Constantine Doukas, Leo Phokas, Mihailo Višević, Theodore Sigritsa, Marmais, Pavle Branović, Zaharije Pribisavljević, George Sursuvul 4) "Simeon's two encounters with the enemy in Northern Dobruja were unsuccessful" - was he defeated? Sounds 'weaselish' 5) "which was largely what Simeon had planned to do" - how? 6) some language is a little unencyclopedic: lots of 'annihilations', 'desperate pleas' amd such. I'd say that the article is very pro-Simeon, but as I have little knowledge of that period and place I will not object based on my fillings - but are all sources presenting him as such a great and wise rulers? Is there no criticism? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, I don't think we know the name of the monastery.
  2. According to some sources, by blinding him, but I don't think this is relevant in the context of the article. We have Vladimir of Bulgaria, after all :)
  3. In the past I've been criticized for leaving any red links, and some of the figures you've listed, while notable, are very scarcely attested, so I don't think we could have anything more than stubs on most of them.
    Well, I am criticizing you for not enough red links :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, he was defeated, but I thought my wording makes it clear... it seems like I'll have to reword.  Done
  5. This is mentioned several times. E.g., by betrothing his daughter to the infant Constantine VII, by forcefully conquering Constantinople...
  6. Romanos' pleas really were desperate. Would you like some? :) He says he "wouldn't fall silent, would clatter, would constantly remind [of the peace] and reprimand, until Simeon's heart opens for sympathy" and he "wouldn't spare neither gold nor silver nor precious garments nor any other necessary thing", as long as Simeon agrees to peace. As for the annihilations, that's what the sources say, and I'm inclined to think they really were such. The Byzantines themselves say they were "infamously slain" at Anchialos, for example.
  7. Yes, there was criticism, mainly related to the "Byzantineness" of Golden-Age Bulgarian culture and its supposed shortage of originality, as well as to the endless campaigns towards the end of his reign, which according to some exhausted the Bulgarian state. But notice I haven't said he was wise and great anywhere :)
  8. And... thanks for the support! Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Are you sure references have to be small? I was so accustomed to seeing them in standard size that they look somehow weird to me now ;) Todor→Bozhinov 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to change them back (I was just following El Greco). Cheers, S.D. 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please eliminate the jump to an external website in Legacy and popular culture; it can be added to external links or cited as a reference, but external jumps shouldn't be in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Campbell's Soup Cans[edit]

Many of the objections to this article have been rendered moot, and I'd like some fresh opinions, so I'm resetting this nomination. (old nom) Raul654 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly sSupport, just two issues left about which I’m not quite happy: the Phases and Today sections are too short (merge under a common heading?) and the sentence ‘Most of the images on this page are from that phase.’ should be removed outright. —xyzzyn 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion.  Done TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The following section, from the lead
The combination of the semi-mechanized process, the non-painterly style, and the commercial subject
initially caused offense, as the work's blatantly mundane commercialism represented a direct affront
to the technique and philosophy of Abstract expressionism. The Abstract expressionism art movement
was dominant during the post-war period, and it held not only to "fine art" values and aesthetics
but also to a mystical inclination. This controversy led to a great deal of debate about the merits
and ethics of such work. Warhol's motives as an artist were questioned, and they continue to be
topical to this day. The public commotion helped transition Warhol from being an accomplished 1950s
commercial illustrator to a notable fine artist, and it helped distinguish him from other rising pop
artists. Although commercial demand for his paintings was not immediate, Warhol's association with
the subject lead to his name becoming synonymous with the Campbell's Soup can paintings.
needs citations. —Dark•Shikari[T] 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These sentences are summaries of the article that follows (because the lead is basically suppose to summarize the rest of the article). The first sentence is a sentence from my brain. The second is some help from Tyrenius. I don't know who contributed the others, but suspect that some of the help came from solid copyeditors TheQuandry and Ceoil.
    • At one point I was told either to include one citation in each para of intro or none in any. Full inline citation of summary items from an indepth article are possibly a bit much to ask because even some sentences are combining thougthts of many cited statements below. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sentences in the lead do not require inline citations, a lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It is assumed that the statements are sourced elsewhere. If they're not, then that's a problem but unsourced statements in the lead are fine. Quadzilla99 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (previous objections have been addressed) ShadowHalo 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (previous objections have been addressed) Johnbod 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not clear as to the relations of the first 2 section headers with the topic (especially seeing the length of "New York art scene"). Also, it sounds like they should be merged into a single "Background" or "prior career" section. Circeus 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as fair use issues have been addressed.Balloonman 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly Support as that seems to have worked well above. :-)
    • devolped?
      •  Done Heh. Either word works in the context, but I’ve picked ‘developed’ over ‘devolved’. —xyzzyn 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the juice box under Motivation, when it's not referred to there (it's apparently first referred to under Pop art)?
    • premier -> premiere, several places
    • minor variation in the lettering of the variety names - too much space is spent on describing trivial distinctions. Condense to a few sentences and examples, please.
      • A matter of taste. Another editor may choose to reedit. I will stand pat on this. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pop art section seems overcited. Are these facts so controversial and likely to be disputed that every sentence needs one or two refs?
      • Most of the citations are navigational and directional in the sense that they either send people to internet or text resources for further details on the specific fact. It is really little harm to have a few superscript numbers sprinkled in to give direction on further details. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • responsorial? It's a word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means ...[17]
      •  Done …more or less; couldn’t find a really good word that wouldn’t involve changing the sentence structure, though. —xyzzyn 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • West Coast debut of Pop art; Warhol continued painting other pop art; ... - pick either upper or lower case Pop, and use it throughout the article
    • (according to Marcel Duchamp)[48] - end of a sentence needs a period somewhere
    • The Abstract expressionism art movement - don't capitalize the A, see that article
    • (his career went through three distinct phases in which he expended a great deal of effort in this area) - vague and wordy. Rewrite, or just strike; it's explained in more detail in the article body.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. (Have copy edited the article). Per reasons give in my support of the previous nomination. Ceoil 19:43, 21 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Angel of Death (song)[edit]

I worked on this article over the past month, where it was a unreferenced stub. Since then it's had two peer-reviews, GA review (passed), has been copyedited by Ceoil with LuciferMorgan providing useful feedback on improving the article. I think it covers the song well and ready for FAC, if you have any objections i will deal with them promptly, thanks. M3tal H3ad 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. What an interesting read, especially the controversy section. Well-referenced, well-written, and well-illustrated. One comment, though: I wonder if it is possible to accomodate those of us with smaller screens and drop the Mengele picture down a paragraph because right now there are about 4-5 lines of empty space below the compositions and origins heading. Thanks, JHMM13 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a contributor at both peer reviews, and as a fellow member of the Slayer Wikiproject. LuciferMorgan 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Angel of Death" appears on the live compilation Ozzfest: Second Stage Live, so add this info to the "Appearances" section. LuciferMorgan 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The description of the image in the infobox says it's from a single. Should {{Infobox Single}} be used instead then? ShadowHalo 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. There are a few small things that could be adjusted (nothing enough to oppose):
    • The name of the album doesn't appear in the infobox.
    • Hanneman is instroduced as "Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman" in the "Compositions and origins" section. It might be better to make the first mention that he's the guitarist in the lead so that the context is clear to readers.
    • Image:JosefMengele1.jpg is pushing down the text. You can fix this by moving it directly after the infobox (the image will stay where it is and the text will move up) or by aligning it to the left.
    • It'd be good to have a better caption for the audio sample to give the readers something for which to listen. ShadowHalo 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done; though I'm not not quite sure what you've meant by a "better caption", nevertheless I've corrected the song's name. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuck the Millennium is a good example. It shows what the sample is illustrating so that readers have some idea of what to listen for. Based on the title of the link, it has to be a sample of "Angel of Death"; instead, you could rephrase or summarize the sentence "Araya bursts out his piercing scream, with Lombardo performing at an average of 210 beats per minute." Plus, it helps the fair use claim even more (not that there otherwise wouldn't be one). ShadowHalo 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and well-written. I would fix any concern myself on behalf of the WikiProject. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, comprehensive, a good read overall. ShadowHalo 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel bad because I think I pulled something like this on the Slayer FAC... but alas, the source [18] doesn't back up the claim "The lyrics detail Mengele's surgical experiments on patients at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II" (I changed "track" to "lyrics", but the source doesn't even mention Slayer). I came to notice this because the one defect I could find with the article was it doesn't really cover the actual lyrics in detail. It just says they're about "Mengele's surgical experiments"... in what way? Do they mention specific ones? Do they say anything else? An article about a song should contain some direct information about the lyrics, I think. I'm sorry if this seems pedantic... this is a really good article otherwise. But this one sentence should probably be 2-3, and have a better source. I'll look into it myself hopefully, if no one else does. --W.marsh 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was there for the things he did at Auschwitz, not that Slayer wrote about it, but i see your point and changed it slightly and added some references provided by Lucifer (thanks). M3tal H3ad 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (as a Slayer WikiProject member): happy that the article meets the criteria. Ceoil 10:29, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

George B. McClellan[edit]

I believe that this passes all criteria. It's extremely well-written, the only problem might be references. I personally think there's enough (at least 1 in every paragraph), but it that's a huge problem I'll add some.--Wizardman 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine the "Controversial legacy" and "In memoriam" sections into a single "Legacy" section, perhaps? The latter of those two should really be turned into a sentence or two of prose, rather than a bulleted list, as well. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Appears to be well written, indeed. There aren't areas where a citations is absolutely lacking. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It looks very well-written to me.--Yannismarou 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is far too long (64kb). I see two major problems:
  1. The article overuses quotations. This is an encyclopedia article, and not a full biography. Much of what is said in the quotations can be summarized in the text of the article.
  2. Much of the text goes into too much detail. Specifically, much of what is said in the "Peninsula Campaign" section is (or can be) covered at Peninsula Campaign. Likewise with "Maryland Campaign and the Battle of Antietam"/Battle of Antietam.
That being said, I think the article fails to meet Featured article criteria #4, and I cannot support its promotion. Caknuck 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a remark I regard as necessary: 64 kb is not long! Many currently promoted FAs are way over 80 and sometimes 90 kbs. Some of them exceeded even 100 kbs without this being a problem. After all, what matters is mainly how long is the prose, and not the whole article. Article with less than 50 kbs prose are usually OK. And I think that this article is OK on this issue. So, there is no reason to shorten the article IMO, since its length is fine. If it was really big, I would suggest WP:SS, but in this case I don't see such a necessity.--Yannismarou 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware that WP:SIZE is a guideline that is often disregarded w/ respect to FA's. Some topics can't be squeezed into 32kb, even with forking. My point is that the article is unnecessarily long to the point of affecting its readability. What sense is there in needlessly duplicating a description of an entire military campaign when a link to the main article (suprisingly not included in the relevant sections until several paragraphs in) would do the job more elegantly? Caknuck 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:LENGTH is not "often disregarded" on FAs, nor should it be. I'm aware of about five FAs that pass the recommended guidelines for readable prose, and those were all hotly debated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link may, indeed, be better placed nearer the top; but there's a limit to how much the material may be further condensed. Keep in mind that this is not aiming to present the entire campaings in question, but only McClellan's (significant) role in them; the articles on the campaigns themselves, meanwhile, are necessarily broader in scope, and would thus be poor replacements for the relevant sections here.
  • (The prose size is only about 52 kb, incidentally, which isn't that long for a major figure.) Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 50KB of readable prose is long, but within WP:LENGTH guidelines, so I won't oppose, but hope the article doesn't grow. Please complete the final reference, by including (at least) a publisher and last access date. (McClellan Society website) Samples can be found at WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--Wizardman 00:43, 26 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Homer's Phobia[edit]

I've been working on this article for a while. Originally it was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. And is in the same format as the recently promoted Cape Feare. It is a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come out. Gran2 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I support this acticle because it has a lot of detail... and very good article! Nice work! Fr4zer 12:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article meets the criteria exceptionally well. It uses proper citation templates, is detailed, is written from a NPOV, its prose is brilliant, features transwiki links, contains appropriate images and has excellent structuring.--Orthologist 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose While I would otherwise support (and not just out of my love for the show or this episode in particular), I don't like the lead at all. The second paragraph should be placed in the body of the article, as the point of the lead is to summate an article; this paragraph is not a summary and its contents are never really mentioned again. I also hate the third paragraph of the "Production" section. It does not have any wikilinking, and the DVD commentary is actually referenced too many times, including twice in the same sentence (which only contains a single clause). In fact, five times within "Production", the same reference is cited twice within a sentence, which is completely unnecessary. If these problems are fixed, I'll gladly change to support. -- Kicking222 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the uneccessary citation and changed the tone a little, and, although I agree with integrating the second paragraph of the lead section to the rest of the article, I can't think of where it should go. Any suggestions?--Orthologist 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked South Korea, and removed another uneccessary citation. I think the lead is fine, I added that part in so that it was longer and I don't see what's wrong with it. If it has to go, then there is no point in intergrating it, just delete it. If it does go then any other ideas as to expand the lead are welcomed. Gran2 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the second paragraph of the lead is important, as it references to previous episodes of the Simpsons and is quite general, stating that the episode was the first to have homosexuality as a centeral issue. It seems it is fine where it is.--Orthologist 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks to great work by Maitch and CanadianCaesar to fix up the lead and section, all problems that you cited have now been fixed. Gran2 04:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about this solution? The lede should summarize the main points of the article. That section wouldn't have to be at the bottom - wasn't sure where to put it. Also, we need to create stubs for any redlinks. MarkBuckles (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above if the paragraph can't be in the lead, I really see no point in it being there at all. And creating stubs to remove redlinks is not the best idea, especially as I can't find any information about them at all, just remove the links. Gran2 07:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Support While I still don't like how often the same source is cited in that one paragraph, the layout of the article is considerably better now, and the lead is much improved. This is an excellent article. -- Kicking222 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think it is wonderful that an article about a single episode is up to such a good standard. It is brilliantly well written, and well referenced. A little short, but I honestly think that much more would ruin it, as I don't think there is much mroe relevent information. Good job. J Milburn 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Almost forgot to vote. I've looked this article over several times and I am finally satisfied with it. Good job Gran. -- Scorpion 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is excellent work and I can't think of anything to add. --Maitch 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic article, well done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Of excellent quality and culturally significant.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:59, 25 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Wonderbra[edit]

Self-Nominated: After two months of work and very helpful feedback and contributions from the Wikipedia community, I think this article is ready for a hard look by the FA editors. I believe it meets the functional criteria of Featured Article status, so the question is whether the content is compelling enough, and writing is good enough to be featured. I think the content is compelling for a couple of reasons:

  • While the details of the history of this famous brand are available, they're usually glossed over by the hype of various PR machines. We have done some digging into older newspaper articles and academic studies to explain the varied and interesting history of this product and the people who brought it to life. While this is not original research per se, this article may be the most comprehensive compilation of available material since Henry Mintzberg's seminal 1984 work on the history of Canadian Lady.
  • The topic itself is both fun, and compelling as a business story. We've included links to rich media where appropriate.

Whether or not the writing itself meets the hurdles of "Brilliance", well, that's not for me to suggest. We've tried to be concise where necessary, and offer some flourishes to bring some of the story to life. This was a balancing act, but I'll let you all be the judges of that.Mattnad 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As it is, the article looks great, is formatted rather cleanly and makes sense, though I have some personal preferences that could be changed with the article. IMHO, the pic in the "History" section might be better off right-aligned than left. The external links section might be more appropriate after the references section. The wonderbra women section could do with some expansion, plus references. The "current licensing structure" section should probably be merged into the history section, as it seems like recent history of the brand. Shrumster 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I moved the "Current licensing" section so it's adjacent to the history section but didn't go as far as to merge it. I wanted to avoid conflicts between the section titles and the content. The external links section has been moved to the end. The "Wonderbra women" section is a very old holdover from the origins of the article. I'm hoping the wikilinks to the related article for the women will suffice for reference. Each article mentions the woman's experience as a Wonderbra spokesperson, but if pressed, I'll dig up external references. I've left the Canadian Lady logo in the history section as is. I did this because on wide screen monitors, it works better with the left-justified table in the preceding section. Mattnad 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment --Nice Job but please can you get another picture of a woman in a 1950's bra than the current picture. That woman looks anorexic. :) Mercenary2k 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I think there's a certain amount of irony in voting "support" for a garment that's designed to support. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Both Image:Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg and Image:Wonderbra-TV-1975.jpg are copyrighted images being used as fair use. Yet they're both bigger than my wallpaper. Shrink both to a low resolution (less than 400 wide) and add detailed fair use rationales to those images and Image:DiciBox.jpg. ShadowHalo 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lower resolution images have been substituted for Logo and 1975 TV screenshot. More detailed explanations of fair use rationale have been provided.Mattnad 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the future, you can simply upload one image over the other by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" underneath the file history (no big deal though). ShadowHalo 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm not a fan of the typical Wikipedia pop culture section and this one is particularly redundant. Aside from being entirely unreferenced, the facts about Rammstein and Ali G. seem pretty random and totally unnecessary. The whole section should be cut, while the "Greatest Canadian Inventions" trivia - if there is a source - could be put into the text elsewhere. Jaqu 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally fine cutting that section out. This article has become much more of a business story than entertainment. However, this section and the equally lightweight "Wonderbra Women", contain long-standing elements that I didn't want to remove based on my whim -- the Rammstein reference dates back to the article’s creation. Before I take this step, I would ask for other comments either in favor or opposed to this move. Regarding the "unreferenced" criticism, I wouldn't mind an explanation of how links to specific wikipedia articles that support the material do not represent a reasonable source. It's pretty easy to copy their references, but isn't that reinventing the wheel?Mattnad 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommed cutting out the pop culture section, too. Its wholly unnecessary and fairly trivial. Wickethewok 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given there are no defenders of that section, I've removed it and incorporated the CBC television show details into a new section called "Recent developments" with a reference citation. Mattnad 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I think this is an outstanding article and close to FA, but I have concerns about OR or what appears to be OR because of unreferenced comments that come across as OR. I'm afraid I'm short of time, so here's just a few "drive-by" suggestions of some of things that jumped out at me. Please take them in the positive frame of mind in which they're made. I'm happy to reconsider, especially if I'm wrong on any of these. Equally, as I say, I've not yet read this as thoroughly as I'd have liked, but I promised a few days back to contribute.
  • 1. "Israel (Hi) Pilot designed an improved cup" implies that he improved on an earlier design. Which earlier design? If not, suggest "Israel (Hi) Pilot designed an innovative cup that improved on..."
Changed language, added references. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. "cutting the fabric on the bias" is a bit too jargony for me. I didn't understand.
Clarified meaning. Added reference. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. "Under the Wonderbra brand, this bra became the most popular style for years in Canada. " definitely needs a citation - without, it smacks of OR and POV
It's a true statement (per the curator of the McCord Fashion museum), but removed for now, pending verifiable support. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. "In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the majority of women were still wearing highly-structured undergarments." Majority? The stat that follows is 40%.
Stat is for unit sales - in that period, there was a girdle sold for every bra. At any rate, found a reference supporting statement. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. "Nadler learned that women wanted 'less bra', not 'no bra.' " Dodgy punctuation. Sounds like a quote, but unreferenced.
Corrected quotes and clarified source. That was from the Mintzberg book. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6. "The ads were revolutionary for North America in that they included a man." Without a ref, sounds like OR.
Removed sentence, pending verifiable support. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7. "The U.S. Wonderbra advertising campaign also generated mild controversy for the objectification of women's breasts. Ultimately, this narrow focus on breast enhancement meant that the American Wonderbra would become a fashion accessory for women among their broader arsenal of clothing. Following the 1994 re-launch, Wonderbra remains popular around the world as a product, and a part of our cultural lexicon." No references make this OR City, I'm afraid.
Added references for latter part of this paragraph. Removed sentence on "narrow focus" for now. This is accurate (Wonderbra was promoted as a bra, rather than lingerie line for years), but will need further research to find references. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. ""spokes-model."" Quote? Reference? Last named is either nn or should be wikilinked. In any case, the section may well be POV and perhaps the article should point to a separate List article, which would inclusively have all such models listed, rather than trying to pull out the most important, in a subjective manner.
Removed this section. It's been with the article from it's more pop origins, but difficult to support in the new context. Mattnad 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope that's helpful, albeit disappointing to the outstanding and hard-working contributors, notably Mattnad. Sorry :-( --Dweller 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Youtube as a source, pls read WP:DASH and make corrections throughout (particularly em-dashes), and please clarify hyphenation of product name early on in article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Added details on the evolution of the "Wonder-Bra" to "Wonderbra" trademark. Took a hard look at the hyphenation and made adjustments. Regarding the em-dashes, these are used for parenthetical statements or phrases in the text, and in one case, are used where a period would be too strong of a break between ideas. The article your recommended suggests these uses of em-dashes are acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to handle the comment about YouTube as a source. In this application, the links to wonderbra ads hosted Youtube are not intended as a source. These links to the ads bring to life parts of the brand development which are well documented in the article by the Mintzberg and Goodis books. The ads are self-identifying (yep, it's a Wonderbra ad when you see it) are really there for illustration of facts already confirmed by reputable and verifiable sources. The ads are also available on various blogs and other sites. Is the issue simply that Youtube is hosting the ads? If the reader were referred to other sites with the ads, would that alleviate the concern?
I corrected all of your em-dashes, worked on your references (you hadn't employed named refs at all, and you repeated every book reference—pls check page numbers). The problem with YouTube is not only that it's not a reliable source, but that WP:EL says that Wiki should never link to a copyright violation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy. You did a LOT of work on those references (and now footnotes). Re: Copyright on youtube: I have a media lawyer friend checking into the copyright status of those commercials. There's a very high probability that they no longer have U.S. copyright protection because they were (a) Canadian, and (b) it's more than than 27 years since the were first used. I was told that when the commercials were produced, the U.S. copyright law only granted foreign motion picture media of this type 27 years of protection. Although US law was later changed granting longer copyright to foreign work, the extension would only apply to these Wonderbra commercials if Canadelle had registered them in the U.S. (not likely, but we're checking). Mattnad 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
US$1 billion Youtube lawsuit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Sandy who has contributed a lot to the article, I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with an objection to the external links. To some degree, Sandy has raised an Ad Hominem objection to Youtube, but has not demonstrated any Copyvio for these old commercials. I still defend the links to the commercials as very helpful illustrations of verifiable facts, from reliable sources: Wonderbra produced these ads as part of their brand development. Moreover, there's no evidence of Copyvio. The fact that they are on Youtube is not enough to assume Copyvio, and asking for proof of no copyvio on external links is a test that goes beyond Wikipedia guidelines, and well beyond the law. -- Mattnad 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed my objection above. Matnad's done a lot of work on this article. I can't go so far as to support at this stage, as I've not reviewed the article, but he's certainly dealt with the problems I raised. --Dweller 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding the images: Are we sure about the copyright template used on Image:Diagonal Slash Patent.jpg? This would appear not to be the work of the US Government, but work for hire by attorneys working on behalf of the patent holder. I'm not an expert on US copyright law so it might be PD anyway. I would strongly suggest that Image:Original WonderBra Model.JPG be cropped and zoom in on the bra itself. The model's face is far too prominent and distracting. On a seperate note, you might want to check for mentions of Wonderbra in other articles and wikilink them, as this article has a surprisingly low number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are on the public domain attribution for the patent image. It may not technically be a work of the US gov't but it IS allowed because it's part of a patent (see this wikipeadia image of a patent for the licensing). For the life of me, I can't get that {patent} licensing template to work. If someone out there can help out, that would be great. For the other photo, the recommendation to focus only on the bra is understood, but it could be polarizing. Take a look at the discussion archives of Brassiere to see what I mean. For some readers, it's an unsettling way to crop a photo of a woman in a bra. Did a search and wikilinked "Wonderbra" in a few more articles. Mattnad 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a working template. - Mattnad 15:31, 16 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire[edit]

Back when I nominated this for GA status, I was reccomended to send the article to Peer Review and, all going well, then nominate the article here. The only comment at the Peer Review (here) covered only minor problems, all of which were addressed. That comment was seven days ago; nothing since. Consequently, I am pressing on and nominating here. What do you make of it? Is it good enough??? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Some stuff that might help along: The pics could use some enlarging of some sort. Right now, some of the pics are overpowered by the length of their captions. The lead could use some sprucing-up/prosing-up. Right now, imho it kinda reads like a sequential facts, not necessarily connected to each other. Also, while I can't pinpoint any particular thing that bugs me about the section titles ("fire"?), I'm thinking some of them should be sub-sectioned under parent sections. In addition, I'm not sure what WP protocol is regarding disaster articles but would a list of those who perished be inappropriate? Hope these help. Shrumster 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly useful comments. I shall rewrite the lead per your comments, and I have made "Emergency response" a subsection of "Fire" and "Recommendations" a subsection of "Investigation". I'm not at all sure how to resize the pics, but I shall draft in someone who does to see to that. As far as a list of the deceased goes, I know in the previous case of Comair Flight 5191, it was decided in a combination of here, here and here (the latter one of which I actually weighed into to have removed! Small world, huh? ;-) that we shouldn't list them. While discusion seemed to be less generalised than simply "disasters" (more like "airliner accidents"), it is still relevant and I think shows why such a list would likely be quickly removed. And now, I've waffled on long enough - let's see who I can track down for those images! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to rework the lead a bit. How's it now? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that is a common assumption in relation to disaster articles, over at WP:DM have decided on a naming convention which contradicts that. It was halfway to being officially adopted as a guidline, but talks here, here and here stalled for some reason and nothing ever came of it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this as the applicable guideline in this case. If there is no other "Hamlet chicken processing plant fire" to disambiguate it from (heh) then clearly, the "1991" is just padding. The title strikes me as being the result of an overindulgence in guidelines rather than intuitive naming.
Peter Isotalo 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotta admit, WP:IAR is my favourite policy. I'm now neutral on this; I shall put it up for discusion on the talk page and, if no-one objects, perform the move. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Seems good, though I see multiply minor issues that require some attention.
  • POV'ish sentences and words:
  • "Tragedies", "claimed lives", "so..." (covert to "as a result"), and anything to informs the readers of issues in adding information or the writing progress (e.g. "although too bulky to list in full").
  • Remove the last sentence in the "Fire" section as a duplicate of a summarily fact already found in the lead.
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sole years or months altogether shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "References in popular culture" needs to be converted to a complete paragraph.
Why? That's how similar sections are layed out accross Wikipedia. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the "Recommendations" section remove the link on "final report" and convert it to a reference instead in the end of the paragraph.
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a collection of other fire disasters you consider to have also killed "a lot" under the "See also" section is POV. Instead, list articles such as Industrial disasters and Disaster.
That's not at all how the "See also" is layed out - as it says in the article, "All of the tragedies above involved people being trapped behind locked doors or windows, or doors that could not be pushed open." Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be better is start a new section and link those disasters to the development of the fire codes and regulations in the USA and other countries. Better context than a straight list. In other words, it is better to briefly describe why you are mentioning the articles, rather than a group rationalisation - groups of articles are better dealt with by categories. You could create a category to put all those articles in and add this article to that category. Carcharoth 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the article should contain a brief explanation of what the disaster is (e.g. "The 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire took is an industrial disaster that took place at the...").
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immediate aftermath" - Since aftermath is long-term by definition, this should either renamed it to "Controversy" or "Reaction". Following the rename change the second section to "Aftermath".
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 19 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Rajshahi University[edit]

Stable. Right size, not too long, suitably referenced. --ppm 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it needs a bit of a copyedit. I had a go at one section, and made changes such as:
  • Programs in Theater, Music and Folklore studies have been recent additions to the faculty
  • In 1964 the library has been was shifted to Motihar Green
You should take a decision on capitalisation as well; for example, should it be [the Department of] 'Life and earth sciences', or 'Life and Earth Sciences'? I would suggest the latter, and while this may be a matter of style, it would be better to be consistent throughout. — BillC talk 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one has responded to this, or edited the article, so: oppose. — BillC talk 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to fix these. Pls take a look--ppm 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting has been started. Please check back after a while (I mean one or two days!). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has improved. However, referencing is thin on the ground in a few places. For example:
  • "Allegedly, the current system puts more of a burden on students". We should be told who is alleging this.
  • Main campus has two references for four paragraphs. Faculties has just one. — BillC talk 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of commendable improvements. I'll change my vote if there's a bit more commitment to citations. — BillC talk 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a lot of work has gone into responding to comments. I'm happy to support now. — BillC talk 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment use Commonwealth English, i.e. organized -> organised. Rama's arrow 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good now. A comprehensive article - a few stylistic and copyediting issues remain though. Rama's arrow 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article has the content to be featured, other issues can be worked out.Bakaman 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good work if not spectacular. I think all this article is good enough to be featured--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work. Some more copyedit may be useful. I have tagged one piece of information (repeated twice) that may require some citation. Aditya Kabir 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that claim, since I can only find somewhat weak references for it. In any case, I think Mymensingh is larger, but Chittagong smaller.--ppm 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. Fails 1a: "compelling even brilliant prose." Here's some issues from the lede.
    • It was the second largest university when it was established or now? This is confusing because of the reference to what was East Pakistan.
    • the "Rajshahi University act 1973" act not-captilised? not "Act of 1973"? Is this so important that it's the second sentence of the article, and if so, why is there no link to such an important act?
    • 2nd paragraph: first sentence should begin with the full proper noun, not second (sounds very awkward).
    • Faculty should wikilink for us North American-ites who have no idea what that means the first time we read it.
    • "With 25,000 students and close to 1000 faculty members, it is also one of the largest universities of Bangladesh in terms of student population." Since the 1000 faculty members don't contribute to the student population, it's quite confusing for them to be included in the opening prepositional phrase. Also, what place is it exactly in terms of student population? First? Third?
    • "In spite of political unrest, the university has steadily grown in recent years." Reads like an advertisement. Probably don't need the first phrase, and what does it mean it's grown? What about it exactly has grown?
    • Anything that a reader might want to fact-check should be cited. Just scanning through, my eyes falls on:
      • "The women's dorms also have time limits on how long the female students can stay outside, depending on the season, students have to enter the dorm by 7 or 8 pm."
      • "During the 1980s the university became among the most dysfunctional of public universities."
    • The Alumni section reads mostly "this person was an alumnus. This person was an alumnus." It would probably help to combine most of those sentences, and get rid of all the "also's". The word "also" is almost always superfluous for well-written articles.
    • "session-jam" undefined, unlinked term.
    • Also, please provide a stub for all redlinks. MarkBuckles (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to address these problems. --ppm 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Allegedly, the current system puts more of a burden on students, as they have to pay high admission fees for each department they might be interested in." Who alleges? And what constitutes a "high" admission fee? Article also mentions "low" tuition fees later. These seem subjective without context. MarkBuckles (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few more observations:
  1. Either the history section or the controversy section could have (and probably would have) used some info on the students unrests that saw quite a few students murdered, as well as recent murder and harassment of teachers. That would be great NPOV.
  2. The alumni section still reads bad. Can we turn it into a list instead. It is a list after all, hardly counts as prose.
  3. Can we weed out the few weasel words that still are there (one of the largest, numerous etc.).

Another copyedit drive, along with some added info to make it great NPOV would do the trick, very much. Aditya Kabir 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that including too much detail on the political conflict might push it towards more POV, not less. In what way is the presentation POV now?--128.36.231.13 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For discussion on the not-so-positive material see below. Aditya Kabir 09:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw my objection. Fantastic improvements!
    • Some other minor comments: "Recently" in the contraversy section - maybe we should just have a date (since 2007 or whatever) since this changes quickly.
    • This is probably my non-King's English speak again, but I have no idea what "session backlogs" are. Wikilink to something?
    • What about reducing the size of that faculty box and placing it on the right of the text as a visual aid?
    • " The establishment of two more institutes is under way" looks like a good place for an [[As of 2007]] tag.
    • "The Rajshahi University library system is the second largest in the nation" cite needed.
    • "these halls have been said to be sub-standard." awkward passive voice and weasel word sounding, even though cited. Reword?
    • "they are less inclined to live in a private mess for security reasons" cite needed. might need to reword since it's almost never a fact to say what people are inclined to do.
    • "The faculty has programs in fishery, genetic engineering and biotechnology, agronomy and agricultural extension and animal husbandry and veterinary science." can we cut a few of the and's in this sentence?
    • "music and folklore studies have been recent additions to the faculty." again, should probably date it, rather than just saying recently.
    • "As a public university, Rajshahi University's tuition fees are quite low" cite, seems subjective.
    • Keep up the good work! MarkBuckles (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some discussion has been moved to Talk:Rajshahi University#Unrest and POV Aditya Kabir 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Several issues still exist. Please run the semi-automatic javascript program from AndyZ:
1.) Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently and last year might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times. There are 10 places where "recent" is used.
2.) Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18acres, use 18 acres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;acres.
3.) Include conversion of acres and other measurements to km^2 or respective measurement in parenthesis.
4.) Include publication dates on references.
5.) Publication sources such as newspapers should be italicized.
6.) Refs 4, 12, 26 are dead links.
7.) 18 of the 31 sources are from just 3 sources. I don't know if this is a reason to oppose and it may be a function of the lack of information about the institution, but having a wider breadth of sources would be nice.
8.) In the external links, what is the unofficial website mean? Why is it included?
9.) Please alphabetize the categories.
10.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - "some", "a variety/number/majority of", "several", "a few", "many", "any", and "all".
11.) Temporal terms like "currently" often are too vague to be useful.
12.) I don't think 31 sources is enough and I would like to see some more added. The last paragraph of the history section is in need of sources as well as the Campus section, which only has 3.
13.) It'd be nice to see some variation in the placement of the images as they are all right-aligned. I guess this is just an opinion and aesthetic concern, but see current FAs for ideas. I can't find a single article with more than 3 images where all the images are all right-aligned.
14.) Some errant commas. For example, "Students are assigned to a major when they enter the university, and cannot change it later." Please copyedit the entire article.

Overall, the article is pretty good. Address my concerns and I'll at least remove my objection, but I think a fair amount of work is still required for this to pass. -Bluedog423Talk 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a copyedit. Saravask 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried some more to fix these concerns--ppm 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Objection withdrawn, although please still address "unofficial website" link. -Bluedog423Talk 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Featured-quality material. Disagree with Bluedog423 about "I don't think 31 sources is enough" and "wider breadth of sources"—for a narrow topic like this, it's enough. Also, it kept me interested the whole way through, something which most FAs don't do. BTW, congrats for your great (lousy) victory yesterday; here's hoping that you win (get thrashed) by Bermuda. ;-) Saravask 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he he--ppm 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have found no dead links (4, 12 and 16 are working fine), and I have edited out all "recent"s and one but all "current"s. Someone else has taken care of the "18&nbsp;acres" stuff. About the "official site", I think, an article on an "official institution" that "official site" created and maintained by the authority of the institution only enhances the value of the article. Well, images can be rearranged (I have not done it myself, though), and number of citations could definitely be increased (should we lend a hand to that?). I guess, Bluedog can reconsider his/her position now. And, oh, some more application of Commonwealth English may be required (to make it near perfect, right?). Cheers. Aditya Kabir 19:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The links were dead, I fixed them :). Thanks to both of you. I am adding some references to the main campus section, but it is mainly straightforward info taken from the map and info provided in the "profile" publication by the university. Lot of information about the university is of this nature, explaining the lower reference and source count. --ppm 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. At least this proves that someone can attribute the information to somewhere. — BillC talk 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misread my comment about the "official site." Obviously, it is important to include a link to an official website for the university - nobody would argue that should be deleted. I, however, questioned the inclusion of the "unofficial website." I'm just not sure what that means, and it is probably not significant enough to be included or should at least be renamed to signify its importance. Thanks for addressing many of my concerns. Reference 28 is now messed up. Issues 4, 5, 9, and 13 that I presented above still persist. -Bluedog423Talk 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misreading. One question - why is alphabetizing categories important? Aditya Kabir 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that big of a deal, but I thought it was set in a wikipedia guideline. I can't find it in the official manual of style, so maybe it's not official policy. However, it is evident in Suggestions for FAs and is the case in previous FAs. Takes two seconds to fix, anyways, I guess I could just do it rather than pointing it out...-Bluedog423Talk 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Was bit hesitant in the beginning. But the article has improved notably during the FAC, thanks to the efforts of several editors. Meets criteria. One comment: in "Alumni and notable staff", ...Md. Habibur Rahman, the former Chief Justice and head of the caretaker government.... Which caretaker government? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1996, added that info--ppm 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets all criteria, has improved a lot. --Ragib 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In September 2006, two professors of the university were murdered... But the reference cited tells of only one killing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The news itself is abt another killing, but it mentions the two Rajshahi killings--ppm 02:32, 20 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Michael Jordan[edit]

The old nom had lots of problems, so I'm restarting it clean. Raul654 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notified everyone who voted on the previous FAC. Quadzilla99 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the sake of accuracy, it should be clarified in the "Legacy" section that the ESPN poll (and probably the AP one too - the source isn't clear) was limited to North Americans. I wondered why I'd only heard of 6 of the top 10 athletes of the 20th century; now it makes sense. I think it's probably OK to leave it alone in the Lead, as it's a detail (though an important one). --Dweller 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I changed it in both the lead and Legacy section just to be perfectly clear, although they are both marketed as "athlete of the century" lists no non-North Americans appears on either of them so it's misleading to leave that out. Quadzilla99 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the AP list technically includes non-North Americans so I changed the wording back to athletes in that one, I provided links to both complete lists in the article now though. I could include a non American poll but I can't find one that's notable enough. I was hoping the BBC had one but they don't appear to. Quadzilla99 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the lead, the text reads "he became the most effectively marketed athlete of his generation". This is a bold assertion, not properly supported in the text and certainly not referenced. --Dweller 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I found a couple of sources which seem to say that. Such as when he became the highest paid athlete in the world in 1992 almost 90% of his income was from endorsements,[20] and that he had a $10 billion dollar impact on the US economy.[21] But since this is likely to cause dispute (like the greatest of all time thing) I just changed it to "one of". Quadzilla99 13:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've done a lot of work on this article and nominated it last time. All of the specific concerns of the previous nom have been addressed. Quadzilla99 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Chensiyuan 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All the previous concerns from the FAC have been addressed. The descriptive terms used in regards to him have now been made particularly generic, even though most people actually thought they were fine to begin with. Aaron Bowen 14:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant issues in old nom resolved to my satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Manderiko 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Warhol13 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tomer T 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zodiiak 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons stated before. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really hate to say this, but some of this article's text seems to copy and pasted directly from an official, copyrighted biography [22], e.g. the sentence "In the 1990-91 season, Michael Jordan, motivated by the team's narrow defeat against the Pistons a year earlier, finally bought into Jackson and assistant coach Tex Winter's triangle offense after years of resistance." which appears verbatim in both. The next sentence is only marginally different in the Wikipedia article, with some statistics abbreviated. If nothing else this paragraph needs to be rewritten most likely. It would be helpful if we could identify who added this text, to help find out if there are more incidents remaining in the article... I will look into it later. --W.marsh 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a serious issue. I'll try to trace it back right now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they took it from Wikipedia, this photo is identical to one we previously had here on Wikipedia:[23] Which is from a flickr user which has since been deleted. A lot of this was here before I started working on the article so I can't be certain. I think this guy lifted it from the article in mid 2006. Quadzilla99 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after looking at the site closer, I think you may be right... now that I think about it, I recall seeing a site exactly like this for Peyton Manning some time ago. At any rate this is not an official site as I said above, my bad. For now am I going to say this site probably is plagiarizing Wikipedia. --W.marsh 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The addition was made by an anon on December 22, 2005. [24]. This version lacked the lead phrase of "In the 1990-1991 season", so if it was copied to WP, it should have that phrase. That part was only added later on. It is very possible that they jacked it from WP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website is copyright 2006, does that mean the website started up in 2006? Quadzilla99 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I also think they took portions of the lead. This sounds like an older version of the article. I am not too surprised, many sites take content from WP without citing it and violate GFDL. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the website also contains sentences which are verbatim or similar to a 2004 version of our article:[25][26][27] (See the lead and the first couple of sentences in early life) Quadzilla99 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A problem remains though, in that this probably plagiarized site is cited as the source for the sentence in question, so basically the Wikipedia article is citing itself as a source. I would suggest removing the citation or finding something acceptable. --W.marsh 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no problem, my god you nearly gave me a heart attack. It's probably used as a source as someone looked for a source for that statement and found that site. I'll find a source. Quadzilla99 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where you deal with GFDL stuff: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(PS, I hope everyone understands now why I try to check every source, and why it bugs me when references aren't fully formatted so that we can easily check sources, and when reliable sources aren't used; looks like I missed one here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was added recently, it's pretty embarassing, I'll go back and check them all again. I removed the sentence until we can find a source for it. I'm pretty sure I remember him saying it on one of his videos. But I can't be sure either the "Air up there" or "Air Time", of course I threw those VHS's out when I went to DVD so it goes for now. Quadzilla99 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I listed some of the more questionable sources on the article's talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All checked and addressed, I believe. That is if we agree it's okay to use Britannica and Encarta. I went through the article and checked each individual source against what it was supporting, there was one minor error (Jordan created the Boys and Girls Club dedicated to his father in 1996 not 1998 it was wrong in the text, 1998 was the date of the article not the event). I'll double check again just to be sure Quadzilla99 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia refs removed. Quadzilla99 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I think the article is pretty solid. I'm giving it a weak support because the prose still doesn't WOW me, although I guess it's good enough. Zagalejo 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the greats and the article deserves FA too.--Thugchildz 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, great job. Gran2 12:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now, but I'd like to see some reference to buying into the triangle offense be put back in... although maybe that's more important with respect to Phil Jackson's coaching success. At any rate, it's a minor thing... the article is really great for a sports biography. --W.marsh 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems alright. If there anything minor that needs fixing, I'd do myself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. another great basketball bio, yay. Plus heavily referenced, which is always good.--Wizardman 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The prose could still be polished, but all in all, a FA. Onomatopoeia 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article has greatly improved since its original candidature, and now I think it easily satisfies all the FA requirements. Abecedare 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In "First retirement", the following sentence doesn't make sense: "Jordan was close to his father; he had observed his father's proclivity to stick out his tongue while absorbed in work, and adopted it as his own signature, which was on display each time he drove to the basket." I don't see how the two ideas connect. I've made a few other fixes as well; this looks pretty good. --Spangineerws (háblame) 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response When Jordan's father worked on mechanical devices he stuck his tongue out. Jordan also developed this unique practice and got it from watching and imitating his father. When he drove to the basket he often stuck his own tongue out. It became a well known habit of his. There's a pic in there of him doing it. Quadzilla99 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it's like the old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Quadzilla99 14:23, 19 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman[edit]

Self-nomination I have worked quite a bit on expanding this page on an important feminist text from a mere list of quotations and chapter headings to its GA current form. I believe that it is well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced. It has recently been through a thorough peer-review as well as a review from another wikipedia editor. See Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007. I may have given extensive answers to questions you have at those locations. Thanks. Awadewit 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments The lead is pretty good except the first sentence gets me. You write, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) is one of the earliest works of feminist literature or philosophy." Which is it? Is it both literature and philosophy? Is there a debate about it? Otherwise the lead is fine and a good summary of the text.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it is one of the earliest feminist books of any kind, in either literature or philosophy. And, yes, I would assume that philosophers would say this is not philosophy while literary critics and feminist scholars like to claim that it is. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You write, "In a lively and sometimes vicious pamphlet war, now referred to as the "Revolution Controversy". Should Revolution Controversy be wikilinked? It sounds like something interesting and worth an article.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no page on the "Revolution Controversy." Perhaps I will write one someday.
  • You write, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became a live one in both France and Britain." I think "became a lively one" is what you meant here. It reads a bit funny overall. Did the question of women's rights become a lively one because of de Gouge's publication, or was it an overall mood that begun due to various factors.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneI meant "live" as in a "living" question, a question that was up for debate. Literary critics use that diction a lot. I will change it as it is not familiar to the general reader. de Gouge's publication had a lot to do with it becoming a more important issue at the time. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You write now, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became central to political debates in both France and Britain." It's a little ambiguous about something that might be complex. Was de Gouge's publication responsible for the political debates in Britain as well? The way it's phrased I can't tell what led up to the political debate on women's rights. If it was maybe 12 publications and 6 movements, or simply de Gouge and Wollstonecraft's publications.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a complex event, and, yes, de Gouge's pamphlet was responsible for prompting increased debates in both countries. I can't go into the whole history of women's rights in the eighteenth century here. That is why I provide a link to the "history of feminism" page later. Awadewit 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You write, "she is concerned with the rights afforded to "woman," an abstract category." This could do with a bit more explanation. What is an abstract category, and specifically why have women been placed in it?-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was clear that "woman" is abstract while "men" is specific - is it not? Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How abstract was the category of "woman"? For men it's specific to country and time period, and for woman it was universal and timeless? Could you characterize how abstract the category of woman was in a more explanatory way? It's an important comparison to make, but the phrase sounds like women are an abstract category when what you mean to say is that "she is concerned with the rights afforded to an abstract depiction of "woman,"..." I think.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, it is grammar that reveals all. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is discussing the abstract category of "woman" because it is using the singular. A Vindication of the Rights of Men is discussing particular men because it is using the plural. I don't think that it is necessary to explain this. I do not mean to say she is concerned with "rights afforded to an abstract depiction of woman." "Depiction" suggests that the category is a mere representation and not part of reality.
  • I did a minor copyedit of the Themes section, "sensibility" was a physical phenonemon" (misspelled phenomenon?) the sentence on what the discourse on sensibility did for humanity, ...
  • Further down in the same section, you write "For example, Wollstonecraft advises her readers to "calmly let passion subside into friendship" in the ideal companionate marriage". What is a companionate marriage? It comes up again in the Reception section
 DoneMarriages based on love rather than those based on money. I will add an explanatory phrase. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In many ways the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world"... very nice! an example of brilliant prose.
  • In the Revision section you write, "I intend to finish the next volume before I begin to print, for it is not pleasant to have the Devil coming for the conclusion of a sheet fore it is written." She knew she was dying? Was she ill? Did she know things were going bad for her, health-wise? How did she die? From the article on Wollstonecraft's life I see it was due to an infection after giving birth. Maybe a note on this would clarify things.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneNo, she did not know she was dying. She was being hounded by her publisher to finish the book quickly. I will add a phrase. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You write, "the Devil [a reference to her publisher, Joseph Johnson]". That seems a little bit harsh. Are you sure that's correct? Are you sure she wasn't just speaking metaphorically about deadlines?-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sure. Awadewit 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "the Devil" is a metaphor for her publisher, so she is speaking metaphorically. :) Awadewit 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overall, very neutral, and it really gives you a good idea of what this work is all about. If I were to read it I would immediately know the context within which it took place.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I happen to have read this work, and this article covers all the topics within. Moreover, it does so in a neutral and complete manner, using a brilliant prose at times. I believe it meets all FA requirements, although I am aware some editors prefer a referenced lead. Just two nitpicks: maybe at the end of the article you could add a line or two about the author's lifestyle, so the reader has a more accurate idea about why the Memoirs would cause such a stir so as to make people want to distance themselves from Wollstonecraft and the VRW? And perhaps the image of Wollstonecraft could appear before in the article, as opposed to nearly at the end of it? Aside from these minor points, superb work! :-) Raystorm 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed the placement of the images. Let me know if you think it is better.
  • I have added sentences explaining Wollstonecraft's "unorthdox" lifestyle.
  • All of the statements in the lead are referenced elsewhere. There seems to be no agreement on this issue. I think the lead looks more elegant without all of the notes and since it is a summary, all of the information reappears in one form or another in the article itself. Awadewit 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, looks great. :-) And I agree, leads without refs look better, but as there's no consensus on the matter you might get an editor yet that will want you to ref it up. ;-) Cheers Raystorm 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this article was very good when it came to peer review and it's only gotten better since. The writing in particular is outstanding (though I'd still replace 'hostilely' with 'with hostility' in the sentence about its reception). Opabinia regalis 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence in the "Reception" section but then added a new sentence to the lead, forgetting about your objection to that phrase. I have now changed the sentence in the lead to "unfavorably received." Awadewit 07:01, 17 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Johannes Kepler[edit]

Well-written article, rich of great relevant pictures, which is currently the article of the week on the Mathematics Portal. Tomer T 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article is well written and well cited. The images are used very well. I corrected a couple minor formatting errors (wikiling complete dates, adding &nbsp; between the number and unit of a measurement) that you may want to double check. Very nice work. Jay32183 19:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm retracting my support because it appears the experts on the subject do not feel the article is comprehensive yet. If I misunderstood those comments, please inform me. Jay32183 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Restoring my support now that other Wikipedians' concerns have been addressed. Jay32183 22:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Yes it's a nice piece of work. There's a few minor fixes needed and quite a number of red links, but I do think this is FA quality. — RJH (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The bit about his marriage, her father Jobst initially opposed a marriage despite Kepler's nobility. - Kepler was a noble? When did that happen? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments A few other niggles. Firstly the introduction's last paragraph seems to be about Kepler's personal theology and philosophy, a subject treated throghout the prose but not really all collected together to create one whole idea of who the man was. I'm sure I read somewhere that he felt that people should be allowed to believe whatever they wanted (or something to that effect)- quite a revolutionary idea for its time. Any chance of including that? Also the last section, named in Kepler's honour, is a laundry list, and would benefit from being turned to text and maybe incorporated with the oddly named The acceptance of Kepler's astronomy (surely impact of kepler's research would be better, or maybe Kepler's legacy) into one section abouyt the impact he had. I think the article is good overall (he's one of my personal heroes), but it doesn't quite punch hard enough on the areas that made the man so ahead of his time and unique. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to address these issues. The expanded acceptance section is now called "Reception of Kepler's astronomy", and it is followed by a more broad ranging new section, "Kepler's historical and cultural legacy". I think the "named in Kepler's honor" part is better left as a laundry list, although I've moved it to a more appropriate location (in the See also section). The "ahead of his time" bit is really a complicated sort of thing, and probably an inherently philosophically-loaded issue as well, but I tried to address it as part of his cultural legacy.--ragesoss 08:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The writing is good but I think the layout can be improved. As it stands this article is pretty much just one big biography section. His life and work should really be separated. Cf. articles like Tycho Brahe and Galileo Galilei. --Idda 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Second Idda comments about the layout - 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm slowly going through this article. I removed the section heading 'Biography', which I think is one of the most useless of all headings. I changed 'Childhood and education' to 'Early years' and you immediately get a better sense of what's going on in the article. The content seems pretty good so far. I'll report back later.-BillDeanCarter 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the way you've broken it out of a "Biography" supersection. As for separating life from work, I'm am very strongly opposed to that. The Galileo and Brahe articles are not examples that anyone should be following; I set about redoing the Kepler article with the express intent of avoiding the sort of thing that happened on Galileo, where it reads like a series of random essays on why Galileo is great. Despite the official status, Galileo is a long way from the 2007 version of FA quality.--ragesoss 08:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article. The only improvement that I can think of is more evenly spacing the pictures.
  • Comment I think this is an excellent article and I applaud the editors for their efforts to describe Kepler within his own historical context rather than to write about him as a modern scientist. I think that the images are well-placed and that the writing is generally quite good. The article is almost complete. I have a list of little things that I feel can quickly be taken care of. This is a very high-quality article and I am almost ready to vote support.
  • I wonder about listing his "residence" as "Germany" and his nationality as "German" in the infobox. There was no German nation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, just all those little principalities. Which one did Kepler live in most of the time and which one did he identify with? Even into the nineteenth century, for example, people thought of themselves as "Bavarian" rather than "German."
    • I've changed his residences to reflect the German and Austrian states in which he lived. As for nationality, I nixed it altogether; it's rather too complicated for an infobox. Based on Caspar's biography, it seems that his religious identity was much more important than his political citizenship, but he was often eager to get back to Baden-Württemberg, where his family remained and where he had gone to school.--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is best known for his laws of planetary motion, based on his works Astronomia nova, Harmonice Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. - are the laws really based on the works? the wording seems a bit odd - how about "found in"?
    • "Based on" for the first two is more accurate, while "found in" might pass muster for Epitome; the phrase is meant to suggest that "Kepler's laws" are the product of later astronomers, since Kepler never actually laid them out together in that form. It takes some work to "find" Kepler's laws in Kepler's own work.--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Is there some way to make that clearer?
        • Fixed. Or at least, added an extra few words.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Kepler, astronomers shifted their attention from orbs to orbits—paths that could be represented mathematically as an ellipse. - why are "orbs" and "orbits" italicized? also, the construction "could be represented" is odd - it indicates that perhaps they could also be represented as something else - I was under the impression that the ellipse bit was a huge breakthrough - orbits ARE ellipses - this sentence does not convey that
    • Orbs and orbits are italicized to emphasize that they are used here as (etymologically related but conceptually distinct) technical terms. "Orbits", in the most basic meaning, are paths through space, but not necessarily ellipses. (In fact, they are generally not ellipses, except in non-relativistic two-body systems.) Kepler and other later astronomers recognized that ellipses were a mathematically best-fit of orbits, not (necessarily) the platonic essence of orbits.--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • During his career Kepler was a mathematics teacher at a Graz seminary school (later the University of Graz, Austria) - is it really important to say in the lead that the school later became this university?
    • It will probably be of interest to some readers.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepler lived in an era when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, while there was a strong division between astronomy (a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of the more prestigious discipline of philosophy); Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan which was accessible through the natural light of reason. - awkward - perhaps break up the sentence? also, the "while" doesn't quite work - the connection is not clear between the two clauses
  • He was believed to have died in the war in the Netherlands. - what war?
  • Despite his ill health, he was precociously brilliant. - this is odd - what does health have to do with brilliance (e.g. Stephen Hawking)?
    • The idea was to contrast physical weakness with mental strength. However, I grant that it could be put better. I think I've fixed it with a rephrase.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little nervous that all of the citations for the "Early life" section come from the same source. Do no other sources discuss Kepler's early life in any detail? Let me just pause and say something about citations here. I wonder a bit about your citations. For other articles that have been approved for FA, reviewers have been demanding many more than you have. For example, in the second paragraph of "Mysterium Cosmographicum" you reference "Barker and Goldstein, "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy," pp 88-113." That seems a little disingenuous. Also, you have whole paragraphs without any citations at all. I am simply trying to retain some consistency here.
    • Fixed. That overly broad Barker and Goldstein cite was a placeholder until I went back and figured out precisely where in the reference the info could be found. The uncited paragraphs were mostly a matter of reapportioning citations that covered more than one paragraph. Regarding his early life, there basically is only one main source that treats it in detail, plus a few others that are mostly derived from that source (I've added references for one of the others that contains a little bit of different analysis). It's probably the least controversial part of his life, historically speaking, and Caspar is the only person who has really tackled Kepler's whole life, as opposed to a smaller part of his work.--ragesoss 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough on the Caspar.
  • He was introduced to astronomy/astrology at an early age - pick a word or rephrase - that's just ugly
  • earned a reputation as a skillful astrologer - what does this mean? is it explained by the following sentences? if so, that is not clear
    • It means he wrote horoscopes for other students and did other astrology work, and he developed a reputation for being good at it. It is not explained in the following sentences; it merits mention, but probably isn't significant enough for an extended discussion.--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps a sentence or phrase?
  • Kepler's first major astronomical work, Mysterium Cosmographicum (The Sacred Mystery of the Cosmos), was also the first published defense of the Copernican system. - I get what you're saying with the "also" but it is awkward - try to reword
    • Fixed'. Removed "also".--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • her father Jobst initially opposed a marriage despite Kepler's nobility - earlier you said his father was a mercernary and his mother was an inn-keeper's daughter - please clarify
    • Fixed. His grandfather Sebald Kepler was "Lord Mayor", a position of nobility. Essentially, Kepler had a title but none of the other blessings of nobility (e.g., money).--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, church officials pressured the Müllers to honor their agreement - does anyone know why?
    • A combination of things: church/school officials had had a hand in setting up the match, and Kepler had friends among the church officials. There was some sort of formal betrothal that the church either had to enforce or dissolve, and it seems that the outcome was up in the air for a little while. Caspar is the main source for Kepler's personal life, and he is doesn't give much more detail than that.--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could add in a sentence to this effect.
        • Fixed. I added a phrase indicating that the church officials helped set up the match. Any more detailed explanation will be too convoluted to be worth it.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add stub pages for the red-links or de-link them?
    • I had planned to do that before I nominated the article for FA, but since the gun has been jumped... I'm working on it.--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.--ragesoss 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through most of 1601, he was supported directly by Tycho, analyzing planetary observations and writing a tract against Tycho's (now deceased) rival Ursus. - this is awkward - was he supported because he was doing these things?
    • Fixed. I added "who assigned him to" after "Tycho".--ragesoss 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to horoscopes for allies and foreign leaders, the emperor sought Kepler's advice in times of political trouble—though Kepler's recommendations were based more on common sense than the stars. - dash doesn't work (by the way, certainly a statement such as this needs to have a citation!)
    • Changed. I won't say "fixed", because I think it was a valid use of the long dash. On the other hand, it's not a big deal one way or the other, and you're the ABD Englishist.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further undermining the doctrine of the immutability of the heavens - you have to put this in context for the reader.
  • In an appendix, Kepler also discussed the recent chronology work of Laurentius Suslyga; he calculated that, if Suslyga was correct that accepted timelines were four years behind, then the Star of Bethlehem—analogous to the present new star—would have coincided with the first great conjunction of the earlier 800-year cycle. - not clear why this is significant
    • If that astrological event (associated with the birth of Christ) was precisely marked by the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem, it made the new star that much more important; it would set a precedent of associating a new star with the beginning of the fiery trigon (along with all the other things it was supposed to mean). It's not especially important, it was just part of Kepler's argument about the significance of the new star (and, hence, his work on it) and illustrates the breadth of Kepler's scholarly interest.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. Perhaps you could add a phrase at the beginning of the sentence to that effect: "Kepler's scholarly interests were widespread; he also.." or some such thing.
        • That would make it seem more like a digression. The main reason that information is there is that it is part of Kepler's case for the significance and interpretation of the supernova.--ragesoss 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps you could make that explicitly clear? Awadewit 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepler calculated and recalculated various approximations of Mars' orbit using an equant - what is an "equant"?
    • Fixed. I didn't quite define it, but I linked it and added a parenthetical note that gives sufficient context.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like it.
  • in early 1605 he at last hit upon the idea of an ellipse, which he had previously assumed to be too simple a solution for earlier astronomers to have overlooked - I thought that he also thought it couldn't be possible because God would not use an imperfect shape?
    • Sort of. Just before using the ellipse, he had been trying a slew of more complicated ovoids, so he had already given up the idea that God would only use circles (and even then, it's not clear that he ever thought that exactly; his Mysterium model included a parameter, the thickness of the spherical shells within which planets moved or were embedded, that allowed the same sorts of deviations from circular paths that all contemporary astronomers used). I think it was more that he expanded his notion of perfect shapes, but it's tough to pinpoint changes in his theological reasoning.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel betrayed by Carl Sagan. :) Awadewit 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the years following the completion of Astronomia Nova, most of Kepler's research was focused on preparations for the Rudolphine Tables and a comprehensive set of ephemerides based on the table (though neither would be completed for many years). - briefly define "ephemerides" so that the reader doesn't have to click (how many readers will, anyway?)
    • Fixed. (All the ones who more than a brief and sketchy parenthetical definition.)--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (By the way, I assume you meant "don't want more than..") and teaching is good. Draw them in with your compelling story of Kepler, and maybe they will become a historian or a scientist or donate money to their local science museum. One can only hope. Awadewit 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his first years there, he enjoyed financial security and religious freedom relative to Prague - awkward - perhaps "relative to his time in Prague"?
    • Fixed. "relative to his life in Prague".--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fifth of eleven matches he had considered following Barbara's death - confusing - he considered eleven women and then went back to the fifth one?
    • Fixed. Yes. I reworked this section, adding a bit of detail and clarifying this issue.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three more survived: Cordula in 1621; Fridmar in 1623; and Hildebert in 1625. - they survived into these years? they were born in these years? very confusing
  • She was released in October 1621, thanks in part to the extensive legal defense drawn up by Kepler; the accusers had no stronger evidence than rumors and (a distorted, second-hand version of) Kepler's Somnium story—in which a woman mixes potions and enlists the aid of a demon. - awkwardly worded
    • Fixed, I think.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many people were condemned of witchcraft on much thinner evidence than this, though, so to say "the accusers had no stronger evidence than..." is rather misleading in my opinion, but if that is how the biographers present it, so be it. During the Salem witch trials, women were condemned on the testimony of a single "witness." A book (however distorted) is a major step up in a witchcraft trial. This is just something to think about. It would seem to me that the reason Kepler took his mother's defense so seriously was because she was in real danger. Am I wrong about this? Awadewit 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your interpretation here is pretty much right on. The main thing working in her favor, which maybe isn't spelled out clearly enough but that I tried to get across, is that she had the intelligent and (perhaps more important) respectable Johannes Kepler running her legal defense. From Kepler's perspective it was thin evidence, but obviously it was a serious danger (and understood as such by the Keplers), as it ended in territio verbalis. This actually isn't treated with very much sophistication in any of the sources I've seen, though.--ragesoss 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Katharina was subjected to territio verbalis, a graphic description of the torture awaiting her as a witch, in a final attempt to make her confess, and she died soon after. - you imply that she died because of this - is that supportable?
    • Fixed. It was not meant to imply that, so I just removed the mention of her death, which is not very relevent.--ragesoss 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the "acceptance of Kepler" needs to be expanded. It needs to include information on when Kepler's laws were fully accepted - when his planetary laws were fully proved.
    • Expanded. Now it goes up to Newton, plus a section on "Kepler's historical and cultural legacy" after that.--ragesoss 08:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you mention Rene Descartes as one of the people who ignored Kepler? He is known as a mathematician but not a scientist; in fact, he is much more famous as a philosopher. Why is it notable that he ignored Kepler? He was not studying what Kepler was studying like Galileo was. You might want to make some sort of argument about that.
        • Actually, Descartes was doing the same sorts of things as Galileo in particular (though without experiments); Descartes created a rival system of physics (which Newton's work is partially a response to). He created a widely circulated system of cosmology, and was known primarily as a natural philosopher in his own time and in the 18th century. For quite a while after Newton, Descartes' physics reigned in France; that is the main context, for example, of Voltaire and du Chatelet's adaptations and translations of Newton in the mid-1700s, well after Newton's physics (if not mathematics) was accepted in the English- and German-speaking worlds. See also Pierre Louis Maupertuis (second paragraph of the biography section) for another aspect of the Newton-Descartes issue. I don't think the Kepler article is really the place to go into this, although the Descartes article is rather awful when it comes to his natural philosophy.--ragesoss 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Didn't know that - much more familiar with his philosophy (mind-body dualism, etc.) Awadewit 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Writings" section, I don't think there is a need to link years, that seems to be generally frowned upon.
  • I am personally not a fan of culture sections like "Kepler in Fiction." What do they really add?
    • Nothing. The single entry is part of the new Legacy section.--ragesoss 08:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also prefer the "bibliography" and the "further reading" to be combined so that if someone is coming to this page primarily for citations, they can easily find them all.

Nice work - I learned a lot. Awadewit 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I think this nomination is a little premature. SteveMcCluskey and I have been putting in a lot of work for this article, which has been on hiatus lately as real life intervened for us. But I think there is still some work we want to do, especially dealing the reception of his work in a broader context and with his legacy for the history and philosophy of science, which I hope to get to in the near future. Awadewit, thank you very much for your concrete suggestions, which will be helpful. --ragesoss 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments Some more tiny things and then I will be ready to enthusiastically support.
  • I love your use of eponymous, but I'm not sure that that is a very commonly used word. What do you think about linking it to wiktionary?
    • Fixed. No need for wiktionary, we have Wikipedia article eponym.--ragesoss 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "precociously brilliant" sounds a little redundant.
  • Also in that year, Barbara Kepler contracted Hungarian spotted fever, then began having epileptic seizures. - one does not have epileptic seizures unless one has epilepsy - one can have seizures, though, with a lot of different diseases - I am guessing that Barbara had the seizures because of the fever (high fevers bring on seizures) and not because she had epilepsy? - a small but crucial distinction - if she had epilepsy, that should be made clear (the sentence currently connects the seizures to the fever)
    • Fixed. The Connor source says "epileptic seizures", but I think he was just being sloppy; I removed "epileptic".--ragesoss 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed almost all of your citations contain page ranges rather than specific pages. That is fair enough, I suppose (I may start doing that myself to save time), but when you have a quotation in the text, you should immediately give the source for that. Here are two I found:
  • At age five, he observed the Comet of 1577, writing that he "was taken by [his] mother to a high place to look at it."
  • He eventually returned to Reuttinger (the fifth match) who, he wrote, "won me over with love, humble loyalty, economy of household, diligence, and the love she gave the stepchildren."
  • This culminated in Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica (1687), in which Newton derived Kepler's laws of planetary motion from his force-based theory of universal gravitation. - in this sentence "his" is ambiguous; it looks like it is referring back to Kepler, meaning "Kepler's force-based theory of universal gravitation"
    • Fixed, by replacing "his" with "a".--ragesoss 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Whewell, in his influential History of the Inductive Sciences of 1837, found Kepler to be the archetype of the inductive scientific genius, and in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences of 1840, an exemplar of the most advanced forms of scientific method. - awkward, particularly last part - how can a person be an example of the "most advanced form of the scientific method"?
    • Fixed. Put a semi-colon in the middle, rephrased from "example" to "embodiment".--ragesoss 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • examples of incommensurability, analogical reasoning, falsification, and many other philosophical concepts have been found in Kepler's life - do you mean his "work"?
  • It is traditional to list bibliographies alphabetically by the author's or editor's last name. I am wondering if there was some error in a wikipedia template that caused this to happen because the editors' summary of the historiography of Kepler leads me to believe they already know this. :)
    • Are you pointing out a problem, being witty, or both? In any case, I don't follow. --ragesoss 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Witty" is perhaps too kind. The bibliography should be alphabatized by the author's last name, no? Not all of your sources are listed that way. Awadewit 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I fixed it. I found one outright error and one (the Great Books of the Western World one) that was previously listed at the end, which I moved to join the rest of the Kepler stuff (since that's the only author from it that is relevant to the article).
          • I mean not "John Lear" but "Lear, John." Awadewit 21:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. I see. Fixed.--ragesoss 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the "cultural legacy" section was excellent. Never have I seen pop culture references worked in so seamlessly. Awadewit 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is well-written (one of the few that has really "compelling prose"), well-sourced and comprehensive. I am particularly impressed with its ability to integrate information into a cohesive article. My only remaining quibble is the bibliography (see above). This article was a pleasure to review. Awadewit 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Thank you very much for all the insightful feedback. I'm finally ready to put my own support behind this article.--ragesoss 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks to Ragesoss for bringing this article from controversy to featured status.--SteveMcCluskey 01:37, 19 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

The Notorious B.I.G.[edit]

Well, it's about to be 10 years since he died, and to mark the occasion I am nominating The Notorious B.I.G.'s Wikipedia article for featured status! Here are some reasons why I hope you will support me:

  • Detailed and well written. Easy to follow along.
  • It's neutral and has links to statements of opinion people have made.
  • It is built entirely of verifiable information and is absolutely fully referenced. There's not a single missing citation.
  • Not too long, not too short. The intro is a good summary. A reasonable number of images, all of which are sourced.
  • Covers a very notable topic (a guy widely considered one of the greatest and most influential rappers of all time) and is an excellent source for anyone who wants to learn more about Biggie.

Those are my reasons. I think this is a really outstanding article, above all. I hope I will get others to agree with me. 2Pac 23:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good, but a couple questions before I support: 1) Is there a reason that I'm missing regarding referring to him as "Biggie" as opposed to "B.I.G." or "Wallace" or something else? I'm not sure if the nickname is really the best way to reference him, although I don't know much about general rap culture. 2) You note a biography in the "further reading" section - any reason why it wasn't used in the text? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1 Because "Biggie" is a more simple 1-word pseudonym than just "B.I.G." and because it is a more specific and recognizable reference to himself than "Wallace". #2 The reference in the "futher reading" section is just for anyone who might want to find any additional info on Notorious, but that info might not really be imperative to include in the article. Oh yeah, and since I nominated it, Support 2Pac 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to 2Pac's points, Biggie was his original recording name and a name he referred to himself as throughout his career. According to MTV "Biggie" (or "Big") is his "most popular alias". I also thought it would read better than "The Notorious B.I.G." or "B.I.G.". 81.86.159.134 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as major contributor. Laalaaa 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For a well formed article. - !Malomeat 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References #36 and #37 are broken.--Rmky87 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ...as are references #5 and #41.--Rmky87 16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed, it was due to some unconstructive edit, I think. Hopefully it won't happen again. But now that's done, will you support please? 2Pac 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I don't know whether or not to support because I haven't really read the article.--Rmky87 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Malomeat. Looks real good. Cliff smith 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice job. --mav 23:28, 15 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Wii[edit]

The console has been out for a few months now, meaning that it is stable, and it has already been labeled as a Good Article. It appears to meet all the criteria for a featured article.

Ixistant 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't like the refs being in the wrong order, i.e. the first in the lead is 7 for some reason. Might be better to reorder them. Majorly (o rly?) 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's currently on long term semi-protection; not good for a FA imo. Majorly (o rly?) 14:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • References in infoboxes are listed before those in the lead because infoboxes always appear before the lead in Wikitext. —Cuiviénen 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore, it's technically impossible to reorder references as the Cite.php doesn't allow so. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Support it's a good article, but it's still a relatively new console, which brings new info and some vandals that turned it into the 6th most changed page ever. That "Semi-protected" won't go out easily... but at least it'll help to mantain the 1e criteria. igordebraga ≠ 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment most of those edits came from when the name Wii was originally announced. I would have no problem un protecting it though. The Placebo Effect 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a summary and source to Image:Nintendo Wii Channels.jpg, but it still needs fair use rationale. Image:Wii.svg needs fair use rationale as well. Pagrashtak 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the rationales. Contact me if you have any concerns. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks like a great article which deserves FA status in my opinion. There are a lot of citations and a good length. Funpika 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently since I am a Nintendo fan I am supposed to improve the article and not vote for it. Funpika 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Funpika's edits related to this have been limited to a single comment on the talkpage. Being a fan of the general topic doesn't mean it's inappropriate to support a nomination. If that were the case, we should probably disqualify the majority of support votes for just about any video game nominee.
    Peter Isotalo 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a fan shows bias towards a subject. That's why I haven't voted. The Placebo Effect 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I am a fan, I do not own this Console nor have I added to the article, but if I was just browsing along and stumbled upon this article I would think to myself "Hmmm, this article is well-written, has many cited references, and needs a very minor amount of organizing". Good Work. §†SupaSoldier†§ 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while and have done some clean-up in the past to keep it on the straight and narrow. I find myself fixing a number of issues (citations, spelling, unnecessary detail), and it makes me wonder if enough effort has been made to prepare this article for FA status. Concerns given above about image copyrights need to be confidently resolved, too. Once these loose ends are tied up, it will have my full support. -/- Warren 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Surprisingly, there's no specific editor who improved the article thus far. Some of the people working on the article may have improved it more than others, but nevertheless this is an excellent result of community cooperation. My comments: Sole years linking should be avoided per WP:DATE, as well as months coupled with years. Merge all the tiny two-sentence paragraphs with the previous larger ones. In response to incidences of strap failures, Nintendo is offering a stronger replacement for all straps - Nintendo began offering? Nearly all of the references are English, thus tagging so one or another is unnecessary. Remove all the trivial websites from the "Unofficial coverage" section — Cubed3, TheWiire, and WiiPlus — in accordance with the WP:EL guideline. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lots of hard work was put into this arctile, I would like to see it become featured. only 20 edits. -- Darkest Hour 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Numerous footnotes are just blue links, lacking publisher, date, last access date, and full biblio info (see examples at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). Not clear if section heading "Wii Channels" is a violation of WP:MSH, of if there's a reason for channels to be capped. Non-breaking hard spaces are needed between numbers and units of measurment [28]. The WP:LEAD should provide a better summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Wii Channels" is a proper name. I am working on the ref's. What else does the lead need? The Placebo Effect 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply To clarify, "Wii Channels" and "Wii Remote" are trademarks of Nintendo. Just64helpin
  • Thanks for clarification on names. Footnotes are still not done; is anyone going to work on them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been getting them, which fotnotes still need to be fixed? The Placebo Effect 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose footnotes need work. And couldn't the pictures be better for such a popular device? KnightLago 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Working on footnotes,I don't own it but other people do and I'll put a request on the talk page for a picture. What do you want a picture of specifically? The Placebo Effect 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been a minor participant in making this article better in the past and I am very pleased with its current state. Grandmasterka 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can´t believe this article has stayed coherent for so long... - !Malomeat 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see anything wrong with article. It is very well written applaying to all aspects ;-) Penubag 05:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
  • Comment In an FAC I participated in, I was told "See Also" sections are frowned upon for FAs. Since then, I kind of watch out for that, and wonder if it should be removed here.--Clyde (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That info isn't entirely correct; read See also at WP:GTL. See also is fine in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well my concern is that FAs should have brilliant prose, and as such should include less lists rather than more. It seems that Homebrew could be easily integrated into the article (I'm surprised it's not) and I question the relevance of "list of games published by Nintendo" being in the See Also at all. I will reluctantly concede the point, but it wouldn’t please me to see a Featured Article with a list where I question both entries. As such, I don't think it will get my support.--Clyde (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "don't think it will not"? Was that double-negative intentional? Just64helpin 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably. Hey man I'm not saying I have brillant prose. Cut me some slack, I was in hurry. Point is, no support from me (and I fixed that grammer problem).--Clyde (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I was wondering whether my site www.wiitalk.co.uk would make it to your external list page for the Wii - Its probably the biggest unofficial Wii site around, with blogs and many dedicated members - thanks**
  • Weak oppose I don't like reference links [1] in the infobox, makes it look messy. Please have the information elsewhere in the article such as in a table (for units sold) and put the reference links there. Also the wii game disk + wii remote images should be cropped down to take out the extra wood border. Same with the main picture, could remove some of the white space on the left. And the game consoles template shouldn't to be under references section as it just causes the references to squash up and a lot of space is wasted below the template. Also those nav boxes under external links (nintedo portal/wiki commons etc) would look better having biggest at top. Hope you take my ideas onboard.--The Negotiator 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to crop the Wii Remote picture, but I couldn't find a "upload new version of this picture" link like there is on most pictures (I tried uploading a pic with the same name at Wikimedia Commons, but it says my account is too new to do that). TJ Spyke 12:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think semi-protected pages should achieve FA status. If it can be unprotected for about a week without edit wars or huge amounts of vandalism, then I'll change my vote. --Icestryke 07:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is semi-protected, not because of edit-wars but because of vandals e.g. children. This is out of the editors control.--The Negotiator 09:51, 17 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

George VI of the United Kingdom[edit]

Support Self-nominated We've just done his brother, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. DrKiernan 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object: Not my strong point, but the images Image:033278.jpg and Image:Kinggeorge-FDR.jpe seem to have (minor) copyright problems. The first doesn't specify which reason for crown copyright expiry is relevant. The second gives "These pictures may be used for research and educational purposes, but may not be published or sold in any way." as the fair use rationale, which doesn't seem to work because they are being published. 4u1e 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment Well written, referenced and an interesting read. As a note, the Image:Kinggeorge-FDR.jpe source links is dead. I'm curious about Image:Edward VII UK and successors.jpg - when does crown copyright apply?, as that appears to have been taken by the wife of the then King. One final thing, what do you mean by "of modern times" when talking about not recording his time of death? RHB Talk - Edits 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the source for Image:033278.jpg (which was missing) - it is a work by the Canadian government (National Film Board) and hence Crown Copyright (which in broad terms is copyright for works created by His/Her Majesty's Government) has expired. I have removed Image:Kinggeorge-FDR.jpe. Crown copyright is 50 years from publication, personal copyright is 70 years (in the US) from death of the author, so either way with the photo by Queen Alexandra, copyright has expired. I don't know what "of modern times" means - I have removed the sentence. DrKiernan 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection struck. Thanks. 4u1e 11:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work! John Smith's 12:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, well-written and well-cited.--Yannismarou 18:04, 12 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Irish phonology[edit]

Self-nom. This is not a typical FAC, I think, but the recent appearance of Polar coordinate system on the main page gave me hope that there is also room for articles targeted to a specialist audience. The article has had a peer review and has been listed as a Good article since November. At first I was content to keep it a GA, but then I noticed that the 1.0 assessment system says of GAs, "Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job", and in all modesty I don't think that's true. I don't think other encyclopedias could do a better job, and in fact I think this is the most comprehensive introduction to Irish phonology currently available anywhere (either online or in print, in either English or Irish). And so, since I believe it to be an "outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information", I'm nominating it for promotion to FA. —Angr 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does this qualify for FAC then? I would've thought it would be deemed eligible as an FLC upon a cursory look of the article. LuciferMorgan 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an article, not a list. Those bulleted items are example words illustrating the points the prose is making. —Angr 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well to me it's extremely listy, so I'm opposing per 1a which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose". Convert the lists (or "bulleted items" as you refer to them) into prose and I'll change my vote. LuciferMorgan 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you insist, but it will make the article unreadable. —Angr 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you should go for featured list - it'd pass that I reckon. LuciferMorgan 06:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It isn't a list. (What kind of list would it be? List of examples of Irish words? Give me a break.) I'm converting it to prose right now, wait and see if you like the result. —Angr 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support this article with a few changes. First, Angr is right when he says that this article is not a list. It is an article about phonology that uses lists to make its points. Unfortunately, I think that the prose should be changed back into lists - it is far more readable that way. LuciferMorgan, these examples are not supposed to be coherent paragraphs like other lists I've seen where the writers were just too lazy to write them out. Third, I think there should be a more general introduction to the subject for the lay reader (the lead should also be able to be understood by the general reader). Angr, I would suggest imagining such an introduction as the basic lecture you give to students (Day 1 of Irish phonology or the day on Irish in a general linguistics class). Give us non-experts something. Awadewit 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'll try to generalize the lead even more, though I thought it was already accessible. I did find that delistifying the section on vowel allophones was an improvement, because it allowed me to discuss the environments in which each allophone is found in more detail than I had done previously. But for the other sections, I agree that listing the example words "horizontally" (within the prose of the paragraph) is inferior to listing them "vertically" as lists. —Angr 11:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the third paragraph of the lead to be more accessible to laypeople. Let me know what you think. —Angr 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the lead is an improvement, but I still think there should be an overall introduction for the lay reader. The physicsts were able to write an entire page on quantum mechanics for the lay reader. See Introduction to quantum mechanics. Also, must you say synchronic and diachronic in the history? Not everyone has read Saussure and those are easy words to replace with more traditional language. Awadewit 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at Introduction to quantum mechanics, I would say Irish phonology is already about as layman-friendly as that article is. I can try to make a little more so (for example by reword the "synchronic/diachronic" bit), but this article isn't, and can't be, an introduction to descriptive phonology. (The article doesn't even touch on issues relating to phonological theory!) (The article barely touches on issues relating to phonological theory, and only in the section on vowel-initial words.) —Angr 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree. Knowing nothing about quantum mechanics but something about grammar, I can understand much more of that article than yours. If, as you say below, this isn't an article for specialists, but it cannot be understood by well-educated people like myself who are interested in linguistics on the side, then who is it for? I really think that you do need to have some sort of general introduction. Awadewit 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also know nothing about quantum mechanics, and I can't understand a word of the allegedly non-specialist Introduction to quantum mechanics. But that's a good thing, because it means I have something to work toward -- an encyclopedia is, after all, supposed to educate its readers, not just tell them what they already know. —Angr 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm fully aware that polar coordinate system was an article that was one of the most technical FAs to date. I would certainly have objected to it had I only more insight in mathematics, but it would have just been too difficult to try to barge in as someone who knows absolutely nothing of the discipline and complain "I don't understand it, explain it for me". This is different; I'm a lot more familiar with linguistics and I understand just about all the terms involved. I don't, however, agree that this is a topic that has to be presented though it were a conference paper. While an article on phonology should be allowed to go into some detail, this juts making it easy on oneself by effectively excluding the general readership completely. The article doesn't even make an honest attempt to explain any of the phonological features in anything other than pure academic-speak. Lucifers suggestion that it would be easier to pass it off as a featured list gives a lot of food for thought... Peter Isotalo 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you not made this same objection over at Mayan languages? Awadewit 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have an actionable objection? The idea that this article is written like a conference paper is absurd: it would be laughed out of any phonology conference for being too basic, too descriptive, and for lacking original research; in short, for being an encyclopedia article targeted to a non-specialist audience. And at the risk of repeating myself, nominating it as a featured list is out of the question because it isn't a list of anything. —Angr 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awa, it's not even half as jargon-packed and convoluted as this article, and I didn't support Mayan languages, but merely made some minor comments.
Not actionable, Angr? That's a pretty obstinate attitude. There is little or no encyclopedic prose beyond the lead. Again, you're not even trying to appeal to anyone but fellow linguists and you still want to pass it off as an FA. And of course it's not actually a paper. I said it reads like one, or better yet, like some of the course literature in linguistics I've come across. The kind that simply doesn't give a damn about trying to explain things other than those who already are completely immersed in the discipline. Neither did I seriously suggest that it should be a featured list, but that it's worth noting that Lucifer perceived it as being one.
Peter Isotalo 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Mayan languages wasn't as jargon-packed, but huge swaths of it would be impenetrable to the general reader and I simply wondered why you made that a criteria for this page but not that page. Consistency on issues like that in FACs, especially from the same reviewer is, I believe, important. Awadewit 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Are you being serious about Mayan languages not being "half as jargon-packed and convoluted" as this article??? Mayan languages, which uses the terms "positionals" (neither linked nor defined), "ergative morphosyntactic alignment" (even I don't know what that means), "transitive verb/intransitive verb", "voice and aspect", "passive and antipassive (again, even I don't know what that means)" in the lead?! And that's an article about something as broad as a whole language family, not something as specific as the phonology of an individual language. Anyway, I'm working right now on "delistifying and demystifying" it now. —Angr 18:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply pointing out that there is more on the Mayan languages page that I can understand than on your page. If you had looked at the FAC nomination, though, you would have noticed that I have objected to its becoming an FA until the lead is made more accessible to the lay reader. So, I do not feel that I am being inconsistent here. Awadewit 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have merely commented the Mayan languages FAC, and those were rather general comments on citations. You can blame me for being a careless or unfair reviewer when or if I take a stance, not for merely making general pointers about technicalities. I've neither objected or supported, so I can't recognize the relevance to this nomination.
Angr, I appreciate your hard work. I'll check back in the next few days to see how the article is doing.
Peter Isotalo 18:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My question is, why did you not take a stance on the Mayan languages page when this issue is clearly important to you. You say you would have opposed Polar coordinates on that basis alone. You still have a chance to oppose Mayan languages on that basis. I am confused as to why you are not doing so. Awadewit 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would turn my Wikipedia activities into a full-time, but completely unpaid, pseudo-employment. I try to take my stances seriously, and I'm not one of those editors who objects by simple checklist procedures. And I already explained to you that I'm not particularly competent in mathematics. I tend to stay out of discussions about articles on that topic, even if I can admit that I am annoyed at the abundance of overly technical terms. If you have any more questions about this, direct them to my talk page. This is not in the least relevant to improving the nominee.
Peter Isotalo 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing my objection, not so much because I believe that the article is presentable to a general audience (even it has improved in the last few days), but because I can't see much consensus for making technical articles appealing to audiences without a devoted interest in the topic. I've gotten the impression that any article that is even slightly narrow in scope (and happens to be outside the scope of the classical humanities and modern fiction) appears to be exempt from the idea of being readable or compelling to anyone but professionals, academics, nerds and aficionados. So even if it is my vision of what Wikipedia should be, it doesn't feel like I have the time, resources or energy to fight for it. There just doesn't seems to be enough interest among specialists in trying to deliver all that knowledge to the masses and it's obviously not in my power to convince them otherwise.
Peter Isotalo 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find the article readable and easy to understand. I have no prior knowledge of Irish. I do have some college education in linguistics but haven't completed a degree. I see nothing wrong with featuring specialized articles on academic subjects. But guys, polar coordinate system is nothing close to being as specialized as this article. It's something more or less every person with a college education in engineering or the sciences will be familiar with. For a really specialized science article try Atlas experiment. Maybe it looks less scary because it's mostly prose but it's full of specialized terminology. Haukur 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that polar coordinate system isn't as specialized as this page. Technically, anyone who has taken high-school trigonometry should be able to understand a good portion of that article. And in the United States some people even take calculus in high school, so that part would be comprehensible for them (I don't know how the whole math thing works outside the US). (For people like me, though, high-school calculus seems to have gotten buried beneath other things in my brain and I can't find it again.) But I would like to point out that even having taken introductory courses in linguistics gives you a huge advantage over the general reader with regards to this article. (I am assuming a general reader who actually knows some grammar - most of the students who come into my freshmen composition course cannot identify such basic parts of the sentence as the "subject" or the "verb" - this presents a huge problem when I say, "your verb tense is incorrent" - they have no idea what I'm saying.) I might also point out that, according to your user page, you are familiar with several different languages. That is also very helpful in understanding a page such as this. Finally, I am not opposed to specialized pages achieving FA, I just feel that they should make some attempt to communicate their information to a non-expert audience. I mean, is an expert really going to need to read them? What is the purpose of the page (this is why I asked who the audience was)? Awadewit 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, that Atlas experiment is hardly difficult compared to things like Quantum field theory or Mathematics of general relativity. What is it about physics? :) Awadewit 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - thinking back I probably had polar coordinates in my second or third year of gymnasium. In any case there are probably more than 100 million people in the world who have a basic understanding of them. You're also right that I'm at an advantage compared to a random passer-by in understanding the Irish phonology article. Then again I would have thought that the only people who will ever be interested in reading that article can be split into two groups: those who know some Irish and those who know some linguistics. As someone from the second group I'm saying the article is fine from my POV. Of course that doesn't mean that I object to efforts at making it more accessible, I just doubt that the general Wikipedia reader will ever be interested in reading it no matter what we do. And that's okay - FAs are meant to showcase Wikipedia's best articles, even those who are not on subjects of much general interest. Haukur 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think professional phonologists may well be interested in this article, because it deals with a language with an interesting phonology that has been relatively little discussed in the literature. As I said in my nomination, this article is the most complete introduction to Irish phonology available anywhere, either online or in print, in English or in Irish. It is linguists who don't necessarily know any Irish who will want to read about it, and who I had in mind when I wrote it. Frankly, I doubt non-linguists would ever even find this page, let alone start reading it. —Angr 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But I still think that one should make an effort to explain part of one's article to the general public. Awadewit 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. And as Haukur pointed out, it may also be interesting to people who know Irish but have no knowledge of phonology. They're the ones I'm trying to keep in mind as I do my rewrite. —Angr 06:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and don't you even think of making this a list (to be blunt, what a stupid idea). This is an amazing article, though I was highly amused to discover the pronounciation of the letter v is a "Voiced labiodental fricative". I would suggest reducing some of the examples in your sentences though, it starts to wear on the eyes after a bit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on it! —Angr 06:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Okay, I've incorporated the examples into the paragraphs so that they are prose rather than lists. I've also tried to tone down some of the more technical language and to explain the technical terms that are used. I've also added several images to try to make some points more visually salient. Please let me know what you think! —Angr 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that (1) I do not consider this article too listy - it's right on par with most linguistics articles in that respect; and (2) as far as technical articles are concerned, at least some of the article should be accessible to laymen, but that doesn't mean the entire article must. Raul654 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! The listiness complaint came when the article looked like this; it's much less listy now, and (hopefully) more accessible to laymen than it was at that point too. —Angr 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see that revision I can see where that complaint is coming from. (But as I said, I think the article is OK now in that respect)Raul654 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent article, and a lot of good hard work has been put into it. It should be found very interesting by people interested in either phonology or Irish and it strives to be accessible to both groups. Of course, if you are interested in neither, then this article is not for you, but that is irrelevant with respect to the FA criteria. Stefán 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I still feel that this article should have had an introduction for the lay reader, I do not want to discourage good academic work from being done for wikipedia. I also want to commend Angr for his efforts in recent days to make the article more readable; I do believe that he has succeeded. Awadewit 12:50, 16 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·[edit]

Self-nom. This two-week-old article has had an appearance on DYK and a brief peer review, which I'm cutting short so that I can get the ball rolling here. Other editors have made helpful suggestions, and I think the article is looking pretty good.

The article isn't very long, but I think it's comprehensive. The topic isn't very important, but I think it's interesting. The subject area isn't very accessible, but… it lends itself to pretty pictures? Melchoir 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ooooh, pretty pictures. --Ideogram 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MOS says to avoid special characters in headings, specifically the slash. Not sure what to do about φ-summation—is there a way you can rename that section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the second paragraph of the introduction needs some work. In particular, "(1/4) is the arithmetic mean between 0 and 1⁄2, where 1⁄2 is itself the mean of 0 and 1". This doesn't seem to relate to either the series in question, or the rest of the article. Bluap 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that part was meant to refer mostly to "Stability and linearity" and "Cesàro and Hölder". But if it doesn't work, that's what the delete key is for… Melchoir 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • …There we go. Melchoir 19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it hard to muster much enthusiasm for what I regard as a rather trivial subject, but that's not related to the critieria, is it? On the other hand, I really like the inventive use of images. I do have a couple of specific comments though:
    1. Section Divergence, "This sequence is notable for ...": That's a cute remark, but it does seem rather unrelated to the subject of the article.
      It's a little unrelated, yes. But it's only one degree away; you can't have a comprehensive article on the series without including the sequence of partial sums, and if one were going to write an article on that particular sequence, you'd have to include the remark. It wouldn't make much sense to have separate articles, so we can pretend that we merged them. Melchoir 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Section Stability and linearity, "Since ... does not have a sum in the usual sense, the equation ... must be given some other meaning.": Is that logically sound? Might the equation not be meaningless?
      I actually considered saying something to the effect of "the equation is either meaningless or it must have/be given some other meaning", which is safer but sounded silly. I'll just rewrite that bit to be less active. Melchoir 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Same section, "... Cesaro summation and Abel summation are just two examples": Given that the reader has not yet been introduced to these summation methods, this statement (specifically, the word just) may a bit puzzling.
      Well, they're briefly mentioned in the lead, but I guess it's better not to depend on that. I'll fix it. Melchoir 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Same section, "A different approach, also applicable to a range of method": I had to read this twice, and once more after I read the whole article, before I understood its meaning. Reformulate?
      I had a lot of trouble with that transition when I wrote it; it's good that I'm forced to fix it now. This should do it. Melchoir 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Section Euler and Borel, "So the Euler transform of ... is ...": This sentence uses a without defining it. Furthermore, the structure is not clear. The Euler transform of an arbitrary series is 1/2 + 1/4 (Δa)_0 + ... and for "our" series, this evaluates to 1/2 - 1/4 = 1/4.
      It should be better now. Melchoir 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Section Separation of scales: I don't know φ-summation, but I find it odd that a mathematical theorem is established by using two physical principles. What's going on here?
      It's more that the definition of the method, and the constraints one assumes of phi, are motivated by those physical principles. There's a mathematical proof of the precise statement in the book, which broadly follows the summary in the article. After the authors are done with the proof, the moral of the story is "Thus the principle of infinitesimal relaxation combined with the separation of scales condition permitted us to arrive at a striking result/ 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + … = 1/4." I think I can make it a little clearer… Melchoir 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Section Generalizations: What's the original reference containing Abel's quote? I ask because I have a source (Boyd, Acta Appl. Math. 56:1-98) which places it in 1828.
      Grattan-Guinness writes that it is a letter "to Holmboe in January 1826", and his footnote cites "Abel Letters, p. 16; Correspondence, pp. 16-17. Mostly also in Abel Works1, vol. 2, pp. 266-267; Works2, vol. 2, pp. 256-257." Markushevich writes "Cauchy … Algebraic Analysis … And after another five years Abel wrote in a letter to his friend Holamb:". Google tells me that Cauchy's work was published in 1821, which again places Abel's letter in 1826. Melchoir 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and Grattan-Guinness does have bibliographic details in pp.154-155 of the bibliography, but I'd rather not copy them all out here! Melchoir 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Notes: What are the citations of "Euler et al." (notes 10, 11 and 19)? The only reference with Euler has no coauthors. On checking that reference now, it seems that some accents have gone missing.
      The coauthors are the translators, whose notes at the end of the paper are the source for the modern interpretations in this article. I'll expand the reference. Melchoir 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, looks like it was a template error to begin with. Melchoir 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, yes, the accents aren't in the English translation, but I see them in the original document, so I restored them.
    9. Pictures: Many do not work on my browser (Debian Iceweasel 2.0.0.1); I assume that's a technical problem which should not influence this discussion. As I said, the pictures are a real addition to the article. However, they are not so easy to understand. The picture in the section Stability and linearity works perhaps better if you place the four copies of the series on top of each other. I don't understand the Euler summation picture. I assume that it's not possible to explain the pictures completely in the captions, but perhaps a more extensive explanation can be added to the picture pages. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      That's really strange… the three SVGs on 0.999... didn't cause any problems, or at least I assume someone would have spoken up if they had. I don't think I've changed the way I generate them. If necessary, they could be made into large PNGs until the underlying technical issue is resolved.
      The current layout in Stability and linearity had the advantage that the participants in the "staple" cancellations are right next to each other. If all four copies were stacked vertically, that part would be a lot harder to communicate.
      Euler is a little tricky; I'll see what I can do with the Image: pages. Melchoir 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I've tried jimmying a few things; if you clear your cache and reload the article, does it work now? Melchoir 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added lengthy descriptions to the image pages, including what is probably a contender for Longest Description Ever for the Euler sum. I think I've now hit all your points. Melchoir 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that's a lot! I'll interleave comments above to make the page easier to read. Melchoir 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically support I like the article, great pictures (although some don't some of the thumbs don't appear in my browser so this has to be fixed), nice depth, well written and concise. But if and when this becomes a featured article, please remember to avoid making it the FA of the day! The title seems pretty innocuous but the article is bound to be beyond confusing for anyone who has forgotten (or never learned) calculus. Even in the lead, a sentence like "Euler treats these two as special cases of 1 − 2^n + 3^n − 4^n + · · · for arbitrary n" will probably lose a few readers, not to mention the rather counterintuitive idea that one might assign a sum to a sum that doesn't sum... In that line of thought, I'm not sure that it's worth wikilinking "Solving the equations": if anyone has gotten that far, they know what solving an equation means. Also I think the lead needs to expand a bit on the significance of this series (historically and as an example illustrating the various summation methods) which is what the rest of the article is really outlining. Pascal.Tesson 07:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments! I'll… start with the short ones.
    • Stupid thumbnails… I really thought I'd fixed them this time. I'll have to seek help on the Village Pump…
    • I don't think the third paragraph of the lead is so bad.
    • If anything, I was worried that the lead made the series sound too important! Doesn't it touch on the main themes already?
    • Equation solving might not be that useful, but it's conceivable that someone will want to click on it. Its presence there is also kind of a signal that that section should be accessible in a limited sense: even if the readers don't understand the deeper concepts, at least they can go through the motions with the article as their guide.
    • Actually, that philosophy works throughout the article. Even if you (the generic you) don't really get what's going on, someone who's taken a high-school course in calculus will see a lot of familiar concepts: a Taylor series here, a limit there… look, with a little effort I can even do that integral! An enterprising high-school teacher might even use the article to construct a final test: see if you can compute all of the following quantities. Is there a pattern? Of course, an introductory college course would be even more helpful, and there are plenty of people who have taken one of those: engineers, bio majors, and so forth.
    • Finally, I'd like to say that I think it's important for an article like this to get to the Main Page. Granted, it's probably more demanding than any article that has been Today's Featured Article thus far. Maybe not by much, given Enzyme inhibitor and Photon, but still. Its precedent would encourage other editors to showcase technical topics, which is good for the encyclopedia as well as its public image. There's a certain attitude out there that Wikipedia is for pop culture, and I think some of the recent TFAs should already be dispelling that notion; this one would really help. Internally, we could always use more activity in the sciences, and that's hardly just mathematics; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irish phonology needs love too! We may see a time when there are two FAs side-by-side every day, and it could even become a tradition that one should be general-interest and the other more specialist. But I'd rather not wait for that day; I'd rather be actively encouraging it! Melchoir 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving you bonus points for sheer faith! Thumbnails are now fine and slight changes in the lead have been quite good so my main reservations have been taken care of. Good work Melchoir. Pascal.Tesson 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've been reading Going Postal, which emphasizes how one can gain favor by offering hope to others. (Well… it's a lot more shady than that, but we'll leave it there.) Melchoir 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but please consider the use of non-breaking hard spaces in the equation, which often breaks up on my screen. Although not required by MOS, using nbsp will keep the equation (1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·) intact on one line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used to use non-breaking spaces, but I now use {{nowrap}}, which is reportedly even more effective and has the added bonus of keeping the markup easy to read. I just added 11 more that were missing, so there shouldn't be any more problems. The only places where I haven't put in nowraps are footnotes, captions, and the beginnings of paragraphs. Melchoir 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just so everyone knows, I've switched all of the SVGs to PNG versions. They're a little harder to read, but they're reliable. Melchoir 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article. Comment on the lede: the second paragraph seems to jump into talking about summations right away - it's not entirely clear why this is so relevant that it's almost the first thing talked about. Maybe the third paragraph should come before the second, because the end of the third paragraph gives us some idea of why the series is relevant (any more information to this end would be a welcome addition as well). MarkBuckles (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe a transition should be made into the second paragraph, but I'm not sure that the series' relevance to research is the way to do it. For an article on Eta constants, that would be appropriate, but this article shouldn't claim more territory than it's entitled to. The series 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · all by itself is relevant to the study of divergent series because it is such a nice example. It is probably the second-simplest of all divergent series, 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + · · · being the first. The problem is that I wouldn't want to write the preceding sentence in the article, because it's kind of POV. If you care more about form than ease of summation, you might say that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · is the second-simplest divergent series after 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + · · ·. And Euler's own classification of divergent series into four categories doesn't reflect either of these opinions.
      Anyway, despite my rambling, I'll try to improve the transition. Melchoir 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this better? Melchoir 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It flows better but the rhetorical questioning "How could this be?" seems out of place for an encyclopedia (even though that's probably what everyone's thinking). MarkBuckles (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True… how about this? Melchoir 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tried my hand too [29]. Also I'm confused about the syntax in this sentence: "For many summability methods, 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is an easy example, and they assign it a "sum" of 1⁄4 after all." What's the predicate? Is that and supposed to be there? MarkBuckles (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I rearranged that sentence, and I filled in a dangling "this" right after the equation. Melchoir 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • By the way, given Euler's words as quoted later on, including "no more doubtful" and "incontestably", I'm pretty sure that Euler did feel justified in writing the equation. I agree that we don't need it, though. Melchoir 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support on the basis of the article's title. Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Robert K S 09:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The images are help understanding a lot. We need more mathematics FA's. Leon math 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How come this article appears in the Wikipedia:Featured Articles list (under the mathematics section), but doesn't have a star on it? (The FA list seems to be the only source that says this article is an FA) Leon math 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you caught Raul in the middle of an update. Melchoir 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, more precisely, GimmeBot hasn't closed the FAC yet. I guess the only thing it doesn't do is add the star, so I'll do that now. Melchoir 23:31, 16 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Flag of Portugal[edit]

Self-nomination. Less than a month ago, I did a major expansion and restructuring to this article where a few newly-created images (my authorship) were also added. It is an A-Class article according to WikiProject Portugal and is expecting a class reassessment from the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. I believe it follows all FA criteria, but the final decision is yours. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe I'm just being fussy with my spelling, but shouldn't the "color" section be spelt "colour"? As, to my knowledge anyway, the international convention for this word's spelling, apart from North America, is spelt with a "u"?--Phill talk Edits 17:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wiki article spells "Color" and you find more Google results for "color" than for "colour"; nonetheless, "colour" does seem to be more universal according to the Commonwealth usage. The spelling MOS does give preference to the "our" variant over the "or" one, but if one variant is kept throughout the whole article, there is no problem. I'm OK if a change to "our" is preferred. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the consensus on NA v. Commonwealth english is that it doesn't matter which is used, as long as it is consistent in the article. IE, it's ok if the whole article is written in NA English, or in Commonwealth English, but should not be mixed. Canæn 22:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter, I was only wondering, as I said it just me being picky ;-). Anyway, I'm gonna Support this article's FAC.--Phill talk Edits 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • American English seems to be predominant in this article, so it should be kept all in AE. There are still a few cases of BE that need to be removed: "honourable" in the "Colors" section, "favour" in the "1830 – 1910" section, and "honourable" in the "Flag protocol" section (twice).-- Carabinieri 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Thanks for finding those. Sometimes it might happen that variants get mixed, especially when the editor isn't a native-speaker of any of the variants. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Almost there. 1. The third level headings cause a lopsided ToC, suggest that ==Symbolism= be promoted. 2. Dashes needed in the section header for the years (and also between years) 3. Imperial equivalents would help make it accessible to a wider audience. 4. Curiously, seven castles -- what is so curious? PS I love the SVG flags. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support. Minor issues mostly. 1) Dates appear inconsistently. Would you like the article to be written in British English or American English? 2) Use of italics in quotes should generally be avoided per WP:ITALICS. 3) ...sometimes dating back to the begining of the 20th century. 4) The Wikimedia Commons link should appear as "Flags of Portugal"; this can be achieved using an external parameter. 5) "It was also used on the flag from 1640–1707 and 1816–1830." - Factual inaccuracy? It clearly seem the 1707 design uses a different structure, and the 1816 design follows it so there isn't a need to separate the periods. 6) ...this flag is almost similar to the current one - Given the previous statement, the flag is similar to the current one. 7) Sole years should not be linked per WP:DATE. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I fixed all of the listed issues and, though I didn't quite understand what you meant with 1), I reviewed all the linked dates and wrote them in the same style. As for either AE or BE, I don't have any preference, but since I wrote the article using the American variant, it's better to keep it this way (you found any other words non-accordingly?). About the shield image caption, I wanted to stress that that specific format was used during those periods, while from 1707 to 1816 and from 1830 to 1910, another shield shape (different from the current) was used. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) There were some switches to American English in the article recently, and the dates are inconsistent with that. 5) I understand that, but it might be confusing for the readers. It appears to be written differently now. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support a good article, although referencing in the introduction is poor Ahadland 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed that the requirement (or not) of references on the lead section has been discussed somewhere, but I don't know if a consensus was reached on any of the views. The lead is defined as a summary of "the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Where the article explains these important points in a longer, deeper and more detailed fashion, all the necessary references are present, so is it really necessary to do it on the lead, if there aren't any dubious, questionable sentences? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's clear , comprehensive and well structured. I particularly like the Evolution section. Galf 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article. I love the flags. Joaopais 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Galf; I like the Evolution section, too. --Crzycheetah 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article. The WikiProject Portugal rating has changed to GA. Personally, I'm inclined to FA.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support but I've just reverted the GA rating, because only through GA candidacy can an article achieve that rating. In fact, replacing an A-Class rate for GA-Class is downgrading it. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:44, 16 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Trembling Before G-d[edit]

Originally a Jumpaclass entry at WP:LGBT, I somehow just kept working on the article long after the competition. I think it's ready for FA (though possibly with a few finishing touches which I'm sure you'll tell me about). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The "Awards" section is presented in table format, so could it be turned into prose? I know past film FAs have used tables, but I've always thought that if it was turned into prose it's always more engaging to the reader and doesn't disrupt the flow. LuciferMorgan 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO! You brought this up on the peer review, and I told you then I wasn't going to change it! Seriously, look at the difference between the awards section and the awards section on Brokeback Mountain - BBM's looks dreadful. I don't get how an awards table can disrupt an article where a prose section, which is also unsightly, wouldn't. All of my previous FAs have tables, and I would like this trend to continue. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list would look something like this:
I think the table makes it easier for the reader to interpret the information. The information being presented is sufficiently complex to warrant the use of a table. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - That's a list you've placed above Ashlux, and you don't have to write it out like that. I meant paragraphs and prose - you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. The one on BMM isn't a prose section - that's a list actually Dev, and not what I asked to change it to. I oppose lists in FAs, and I OPPOSE tables too per criterion 1. a. which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose". An example of what I'm saying would be in the "Reception" section of Halloween;

Halloween was nominated for a Saturn Award by the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for Best Horror Film in 1979, but lost to The Wicker Man (1973).[28] The film has received other honors since its theatrical debut. Halloween is 68th on the American Film Institute's list 100 Most Thrilling Movies Ever, compiled in 2001. In 2006, the United States Library of Congress deemed Halloween to be "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.[29]

On a final note, no need to bite my head off either. LuciferMorgan 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry I misunderstood you, Lucifer (I'm amused -- it sounds like I'm calling you a demon). Prose would make sense if the movie was nominated for only a couple of awards (http://imdb.com/title/tt0077651/awards only lists 2 awards). But Trembling Before G-d has been nominated and won quite a few more than that (http://imdb.com/title/tt0278102/awards). A list or table really starts to make sense for Trembling, but not for Halloween. Or are you suggesting we leave off some of the awards and put something generic like "The film has received other honors since its theatrical debut"? (Slightly off-topic, the Haloween article doesn't cite anything for that statement and IMDb doesn't confirm it). -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you saw it as biting, Lucifer, but the layout of awards section is purely personal preference and I'm exasperated by the number of people who ask me to change it because they think it looks nicer. Frankly, I will rather fail this FA than be forced to change a section into something that is personal preference and I, the writer, consider unaesthetically pleasing. The awards sections have been passed in virtually every film FA without comment, certainly in all the FAs I have passed. The awards section will not be prose. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the awards being in prose was the only thing keeping it from FA, I wouldn't be opposed to changing it. =) -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope you understand I'm not asking for it to be like Brokeback Mountain - I would oppose that too. As concerns the "Awards" section, I prefer the one used by Halloween as I dislike the list or table format which I find unaesthetically pleasing in FAs - tables and lists are for FLC in my opinion. I'm still opposing per 1. a. though since these tables, which are especially prevalent in song FACs, I feel violate that criterion and make the article off putting. LuciferMorgan 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns them being passed in virtually every film FA, that's rather unfortunate in my opinion since all those film FAs I wouldn't class as FAs if they have those tables. These tables fail to engage the reader I feel. I still think my vote is valid and actionable, and hope you don't feel I'm singling you out. LuciferMorgan 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- fine article! One note I failed to mention in the Peer Review that I'll mention here..."Coming out at 15, he was expelled from seven yeshivas for homosexual activity before becoming a drag queen, and is now dying of AIDS." by my understanding of AIDS, one doesn't actually die from it, but from complications of or complications relating to AIDS. I think the sentence should be changed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Changed to "AIDS-related illness". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for a variety of reasons.
    1. Sources: The Internet Movie Database is used as a source, but it is fan-written and has "no editorial oversight or fact-checking process", so it must be considered a questionable source. The PDF "Trembling Before G-d: A Film by Sandi Simcha DuBowski" appears to be self-published. There is no source to back up the claim that Orthodox Judaism has traditional considered homosexuality le-hach'is or the claim that Norman Lamm's reinterpretation of it as ones is gaining ground in Modern Orthodox Judaism while being rejected by Haredi Judaism.
    2. Less than brilliant prose:
      • The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they went about their lives, and interviewed both rabbis and psychotherapists about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality suddenly switches tenses mid-stream from present to past, and suggests that the film itself interviewed people.
      • Most of those who agreed to be interviewed are interviewed mostly in silhouette: while chiasmus can be an interesting effect, in this case "most...interviewed..interviewed mostly" sounds quite stilted. (It's also not really true; there is some silhouette in the film, but it's certainly not with most interviewees most of the time.)
      • Reception by the Orthodox Judaism communities was mixed: using the noun phrase Orthodox Judaism attributively like this sounds odd; why not Orthodox Jewish communities or even (since the religion is clear from the context) Orthodox communities?
      • ...the small category of Biblically-prohibited acts ... which an Orthodox Jew is obligated under the laws of Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law to die rather than do: repetition of the word "law" sounds awkward, and isn't there a more full-bodied verb than do that can be used; commit, maybe?
      • According to Boxofficemojo.com, it has grossed $788,896 at the box office: As of when?
    3. Style: It's hard to pick out a topic of the second paragraph of the lead: it tells us about the background, then hops into a definition of cinéma vérité, and wraps up telling us what languages the film is in. The "Style" section is very short and choppy, reading like a list of unrelated facts. The "Production" section isn't really very much about production. The article violates the Manual of Style's recommendations on national varieties of English by using British spelling despite the fact that the filmmaker is American and the U.S. is listed as the only English-speaking production country. The article is not consistent in its spelling of Has(s)idic.
    —Angr 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the suggestions Angr! -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be the problem with the awards section on IMDb? While users can report errors and omissions, they are examined and approved first. Is this much different than contacting the author of a book/website/etc. and reporting errors and omissions to them? Best I can tell, it is not like Wikipedia where changes are immediate. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok:

Your prose concerns have been changed, all references to IMDB expunged, and the one typo of "hassidic" changed. Any source written by a recognised expert in their field is an acceptable RS, so a self-published document by The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is acceptable. Similarly, who is better an authority as to what form a film is made in than the man who made it? I didn't add that source, but now I've read it I am so grateful to have found it!
I copied much of the background section from Judaism and homosexuality, and so I have deleted the unsourced claim you noted, as I can find no sources for it.
Yes, the article should probably be in American English, but its not, and I am not prepared to go through the entire article word by word trying to remember how exactly Americans traditionally spell. WP:MOS also says "please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page." It hardly seems a definite requirement, more a matter for personal preference.

So, how's it looking now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better. I've made some more changes in line with what I said above, including switching to American spelling (Microsoft Word makes that very easy), and can now support. —Angr 18:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Well, now I know it won't be such work I will actually do it next time if someone wants it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A great article, but I don't think that its subject is important enough for a FA. Tomer T 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that importance had anything to do with being a FA (it's not mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria). -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't. That's a completely invalid reason to oppose promotion. —Angr 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely. There are numerous FAs about computer games that would prob fail such a test. See Half Life 2 for example, which was the mainpage FA on January 11. FA status is solely about quality of article, not merits of the topic... WjBscribe 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't really knew the rules here, this is the rules in Hebrew Wikipedia, in which I'm mainly active. Half Life 2 is much more important subject, because of its popularity. This movie is totally unknown, so I'm not even sure that he has a place on an encyclopedia. Tomer T 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given it has been seen by an estimated 8 million people worldwide, I would hardly call it an unknown. You need to read WP:NOTABLE, Tomer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment : ref format trouble at critical reception section. Will proceed to finish article and then give my opinion on it. Raystorm 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Fixed it myself.[reply]

  • Very interesting article. I believe it meets without problems FA criterion 1 (b,c,d,e), 2 (a,b,c), 3, and 4. I've seen at least one editor has a problem with 1(a), but to be honest, I don't find the prose objectionable. About the tables vs prose discussion, I believe the table looks good in this instance. And of course the thing that matters here is the quality of the article, as WJBScribe, Angr and Ashlux have pointed out, and not its relative importance. So, all in all, support. Raystorm 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede comments:
    • "The film follows several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews as they go about their lives and vague, and both rabbis and psychotherapists are interviewed about Orthodox attitudes towards homosexuality." --> "as they go about their lives" is a bit informal. Since you have "follows", is it even necessary? Or perhaps "follows the lives of..." The mixing of active ("follows") and passive ("are interviewed") creates tension in the same sentence. What about "...and includes interviews with rabbis and psychotherapists about...")?
    • "DuBowski met hundreds of homosexual Jews over six years..." --> For some reason, "over six years" sounds too vague to me (although I know what it's implying). I would suggest: "During the film's six-year production, DuBowski met hundreds..."
    • "Trembling Before G-d was successful at the box office, grossing over $5,500 on its first day of release and $788,896 by its close date on January 5, 2003." --> Might want to qualify why $5,500 on opening day was a box-office success. On how many screens was it initially released? Is $788,896 > the production costs? "on single screen" --> is there supposed to be an "a" there? Or is this just box-office lingo?
    • "Until recently, it had been assumed that all homosexuals chose to engage in homosexual actions in order to spite God, to be perverse, or due to mental illness." --> "...many of its followers had assumed..."? Also, this is kind of an awkward list construction (infinitive, infinitive, "due to"). Can this sentence be recast somehow? Still a bit awkward: "has...chose" should be either "had...chose" or "has...choose". Its still an awkward list. Perhaps try rewriting this sentence from scratch.
  • Other comments:
    • "While a variety of views regarding homosexuality as an inclination or status exist within the Orthodox Jewish community". I'm not sure I see the purpose of "as an inclination or status" here. If this sentence is just saying that a variety of views exist regarding homosexuality in general, cutting "as an inclination or status" results in a stronger sentence.
    • "...have begun re-evaluating homosexuality as a phenomenon" Another "as a..." phrase...are these qualifying statements necessary? I think the "as a phenomenon" could be cut.
    • "Until recently it has been assumed..." see my comment to the similar sentence in the lede.
    • "In this way, homosexuality could be redefined..." Unclear: did Rabbi Norman Lamm argue this, or did he just invoke the principle of ones, and left the redefinition to others?
    • "Many within the Haredi Jewish community view homosexuality as a perversion." This seems to be a topic sentence, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't mention Haredi Judaism. Is Moshe Tendler a Haredi Jew?
    • I think it might be a good idea to mention in the lead that DuBowski is a gay Jew, since his personal examination of his upbringing (according to the first sentence of Production) led to the creation of the documentary.
    • "...so their neighbors would not know." Would not know...what? Would not know that they were filming? Would not suspect they were homosexual? BuddingJournalist 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will get on that as soon as I've cleaned out my guinea pigs... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You've been through many FAC reviews before; it would be redundant for me to explain that footnotes are not fully expanded or correctly formatted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you're directing your comment at Dev920. It would not be redundant, Dev is not the only person watching for article improvements here. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 03:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. But people make it difficult to change them easily when they use those stupid cite templates. I will get on it today. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly agree on those obnoxious cite templates; anyway, we still need publisher, along with author and pub date when available, and always a last access date on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded re: the citation templates. They make cites incredibly fiddly to change and the text hard to edit. Great article, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Anything else? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't anyone ever tell me anything? I didn't know {{cite web}} was deprecated. I hope {{cite book}} is still allowed! —Angr 09:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is deprecated - {{cite web}} doesn't say it is deprecated anyhow! -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just do them manually? It's a lot faster and doesn't screw up the text so badly. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, along with most people, cannot remember the correct formats. Also, using the template works as a checklist for me on what information I need to grab from the source (I just copy and paste the full version and remove what I don't need). The templates are prone to less errors. You could change the formating of your citations in every instance that uses the template, to do something like this otherwise would quite a manual task. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never deployed cite templates on any of my FAs, and I don't know if you've looked at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E, but all 500 of those references were created without cite templates, using the same three formats, which I copied and pasted in and then filled in the relevant information. It's better way of doing it, really, and it makes it easier to edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Project might want to take a closer look at that article in terms of WP:BLP violations, which demand the highest-quality sources on living persons; a lot of those websites don't seem to rise to the level of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It already does: "The last word of the title is a common Jewish way of writing the word God. By omitting the middle letter, the word is not written in full, thus eliminating the possibility of accidentally destroying the written name of God, which would violate one of the 613 Mitzvot of Judaism (number 8 on Maimonides' list)." in the production section. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:01, 15 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Compsognathus[edit]

I am nominating Compsognathus to FA status. This is another production of the Wikiproject dinosaur team on a lesser known of these prehistoric critters. The article has been extensively edited during the last few weeks and as it is now, it is as comprehensive as possible considering that only two reasonably complete skeletons of this animal have been found (a century and a half apart). The article currently cites 32 scientific references which is more than for the previous successful FA candidates Albertosaurus, Psittacosaurus and Velociraptor. ArthurWeasley 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&nbsp nailed. J. Spencer 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Arthur Weasley said he wants to do the DOI magic later (no pun intended). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reformated all journal references and added DOI numbers and links to all those that have one. Are DOI numbers a new requirement for citing journal papers? I could not find anything in the policy that says so and none of the previous FA dinosaur articles except Iguanodon have these in their references ArthurWeasley 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such requirement that DOI, ISBN, or any other weird numbers be added. It's fine and good to have them, but you shouldn't feel compelled just because someone threatens to oppose an FAC. — Brian (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a constructive comment. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Shrug^. It was just a clarification. No offense was intended. — Brian (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ISBN and DOI are nice things to have that's why I've added them whenever they were available (for journal papers, please note than only those that are published on-line have a DOI number). The &nbsp; thing has been taken care of as well. Why do you still oppose the nomination, Samsara? ArthurWeasley 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Paleobiology section imho needs to be split up. Separate anatomy (merge with description into an "anatomy" section) from ecology/life history stuff. Shrumster 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. More headings will not benefit the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment for Shrumster: We have been formatting headings for each dinosaur FA candidate the same way, which was recommended to us by the FAC reviewers here. If a new style is now preferred, we can certainly accomodate that, but it won't match the ten earlier Featured dinosaur articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 82.71.48.158 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP's aren't allowed to vote in FAC's? to my knowledge - note to admin that this vote should be discounted... Probably knew that though... Spawn Man 07:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As dino collab coordinator and modest contributor to this article I feel it compares favourably to some of the other dino FAs in terms of coherency and readability (i.e. prose). I also support Samsara's and Firsfron's views on layout, and Arthurweasley's comments on DOI. I see no explicit policy on DOI but I can see we're endeavouring to get as many as possible. cheers (samsara I thought we'd got all those pesky spaces....:)) Casliber | talk | contribs 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at the risk of sounding like a nerd, is there really any proof that these were meant to be the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park movies? I know it's procompsognathus in the novels, and I imagined referring to them as compsognathus in the movies was really just slangy- much like velociraptors are called raptors, but they're still velociraptors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: That is a good question. It is a mess. Because there is no "Compsognathus triassicus", (only a Compsognathus longipes and a Procompsognathus triassicus), we were torn for a while on where to put this. However, offical Jurassic Park merchandise indicates it is Compsognathus (because that is the name it is marketed under). Also: Procompsognathus is larger: around 4 feet in length. They are not closely related; Procompsognathus is a Coelophysoid. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a link to official Jurassic Park packaging: Pteranodon with Compsognathus ("Compy") Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, I wish there were something explicit, like an interview or DVD commentary saying "We abandoned procompsognathus because..." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The official script from the Lost world is also calling them Compsognathus and their size in the movie as pointed out by Firsfron are really too small to be Procompsognathus. ArthurWeasley 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd hate to sound argumentative, but again the raptor analogy applies. Raptors in the movies are too big to be velociraptors, but within fiction they're still velociraptors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, what the Hollywood folks wanted for these movies is anyone guess. All what we know is that they have a record of sacrificing scientific accuracy for dramatic effects (you just have to look how Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus were depicted ;). But since the name Compsognathus was used in the movies, this ought to be mentioned in the popular section. ArthurWeasley 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • BTW, the pic needs a fair use rationale. Not that I'm an expert on fair use, but I'd question if the picture should be used, if we don't know it's the dinosaur the picture is illustrating. But I suppose the common name could justify keeping the written content. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as co-collaborator (is that even a word?). This article is roughly as long as earlier Featured dinosaur articles, remarkable since this genus is monotypic, having only one species (and just two full specimens) to write about (meeting FAC #4). Discredited ideas (such as the webbed hands, an extra species, possible fossil eggs, etc) are discussed, but not given undue weight. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1b and 1d are certainly met.
This article is referenced with 47 in-line cites, which come from 30 scientific papers (primary sources), but no source is used heavily, leading to an article which both presents and cites sources evenly (meeting FAC 1c). There does not appear to be any uncited text, with the exception of the Jurassic Park appearance, which is easily confirmed by looking at any JP merchandising. I'm not sure why that has received so much attention, but I suppose IMDB (or something) can be cited if there are any lingering doubts.
The article appears to conform to the Manual of Style; it has a consise lead (2a), hierarchal headings (2b), and a substantial table of contents (seven sections and five sub-sections) (2c). There are five images in the article, one of which is copyright-expired (1903), three which are self-made, and one which is fair-use in the pop culture section, where it is discussed. FAC #3 appears satisfied. The only Featured Article criteria which I cannot judge here is (1a). Since I am already familiar with the terminology, and since I worked on the article extensively, I recuse myself from judgements about the prose or clarity, leaving that to be judged by others. Great job, Arthur! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support as WP:DINO member and minor contributor; I find it to be a thorough, readable article on this dinosaur. I will be around to assist in requested changes, as well. J. Spencer 05:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now→Support - Sorry to be a joy germ, but I'll have to oppose for now as my problems wouldn't be seen to if I supported. My main problem is the opening. It has brilliant prose etc etc, but the problem is that a large chunk of its second paragraph is about an entirely different dinosaur. Now this may seem alright if this was a normal article, but this will be on the main page. Article previews on the main page usually contain info about the dinosaur, not some other one. I suggest that some general information is put into the opening to either add to the mentioned text or to suppliment it. The text I talked about could possibly be merged into the description section too... My second point is that I'd like to see the description section bigger. Possibly only by a paragraph or two, but it would really help lengthen the article before it is cut off abruptly by the references (yes I feel the article is too short, but that seems to be the norm nowadays...) Thanks & I will change my vote once I feel changes have been met with enthusiasm. Thanks again. :) Spawn Man 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. You shouldn't start off an FAC by critisising other FA's such as Velociraptor, Alberta & Pssita... Spawn Man 08:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm - we weren't criticising them just pointing out that although the article is short it has an equivalent (or larger) number of references of other articles that have made FA status. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No criticism was intended indeed. Nailed the first point I think. Will look on the second point. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. The opening is probably too short now. It would be better suited to 2 paras, & a little bit more info should be required. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the intro a bit. ArthurWeasley 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far. I've rewritten the information you added so that it flows better & that it isn't in a thrid isolated paragraph. It also cuts down the amount of work for you in my next request. "The popularity of this dinosaur stems from the fact that for almost a century it was the smallest known dinosaur and the closest supposed relative of the early bird Archaeopteryx. It was demoted from both these positions by recent paleontological discoveries." - This sentence has a wierd prose to it. I'd like a small rewrite of a couple of points. 1)Popularity - Is this the best term? 2)"almost a century it was the smallest known dinosaur and the closest supposed relative of the early bird Archaeopteryx" - Just doesn't sound right to me. A small prose fix may be in order. 3)"by recent paleontological discoveries" - How recent? If you include a date you could get rid of "recent" (i.e. "by paleontological discoveries in year?"). If you fix that while maintaining the size of the paragraph, then I'll have no problem supporting - although the article is a bit small for my liking, but I guess I'll have to live with that. Thanks, Spawn Man 22:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot. J. Spencer 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above↑. Spawn Man 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks, guys :) ArthurWeasley 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP - Don't know why Samsara's still opposing though. Spawn Man 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've copy-edited the article to remove some redundancy, rephrase for clarity, and avoid passive voice. For the last of these, I often had to assume that the agents doing the action were the scientists cited in the reference following; if this is not the case, please revert. One example is where I changed "Teeth from the Kimmeridgian Guimarota formation of Portugal have also been assigned to the genus" to "Zinke has assigned teeth . . . ." Now on to why I oppose:
    • A few terms are used that may be familiar to dinosaur buffs and scientists, but which might need to be parenthetically explained for the lay reader upon first use. The words I question are theropod, mandibular fenestra, orbit, and nomen dubium.
(this is a common dilemma on this type of article - in terms of on-page explanation vs. bluelink. I feel this is one of the best features of the crosslinking feature but will see if we can slot some stuff in)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mandibular fenestra, orbit and nomen dubium fixed. Explaining theropod is more far fetched. Would leave it as is. After all this is what the blue links are for. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "lightly constructed skull" mean?
(Delicate is an alternative (?) but I had thought it self explanatory)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs
Yeah, I'd prefer "delicate" or even "light". "Lightly constructed" just seems odd to me, as "construction" doesn't imply biology. — Brian (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lightly constructed is a term frequently used in paleontological circles (just type lightly constructed and dinosaur in google) but this can be replaced by delicate I presume. Is there a consensus here? ArthurWeasley 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have been the editor to write about the lightly-constructed skull; in retrospect, alternate wording might be appropriate. I guess "lightly-constructed" is too jargon-like, and I certainly don't mind a switch out to a different wording. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to delicate then. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article goes off in tangents at times, talking about things that really don't pertain to Compsognathus and that should probably be cut. This happens in the "Discovery and species" section, where we're told about other species found near Compsognathus and under the "Habitat" section, where this is done again.
(I like the addition of creatures found in the same strata; we've done it for other dino FAs and recall the reception was pretty positive. Agree there is a spot of reduplication that could be addressed)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to elaborate on why this information is pertinent in the article, then? For example, does the sentence "Fossils from the Solnhofen limestone also include a number of marine animals such as fish, crustaceans, echinoderms and marine mollusks" imply that these creatures existed at the same time as Compsognathus? — Brian (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fixed, I think. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it is necessary to mention that Compsognathus didn't hunt in packs under "Diet". The mention in the "Popular culture" section should be fine.
(Again, we're talking ecology and pointing out what current thinking has to say on a popular portayal; I do feel this is valid but will wait on hwat others have to say later tonight)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just fail to see why the inaccuracy of a movie's portrayal of the species belongs anywhere but the "popular culture" section. I mean, there was a cartoon called Dinosaucers that had an Allosaurus character, but that article doesn't need to say, "Unlike the portrayal in Dinosaucers, Allosaurus could not speak and pilot a spaceship." — Brian (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are proofs that some theropods such as Giganotosaurus hunted in pack (also careful studies of footprints). The sentence just states that no such proof exists for Compsognathus (i.e. its behavior depiction in JP is an extrapolation). But you are right, this might as well go in the popular section. Thoughts? ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this to the popular section. ArthurWeasley 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few places where the person doing something is not mentioned by name. This would be a great addition to the article if this information is known. For example, "The larger French specimen was discovered in 1972 [by whom?] . . . ", "Although the French specimen was originally described as a separate species [by whom?] . . . ", "At one time, Mononykus was proposed as a member of the family, [by whom?]", and "some [examples?] hold the family as the basalmost of the coelurosaurs, while others [examples?] as part of the Maniraptora."
(working on these..)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks, Cas. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm uneasy describing this creature's forepaws as "hands", but I admit I'm not familiar with the research on it. Is this the term used by dinosaur scientists? Similarly, "fingers" gave me pause.
      • Comment: The formal term is manus. "Paws" usually refer to the feet of quadrupedal animals. If this isn't fixed already, I'll fix it. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right. All instances of "hands" changed to "manus" or "forefeet"; we were attempting to write this so that the average high school student could understand it, but here we may have erred on the side of language which is too informal. I ran an automated search for "fingers", and didn't find that word. I assume it's been removed by someone else). Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "In popular culture" section is crufty, and I would not shed a tear if it were removed. This isn't a dealbreaker, though.
      • I wouldn't mind either, but as the name implies, it's popular and it has became some sort of requirement for all featured dino articles. ArthurWeasley 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's it. If these issues can be dealt with, I'll gladly change to a supporter of FA status. — Brian (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: Thanks for the feedbakc - these are thought-provoking points and I am ruminating as I write....)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the verge of supporting, but there is one more minor issue to address: Per Wikipedia:Captions, captions should not end with a full stop unless they are complete sentences. If this is addressed, I'm a support. — Brian (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled out the captions so each one is a complete sentence. If you want the wording adjusted, feel free to comment here, or adjust it yourself. Thank you for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're still not full sentences; they lack verbs in most cases. Why not just revert to how they were before and remove the full stops? (Sorry I can't just fix this myself. I'm at school at the moment, but I can work on it this evening if no one else has fixed it by then.) — Brian (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. The image of the cast of the fossil could use a more active caption or a change back to the pre-full-stopped version. Is this the French or German specimen? If I know that much, I can cobble something active and explanatory together for the caption. — Brian (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cast of the original german specimen. ArthurWeasley 06:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tweaked. I am now a happy Support. I really enjoy these dinosaur articles, and I commend the WikiProject: Dinosaurs members for some really good work. Can't wait to read your next collaboration. — Brian (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Brian's oppose - Hmm, a lot of opposeing points there. I disagree with a few points however - Theropod is just non-negotionable & even trying to explain it fully is all but impossible. The others fine, but theropod is just something the reader has to click on. Like genus or maths; we don't explain maths in articles. In regard to hunting in packs, there should be a small mention in both the pop culture section debunking JP's mistakes, & in the paleobiology sections, as many smaller dinosaurs often hunted in packs. This common hunting strategy & JP's widespread misconception make a quick mention needed in the relevant sections. In regard to the "Lightly constructed" pointer, lightly constructed is pretty self explainatory - What about professional yachts? They are described as lightly constructed so the term is not only limited to paleo-groups. Basically it is a basic term which is pretty easy to understand & delicate sounds wierd when describing a dinosaur. The pop culture section should stay, but be rewritten. As for all your other points, I agree with them, so no problems there. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good arguments. I agree about theropod. It'd be nice to explain it, but I'm okay with it being a link if it's too involved to go into. As for the JP pack hunting, it just seems trivial to me. I mean, think of how often Tyrannosaurus has been depicted in popular culture, and how inaccurately in some cases. Should that article spend so many bytes debunking all this? Say what the dinosaurs were like, and debunk the movies and books on their own pages, methinks. I still think constructed implies human effort (and yachts are human-built). I'd even accept lightly built as a possible compromise. I'm on the verge of supporting, at any rate. Thanks for the replies, — Brian (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree. However, I must disagree profusely with your objection to full stops in captions. I have had complaints before in FACs about captions not having fullstops & have added them ever since then. I urge you to reconsider this objection as you said you'd support once this is fixed. I feel it cannot be fixed as there is nothing wrong with it. Thoughts? Spawn Man 03:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline just states they need to be full sentences to use full stops. Now that each one is a full sentence, we should be able to keep the full stops. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does say "generally" however... Spawn Man 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but FAs are supposed to be the best of the best. As such, they should adhere to all relevant style guides. — Brian (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it does... Spawn Man
Almost. — Brian (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, pretty much fully complies. Generally is a great word... ;) This so much reminds me of a past FAC of mine where a guy opposed because of a word that was spelt incorrectly. Rather than fix it himself he opposed. Not saying this is you, but I'm stating that you are opposing over a couple of dots. Some people like them, some people don't. Is this really a deal breaker? Spawn Man 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think he was referring to the caption in the cast image (see some paragraphs above) and understand he will be fixing it himself with the info I've just provided. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Spawn Man and I can "is not/is so" all day long, but my interpretation of WP:WIAFA is that the article can't just be good enough to be a Featured Article; it needs to be perfect. This means fully complying with the strictest interpretation of the Manual of Style. Sorry of this makes me come off as a pedant, but pedants help make pretty good articles into excellent ones. At any rate, my objections have been addressed, so I've changed to a supporter of this article for Featured status. — Brian (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

HMS Royal Oak (1914)[edit]

(Self nom) I have been working on this article for some weeks now, and believe that it's now ready for evaluation here. To the best of my knowledge, no on-line source brings together a complete history of the ship like this. Your comments would of course be welcome. An earlier peer review by members of WikiProject Military history may be read here— BillC talk 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nicely done. A well presented and well written article. Raymond Palmer 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very nice read, and no flaws as far as I could see. 193.90.131.38 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting and comprehensive - any problems post-GA attainment have been dealt with well. RHB Talk - Edits 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but a few comments on the intro:
Don't like the intro sentence "famously sunk." That sounds as if I should already know what about the ship and it's claim to fame. I don't.
When was the ship sunk? The intro doesn't discuss that, it only says the first days of WWII... but what were the first weeks of WWII? Doesn't that kind of depend on the nations involved?
Kriegsmarine = ???Balloonman 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; I have made some changes to the lead section in light of them. — BillC talk 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a very well written and visually attractive article. --Nick Dowling 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well researched, I enjoyed reading the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport Nice article. —dima/s-ko/ 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, beautiful work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but could you standardize the page refs in the notes section? I'd say go with either pp or p, but not both. JHMM13 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – my understanding was that pp was used for page ranges and p for single pages, which is what I have used. I'll look into this later today and correct it if I was wrong. — BillC talk 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I'm very sorry. Here I am at the end of an illustrious college career and I didn't know that. Forget I said anything. :-) JHMM13 00:30, 15 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War[edit]

I've tried to model this article after Clyde Miller and Deckiller's Empires: Dawn of the Modern World; they helped me on this one too. The article has improved from Start to A-Class, and I thought it might be ready for FA. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks! · AO Talk 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — it's looking very good; it might need a final comb by 2-3 copy-editors to ensure the prose is optimum. — Deckiller 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As AndonicO said, I did do some editing and collaborating with this. However, I just took one last read, and if there's something in need still, I can't find it.--Clyde (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — looks pretty good. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support besides the fact that isn't as illustrated as other VG FA's, it's alright. igordebraga ≠ 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I based it almost identically on Empires, which is an FA. Starcraft, the only other strategy video game FA (I think), is differant though. Is that what you mean? · AO Talk 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose right now. The Campaigns section is quite awkward — "Also in the game are two campaigns". The Reception section uses a lot of direct quotes — it would be better to write some of this in your own words, if possible. It's very difficult to make the prose flow well when linking together quotes like that. Someone's taken a stab at it, but it still feels awkward. --- RockMFR 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is there a reference for "achieved high sales in the United Kingdom"? I'm just skimming, so I might have missed it. --- RockMFR 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for the high rankings is to Heaven games, since ELSPA has been updated already. It's this one. Is the campaign section better? I'm not sure if you meant the whole thing, or just the introduction. I'll try to improve the reviews section tommorow. · AO Talk 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I removed parts of comments, and made sure that the quotes weren't too long. Is this better? · AO Talk 11:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the whole article still seems to be missing something, but I'll withdraw my opposition. --- RockMFR 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing what? I'll try to fix it if you specify a bit more. Maybe it's too dull or short? · AO Talk 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks generally good, a few thoughts:
  • third person shooter - should there be a hyphen between "third" and person"?  Done
  • Lead could probably be condensed to two paragraphs, as it's a fairly short article.  Done
  • Reviews of the game were mixed; however, it won two awards, and was commercially successful in the United Kingdom - "however" isn't really contradicting anything, so I find it slightly jarring. The reviews being "mixed" implies it will have been received partially positively.  Done
  • Critics have rated Rise and Fall many times, giving it both positive and negative scores - um, what? Try rewording.  Done
  • The graphics were examined as well; they were well liked with high graphics settings, though criticised when they were low. - the whole sentence seems rather odd to me. Also, there may be hyphens needed between "well" and "liked", and "high" and "graphics".  Done

This could probably do with a copyedit to weed out clumsy phrases. Trebor 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? · AO Talk 12:10, 12 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Technopark, Kerala[edit]

  • Nomination and Strong Support This article, IMHO, looks well written and comprehensive, and is a useful source of information of most types of readers. It has recently been rated as a Selected Article. I have contributed to this article and feel that the article can be looked at for being rated a Featured Article. The discussion during the nomination as a Selected Article can be reviewed [here]. Ajaypp (I am here..) 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now It does need to have a section on its history and beginings.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY A section on the History and Mission of Technopark has been added. Ajaypp (I am here..) 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Ajay has corrected all the possible issues with the article. Definitely support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note, logo needs a fair use rationale. gren グレン 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY The fair use rationale has been updated in the Image's summary section. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide Imperial units in bracket for Metric system units. Please provide USD equivalents wherever Indian rupee or Indian units (crore) have been used. Also, citation superscripts has to immediately follow punctuation marks. I noticed two instances where citation superscripts were placed before comma. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY The instances of citations preceding punctuation marks have been edited. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY Metric System and USD equivalents have been inserted wherever required.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well written article and useful for people interested in India's largest and also one of the fastest growing hi-tech areas --Harig 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose
    • Too list-happy (2 sections entirely made of list, one of which of truly dubious necessity)
    • I think it's reasonable to expect some text between the "Infrastructure" and "Buildings" headers.
    • Actually, it probably is too subdivided. "cultures" and "infrastructure" can probably be done without headers at all.
    • Also, there are two "Buildings" headers...
    • The "Buildings" table may be pretty, but it's ridiculously overcomplicated for what it has to do.
    • Image:Thejaswini.jpg is unnecessary fair use per our WP:FUC policy. It should not only be removed, but nominated for deletion.
    • Why is it called a "campus"? It's consistently described as an industrial park, not an institution of higher learning.
  • Circeus 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
YesY Lead-in text has been added in the Infrastructure section, as suggested.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY The Culture section was suggested as an addition during the article's previous review. IMHO, it is a worthwhile addition as the cultural activities in Technopark are a significant part of the employees' life there and are also well known, in their own right.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing the section itself.I just think it has too many sub-sections under it. One-paragraph sections are generally considered bad (cf. Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs).Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY I agree there was some duplication in the "Infrastructure" and "Buildings" sections. the two have now been merged to create a more concise flow of content.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY The content of the table in the Buildings section was earlier in prose and had been migrated to a table after discussion during the article's previous' review for Selected Article status. The parameters used in the table are considered relevant for buildings providing IT/ITES office space and would be useful for serious readers and those conducting high-level research. I hope you will agree to this fact.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reformatted it myself. Maybe it'll be more obvious what I meant.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, your format seems simpler and more suited to the tone of the article. Thanks for the change. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY The word Campus can also be used for land in which office buildings are resident, as can be seen in the Wikipedia article on Campus. A notable example is the Microsoft Campus in Redmond, Washington. The term is commonly used in literature pertaining to Technopark, as you can see from some of the cited references.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.I still find it rather confusing, though.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY A new Thejaswini image, with proper fair use conditions, has been used instead of the previous one.Thank you for pointing it out.--Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few more comments:
  • Unless they are about things that are capitalized, headers should be in sentence case, not title case.
  • Why "Technopark Club", but "Technopark adventure club"? Do they or do they not capitals? As a formal organization, the adv. club probably shoud be capitalized. It isso on thepage used as a source, anyway. Capitalization in several other places is inconsistent (e.g. "Tech-a-break")
YesY Point taken. I have made the capitalizations as suggested. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could images have captions that are better? "Bhavani building" etc. would already be an improvement, as would identifying the building whose interior is shown. The "carnival" caption is misleading: it's not an actual carnival.
YesY Image captions have been modified, as suggested. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is probably not long enough to warrant inside internal links.
  • Not been able to spot Internal Links. Will remove if there are any. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY em dashes have been inserted where required. Thanks to Harryboyles for an AWB edit on the same. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 10:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are way toomany little details that need to be looked at before this can reasonably be called "Wikipedia's best work":
  • Inappropriate dashes STILL easy as hell to find. Search and replace, people, search and replace
YesY Non mandatory dashes were removed. -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • capitals STILL used inconsistently (satellite Earth vs. satellite earth, to cite one example)
    • also, it starts by calling the city by it's long name, but then uses "Trivandrum." Choose one and stick to it.
YesY The anglicized name will be used across the article since Technopark's own brand-name mentions it. This version is also better recognised outside India. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Government," "State," and various similar nouns should probably not be capitalized at all.
YesY The capitalization of these type of nouns is consistent with their usage in related literature and highlights the importance of these entities. I believe the same style can be retained, as they are not just generic nouns. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the "Park" references should be dropped, or it should be mentioned PRIOR to using the ter that it is a common informal name for it.
YesY "The Park" references have been dropped and "Technopark" is now used uniformly for all references. -- Ajaypp 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing could still be slickened. See this copyedit
  • Numerous unnecessary multiple links have to be hunted down
YesY The multiple links in the articles are now removed. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source could be made far, far more readable by deleting the unnecessary long references name (no reference is used more than one, so they are useless.) and unused variables in cite templates.
YesY Source readability has been improved by removing unused variables in site templates and modifying reference names wherever possible. -- Ajaypp 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • & for "and"??? This alone would be enough to flunk the article.
YesY "&" is used in the names of companies, where it has been customarily used. This includes in their logos. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you ask the Copyediting league to have a good look at it. I know how hard it's to copyedit an article you've had under your nose for weeks or months. If it wasn't for all of these things, I would probably support the article. Circeus 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong SUPPORT :- The article provides comprehensive information about the Park. The socio-economic impact section is included, which can supply enough info about the economic impact in the society. No edit wars has been reported and the article fits in to WP:NPOV. The article now clearly possess the standards listed out in WP:WIAFA, and hence can be selected as a Featured article. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support- The article does quite good coverage of a unique subject. Definitely well written and notable. Should be featured--Kathanar 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Well written; comprehensive; zero errors. I support this article to be included in the elited category of Featured Article Status. --Samaleks 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks good, but please run through and fix all the dashes and hyphens per WP:DASH. There are some hyphens that should be em-dashes, and some em-dashes that are surrounded by spaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YesY Hyphens have been replaced with en-dashes and em-dashes wherever relevant, with reference to Dash (punctuation). Thank you for pointing out the changes. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are wrong, and there are a number of hyphenated words that don't make sense. I fixed some, but there are still many. Please have a copyeditor look at them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit for proper dash usage is underway. Please check after a while (one day, maybe). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have done a quick copyedit for addressing the dash issues. I request the main author to check if all the instances of dash (or hyphen) uses have been covered. If I have missed something, please follow the WP:DASH guidelines to fix. Added one citation needed tag. Please address that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong support. Great article

sumal 14:01, 14 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Adam Gilchrist[edit]

A solid piece of work, mostly by User:The Rambling Man, this has grown from a run of the mill cricket bio to an outstanding article, worthy of FA status. Particularly tricky has been lifiting the article out of the welter of stats that threatened to drown the narrative flow. Masses of OR has been removed. Even more has been sourced - witness 120+ references at the last count. Constructive criticism welcomed, as ever. Even better, please do feel free to support this nom! --Dweller 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT Great effort to bring this up to FA in a few weeks. This is well referred and has everything I need to know about Gilchrist.--Thugchildz 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Can't see anything notable wrong with it. Buc 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Solid article, well-referenced to the highest extent. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pictures are fuzzy and are of distance shots which makes it hard to see his face. Cant you get better ones? Mercenary2k 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct, but these are the only ones we have - indeed most sports bios here have no photo at all, so 3 is pretty good. The top one isn't amazing quality, but does at least show his elfin face recognisibly. Others show him in action and are fine for illustration - his exuberant celebrations of a good innings and in action as a wicketkeeper. --Dweller 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Many missing parts in the coverage. There is no mention of his 2000 elevation to vice-captaincy after the Nursegate-Warney scandal. There is a complete blackout on the 2000/01 Australian season, where he captained one Test in Adelaide when Waugh was injured. No coverage of March 2001 tour to India. So basically there is a big gap of 18 months from early 2000 to mid 2001 Ashes series. He captained another Test at Headingley when Waugh was injured. This is not mentioned, when he let England have a target of 300 on the last day and they made it easily. No mention of 2001/02 Australian season. This was when they tried to get Hayden into the ODI team, and rotated Gilchrist Waugh and Hayden in the opening slots. Both Waugh and Gilchrist went out of form < 20 average for the season; Waugh borthers dropped, most successful Australian ODI opening combo broke up; Elevation of Ponting to captaincy ahead of Gilchrist, the incumbent VC is not mentioned. 2002/03 Australian season not mentioned. 2003/04 season not mentioned...many gaps in the coverage. He was also fined by ICC/ACB for pubilcly condeming Murali at a sponsorship function somewhere. Many seasons have little/no account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious issues raised here. To keep this page clutter-free and to ensure we deal with the concerns properly, I'm going to cut and paste the comments to the article talk page and reformat so we can address them point by point. Will post back here when all concerns are addressed in one way or another. --Dweller 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work is progressing at the article and its talk page, where this serious oppose is being dissected. I'd like to point out at this stage that I've rebutted the last of Blnguyen's criticisms at the talk page, but am keen to solicit consensus, as I am aware that my opinion may not be universally shared. Please keep the debate on this point or Blnguyen's other criticisms at Talk:Adam Gilchrist for now. --Dweller 13:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I identified 10 criticisms in Blnguyen's oppose. At the article talk page, 9 have been addressed by User:The Rambling Man and the other (the least concrete) rebutted by (erm) me. --Dweller 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I have just read this end to end for the first time, and was impressed, but there are a few areas where some minor improvements could be made:
    • I noticed that some of the hyphens/dashes look a bit odd (n-dash in "all–time" and "one–day" instead of hyphens, m-dash in "2005—6" instead of n-dash, etc);
      • Grr, I hate WP:DASH, I want someone to write it in English! Yes, this will be attended to post-haste, thanks for the heads-up. The Rambling Man 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dashes dashed, dash it. The Rambling Man 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • there are a few single-sentence paragraphs;
      • I can't find any now, post-overhaul, so hopefully covered. The Rambling Man 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of the referencing looks a bit excessive (for example, the reference [12] is used 3 times in two sentences in the "Early and personal life");
      • Removed the specific example, will search for more - we've previously been opposed because we were told to cite virtually every sentence! I know, a good middle ground should be sought. Please let me konw if you find other over-the-top citing, or indeed remove it yourself if you'd be so kind. The Rambling Man 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • as he is a wicket-keeper-batsman, it would be nice to add dismissals (catches/stumpings) to the career batting performance tables at the end;
    • would it be possible to add man-of-the-match tables, like Harbhajan Singh and Paul Collingwood.
      • Again, agreed, but if no-one minds, I'll stay away from the bright colours! To be added soon. The Rambling Man 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now added and each scorecard/tournament linked to. The Rambling Man 10:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But generally very good. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be all done. Any other comments? --Dweller 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's good. Comments: ...successful World Cup campaign,[55]. - Seemingly unfinished sentence. Avoid external link referencing format in the "Achievements" section — convert those intro regular references instead. Choose whether you would like to use British or American date format throughout the article. Gilchrist's skills as a wicket-keeper are sometimes questioned... - The following part of the sentence should state some people doubt him being the best keeper in Australia, and not the opposite. ...in six innings against both India and Sri Lanka - "both" is redundant. The author referencing parameter is reserved solely for people. List of cricket terms improperly linked. A Test series whitewash over New Zealand,[70] was followed.. - Whenever a reference is placed in the middle of a sentence, adding a comma prior to it is unnecessary as this would normally result in a grammatical error. ...moved the family > ...moved with the family. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read this and provide comments. If you don't mind, I'll copy them to the talk page, divide them and then work on them individually. Thanks again. The Rambling Man 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All comments have been addressed in one manner or another, and each responded to individually on the talk page. Thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have to say very nice work, very solid overall. I do have a couple of comments though. Obviously this is a personal preference but I'd like the lead to be without citations, also it could stand to be expanded. There are a couple of two sentence paragraphs which could be expanded or combined, particularly the ones in the lead. You could expand the first paragraph in the early life section in particular. Maybe by saying who he looked up to as a youth or who he played for/with as a youth (I'm not that familiar with cricket but I assume they play cricket in organized leagues in their teenage years also). Also this sentence could use a source:"At the start of the 1997–98 Australian season, Healy and captain Mark Taylor were omitted from the ODI squad as the Australian selectors opted for a more aggressive batting style, choosing Gilchrist and Michael di Venuto." It sounds like a statement someone might argue over (someone might say they was omitted for other reasons). Also link whitewash the first time it appears, if it already is linked I apologize but I don't think it is. In addition "Gilchrist has also been reprimanded for criticism of other players, including questioning Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action in 2002 and was reprimanded by the Australian Cricket Board." Is unclear why was he reprimanded by the Australian cricket board? First World Cup Success contains a couple of long sentences as do a few other other sections but I guess they're alright, also maybe remove the "aganosingly" adjective in favor of something more neutral and formal in the Two in a row section, unless it has some meaning I don't understand. All in all it's very nice work though, I particularly like the detailed tables, the section about walking (adds a little humanity to the article), and the tremendous sourcing that's been done. Really solid work overall. Quadzilla99 13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, all comments have been addressed in one manner or another, and each responded to individually on the talk page. Thanks once more for your comments. The Rambling Man 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These have been addressed. Quadzilla99 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very good despite lack of image in infobox (sorry - just my browser; having bypassed the cache the image appears). Excellent work. See Paul Collingwood and Harbhajan Singh for other FA's to compare with, and I believe this conforms with them. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 11:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all issues have been adressed. Excellent work by the contributing editors once again. HornetMike 13:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportWeak oppose -- choppy prose. 1. He is.. appears 3 times in 1 paragraph in the lead. 2. add the (US baseball franchise the,) Boston Red Sox 3. Section titles needs to be in a more encyclopedic tone "Two in a row?"; "2001 Ashes and beyond"? --> =2003 world cup=; =2001 Ashes=; 4) .e. --> that is 5) known for his emotion -- POV; rephrase 6) 'remarkably high' --> high 7) He made only seven further appearances odd wording -- that ending paragraph is choppy. 8) Avoid mentioning his age (35 year-old) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportGood work.--Eva bd 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Nice article, could do with a clearer image, but otherwise excellent SMBarnZy 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yeah, we'd kill for clear, free-to-use images of all these players, but unless someone's out in the Windies tomorrow with a digital camera with a long lens and a broadband connection, we won't get an improved image for the moment! The Rambling Man 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Spent a few minutes and decided that i shall adopt the same kind of template for articles on Indian cricketers that i would like to work on. Kalyan 21:11, 13 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

F-Zero GX[edit]

This article was the last GA collaboration and is a article of high quality. All of the peer review issues were addressed so here it is and feel free to leave comments. Tarret 17:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentSupport I suppose I'll start this show. I made a couple edits when this article was a GAC, and have watched this article improve since then, as well as talking with the main contributor about the article several times. I ran through it one more time and found two suggestions, and would like to see them addressed before I support.--Clyde (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and is widely considered one of the best futuristic racing games to date." needs a citation or a reword.
    • The second to last paragraph in gameplay (begins with "The Vs. Battle") has zero citations in it. I didn't notice it before, but FAs should have at least one citation per paragraph.
  • Support As the main contributor I've been closely editing the article to that of the reviewed version of Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, since I have not found a racing game to use as an example for FA. I can say this article's current status is the same of Zelda's current status, if not better. FMF|contact 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've done some edits in the page, and I think it's good enough. igordebraga ≠ 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good job - !Malomeat 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please add author information and article date to cites where available. Wickethewok 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Issue addressed. FMF|contact 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all of the accessdates in the refs are wikilinked. {{cite web}} does this automatically, but if you write out the source info by hand you have to remember to link it. Jay32183 04:20, 15 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Mozambican War of Independence[edit]

It is with great pleasure that I nominate the "Mozambican War of Independence" article, created by User:SGGH. This article which tell us about the conflict which resulted in a negotiated independence of Mozambic, is extemely well written and referenced. It already has a GA status, but after reading it I came to the conclusion that it has the makings of an FA article. Tony the Marine 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:At first glance it looks nice. Copyright paranoia makes me ask about the licences for image:Kaulzaarriaga.jpg (seems to be copyrighted) and Image:FAP GU.jpg. Furthermore, almost thirty (rough count) of the 70 references come from one source, isn't this somewhat one-sided? Other than that, looks a well-referenced and informative article, although I'm yet to read it fully. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will address those points about the images tonight, the FAP GU one existed on Portuguese Colonial War for some time, so hopefully will be okay (though I know it's no real indicator). It is 30 out of 76 references, but I have tried as much as possible to ensure that that one ref supplied the bare facts, names and dates and such, thus minimalising the impact of the ref (as many other refs will cite the same information). As I said, will investigate the images tonight, if their removal will aid FA then let me know and I'll take them off. Thanks for the comments Ouro! SGGH 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing goes like this - the image copyrights always make me scratch my head, but when it says copyrighted or fair use on them, this basically amounts to 'proceed with caution' and probably wait till someone who is more well-versed in copyrights gives you the green (or red!) light. In FAs fair use images need to have adequate rationales to use them (as this is the best work of Wikipedia, all the way down to why the images are appropriate here and there), and I'd say these two are okay. As for the one source it just made me think that it could be too one-sided, especially that it's a US government-related source, so POV. Anyways, thanks for your clarification and good luck! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the author of the source in question used a huge amount of sources himself which are all listed there, so I personaly would vouch for its NPOV, plus it doesn't make many bold statements of observations which would suggest it had a POV to get across SGGH 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems nice, and it can't be commended enough having decided to cover such a topic so subject to systemic bias. Iì'll just make some observations, and pardon if I'll be deliberately iper-fastidious :-):

  • I have considerable doubts that Malawi played an important enough role to put it among the combatants in the warbox; apart this, Tanzania seems to have played a more relevant role than Malawi(Area Handbook for Malawi, also Escape from Violence), that anyways assisted the FRELIMO only since 1972.(The Last Bunker: a report on white South Africa today). fixed
  • Regarding the casualty figures, can On War be trusted to respond to WP:RS? new reliable refs and figures
  • The first two sub-sections of "Background" is not very satisfying, as it leaves paragraphs utterly unsourced, and when sourced using just Encarta. This is especially problematic for FRELIMO, due to its importance. Among those I mean are:
    • "Control of Mozambique was left to various organisations such as the Mozambique Company, the Zambezi Company and the Niassa Company, who were provided money and slaves by the British Empire to work in mines and construct railways. These companies penetrated inland from the coastline, setting up plantations and taxing the local populace who had until then resisted encroachment by the colonists." fixed
    • "In 1926, political changes in Portugal increased their interest in the African colony, and in 1951 Mozambique became an official "overseas province". However, calls for independence arose shortly after World War II in light of the independence granted to many other colonies worldwide after the conflict was over."ref'd
    • "These problems are generally cited by historians as being key factors in the growing unrest." (also a weasel words problem here) removed
    • "The Marxist-Leninist Mozambique Liberation Front or FRELIMO (Frente de Libertação de Moçambique) was formed in Dar es Salaam, the largest city in neighbouring Tanzania, on 25 June 1962. It was created during a conference, by the merging of a number of political figures that had suffered the aforementioned punishment of exile, and various existing nationalist groups, including the Mozambican African National Union, National African Union of Independent Mozambique and the National Democratic Union of Mozambique which had been formed two years earlier. A year later in 1963, FRELIMO set up headquarters in Dar-es-Salaam under the leadership of sociologist Eduardo Mondlane, and began to call for independence from Portugal." refed
    • "and it was Nikita Khrushchev in particular who viewed the 'underdeveloped third of mankind' as an opportunity to weaken the West. For the Soviets, Africa represented a chance to create a rift between western powers and their colonial assets, and create pro-communist states in Africa with which to foster future relations." refed
  • More in general, the article has too much unsourced paragraphs or paragraphs just partially sourced. I believe these should all be sourced.
  • Important: the assassination of Mondlane, does not seem to repose on reliable sources; it sends to a dead link, and a second source for a so important statement would anyways need at least two distinct references to confirm it's historical consensus Mondlane was killed by his own. And also, "This resulting in a temporary power struggle for control and instability within the nationalist group.", is important, and requires good sourcing.
  • More generally, as observed, a more extensive use of sources would be helpful. There are also some passages that could be found slightly pov: for example, "An experienced Portuguese journalist described it", can be seen as hinting in a given direction; for WP:WTA "argue" would be better, and "experienced" shouldn't be added even if it seems obvious (unless the term is used by F. X. Maier, the source of note 61) have fixed the journalist sentence
  • Also, did the Portuguese have colonial (i. e. African) troops from some ethnic groups and regions rather than others? Was the FRELIMO more popular in certain areas rather than areas, and did its marxist belief generate difficulties? Were there serious disputes on policy and leadership? 24'000 regs, 23'000 africans fought there, but I am unable to find info on what you are asking at the moment, but I will keep looking
  • A last note: shouldn't something more be said of the impact on the civilians of the war? again, will look

--Aldux 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin work to address these points tomorrow, cheers SGGH 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have managed to take care of some of these points, particularly the removal of a couple of PV sentences and by {finally) tracking down some casualty figures. I have marked points above that i have looked at, hope that is okay SGGH 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far approx. 12 new footnotes have been added to rectify the issues mentioned above. I will continue to react to points raised here as the article is evaluated for FA. Thanks for all points so far SGGH 11:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some formatting is needed, to unify notes. To this, I would observe: 1) is the "further reading" section really needed? 2)Should Rhodesia be among the combatants in the warbox? It supported the Portuguese, but the Rhodesians start serious operations in Mozambique only after the end of the war. 3)Is a "further reading" section really needed? 4) Also, I'm afraid "Location of the provinces" section is a bit out of place; I don't see exactly why it's there (there are interwiki links if it has to show where to search for).--Aldux 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed the above points, should book references and online references be under the same heading? Or should i split them into references and bibliography, as I have done now (just until this question is answered) SGGH 16:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO they should be unified under "references" section. Also, you should remove all those books that are not used in the inline citations. Also, if you could find a way to use more Henriksen's Revolution and counterrevolution it would be great, because it is generally considered the best book written on the Mozambique independence war, and would provide a useful leg to Westfall's essay. Also (just a hint), why don't you try giving a look a [30]? It offers pages samples of books, offering this way precious info.--Aldux 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found Malyn Newitt's A History of Mozambique which gave me 5 new citations, and have combined those two secs into one of "references". And each one there is used for inline citations, and there may be a couple in the notes that arnet in references, I will fix this now. SGGH 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If those links included in the 'External Links' section are used as sources, I don't think there is a need for the external links section. That said, if they are not included as sources it's most likely because the information provided is not useful and probably unencyclopedic, so that's questionable as well. Besides that, I think this is a good article and I'm happy to support it. JonCatalan 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The USMC one is cited to throughout the article, and is linked to in the references section so I guess that means it doesn't need to be there? The FRELIMO site I just thought would be interesting and useful to see if you were researching the topic. Shall I remove both do you think? and thanks for your support! SGGH 08:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyways to incorporate information from the FRELIMO site into the article in order to put it under the references section? JonCatalan 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have a history section that I could find, and is probably pretty POV, will see. At work now :D SGGH 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for deserting you in the last couple of days. You're proceeding great: in my opinion the only things that need a bit of work is the notes and the references, to unify them. You could also consider removing some of the references involving Westfall's essay; if you use him for all a paragraphy, you don't have to leave a citation for him in every sentence. And continue with the good work!--Aldux 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and obviously, Support. The remaining issues are very minor.--Aldux 22:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. Well done to author(s).-- Zleitzen(talk) 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! I will work on citing bigger chunks to the westfall essay to reduce number of citations, as long as it is still clear where the info comes from. SGGH 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some of the westfall refs (possibly about 6 or 7 of them at the most) and left larger chunks of text ref'd to westfall rather than reffing it every other line, but I have been rather conservative in this removal as I am ever worried about leaving facts in the article looking unref'd. Hope my efforts have helped slightly though! SGGH 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on image issues;
Image:FAP GU.jpg - is obviously not a screenshot; has no source information and no fair use rationale - should be deleted as is. fixed
Image:General Augusto dos Santos.jpg no source information, so there is no way to verify if the license is true
Image:Kaulzaarriaga.jpg no fair use rationale
Image:MozambiqueIndep.jpg, I can't see anything to suggest that the history channel owns the copyright to this image or that they allow anyone to use their images fixed
Also, the captions are pretty uninformative, see WP:CAP for some pointers.--Peta 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly I didn't upload the FAP picture so can't comment, but I felt the captions were pretty informative for the images of troops, aircraft and the helicopter. With the other images, I don't fully understand what I can put other than what they are, the name of the person or the dam from space, but will see WP:CAP when I get a minute to get some pointers. Cheers! SGGH 08:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the FAP image with a new one. SGGH 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tinkered with the licences of a couple of the others, but am not too sure about copyright, could someone advise me? Or perhaps shoul I just remove the images which have copyright problems? (these are the images of the two generals, and the image in the infobox) as the FAP one i fixed. Captions wise, I think they adhere to WP:CAP quite well, they are all informative now as much as they can be. SGGH 11:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced MozambiqueIndep.jpg with an okay one from commons, incidenatlly the FAP one was okay. SGGH 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of new images now, all commons okay'd. The two general ones are in still place at the moment. SGGH 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have added my fair use rationale of: "I believe that these images are of public domain because they are of a military nature. The image is soley used with the purpose of depicting the person or action mentioned in said article" SGGH 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main image now infact replaced by a compositie of 4 images from commons which all have all rights released. SGGH 22:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions given here for the fair use rationales on the two portraits; I suggest you copy the one for historic images. --Peta 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose for now; there is a lot of work needed, but it should be doable at FAC. Dashes and hyphens are used incorrectly (see WP:DASH). Full dates are not wikilinked (see WP:DATE). Footnotes are stangely placed; this one could be after the punctuation (... and the exile of large numbers of political intelligentsia also contributed to a growing political unrest[4] that, ). Numerous footnotes are just bluelinks, without last access dates, publisher, and author/date of publication when available (see WP:CITE/ES). References need work, similar to footnotes. Missing puncutation here indicates need for ce (By the time of the Carnation Revolution, 100,000 draft dodgers had been recorded[57]). Wikilinking seems to fall off mid-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple have users seemed to have gone through removing "wikilinks to common words" will take a look at that, and fix the wikilinks, footnotes, punctuation right now. SGGH 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only blue hyperlinks now in footnotes are the encarta ones and 'Eduardo Chivambo Mondlane Biography at Oberlin College', both of which has retrieval dates in the References section. Hope that answers that point :)
  • fixed the punctuation mentioned
  • fixed wikilinking ongoing (please note that i try to avoid repetitive links, which is why number of links decreases as article goes on, obviously, and also you can't link month + year links to any year before 1999.)
  • all external links have their retrieval dates.
  • I confess I'm not entirely following your comments about dashes, I can't locate any problems in the article but will have another trawl through, please be kind enough to point out any I miss!

SGGH 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Better; this date needs to be fixed—I'm not really sure how, but at least the year is linked on full dates. On the 10th or 11th of October 1966,[33] This partial date should not be wikilinked: March 1970. There are still solo years wililinked in several places, example: By 1972, however, there ... Same here: By 1973, FRELIMO were also mining civilian towns and villages ... Also, why are towns and villages wikilinked? I hope our readers know what they are. See WP:CONTEXT. I left notes on SGGH's talk page about minor tweaks still needed on refs. There are still wikilink problems, for example see Lisbon. A common term like that should only be linked on the first occurrence. There seems to be a problem here: By the time of the Carnation Revolution, 100'000 draft dodgers had been recorded. I don't see that number format at WP:MOSNUM. Almost there ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worked on formatting issues myself, striking my object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy, appreciate it! SGGH 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object again, new problems, 1a, article needs a copy edit. The lead has an incomplete sentence (Thus ending 470 years of Portuguese colonial rule in the East African region.) Do we refer to countries as "her" on Wiki (This particular project became deeply linked with Portugal's concerns over security in her overseas colonies.) This sentence is tortured (Politically also, FRELIMO lodged a protest with the United Nations about the project, and also with such negative reports of Portuguese actions in Mozambique, much foreign financial support was withdrawn, though the dam was finally completed in December 1974.) Etcetera. I'm really curious about Support votes registered when the article had tons of structural issues, and has prose problems as well. I do hope reviewers review articles they support. These are only examples; fixing them only won't suffice. Pls arrange for an independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a copy edit from the league, and invite any other users to help copy edit also, and will have a look myself. SGGH 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen has also very kindly been doing some copy edit work. SGGH 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my object then, since Zleitzen is a capable writer; I do wish reviewers would review before supporting, so I wasn't so often in a position of lodging objects :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SGGH 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Sandy. My support was based on the great coverage and use of sources, which is very rare for modern history articles on these kinds of subjects. Take a look at Rwandan genocide or Nigerian Civil War. Yuk. I have been firmly "told off" and am paying my penance with copy-editing duties. I promise not to so enthusiastically support an article before adjusting typos and fragmented sentences etc again! -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"great coverage and use of sources, which is very rare for modern history articles on these kinds of subjects" thanks Zleitzen :) and thanks to all for their comments! The article would never improve without objections such as those from Sandy and Peta, and Zleitzen's copy editing work has been invaluable... SGGH 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, SGGH, you should never thank somebody for his criticisms or else somebody may feel in duty to add his ;p. I've been looking and the article is really great; but I feel one note should be removed, as it's weak regards WP:RS, that is Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio and NATO's Stay-Behind Armies - Chronology. The webpage leaves me uneasy also because it's anonymous; and since the topic covered by the note has (Mondlane killing) been treated by many sources, I think it would be easy to replace. I'm also very happy to see the AllAfrica link has been removed; this is good, because AllAfrica links die very early, for this we advise not to use them at the African noticeboard. Two last things: is Magaia really necessary among the commanders? Wasn't he subordinated to Mondlane, and as such, mentioning shouldn't be necessary in the warbox? And I'm a bit perplexed with this wording: "The paramilitary forces of the FRELIMO were commanded by Filipe Samuel Magaia, and received training from Algeria"; don't you mean "the military wing of the FRELIMO was commanded by Filipe Samuel Magaia, whose forces received training from Algeria."? Well, it's only my two cents. Ciao, and great work Zleitzen and Sandy with the copyediting and formatting!--Aldux 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the rewroding and WP:RS issues that you addressed, but I personally believe that Magaia should be in the commanders list, as he was the military commander of FRELIMO, whereas Mondlane was the political leader. SGGH 19:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All issues raised on the talk page have been addressed by Zleitzen, Jmabel or myself. SGGH 08:42, 14 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Nigel Kneale[edit]

Self-nomination. I spent some time last month building the content and references in this article up, as I believe Kneale to be a subject more than worthy of a useful biographical article on Wikipedia. It is a current Good Article, having very recently been promoted after having been nominated by User:LuciferMorgan, one of several users who I asked to proofread the article. Others, User:Josiah Rowe and User:Seegoon, left highly positive remarks about the article on my talk page here and here. The article has also had a recent peer review, here, which attracted useful feedback which I believe I have acted upon. Angmering 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wow that is an unbelievable number of references relative to article length. Incredible job. —Dark•Shikari[T] 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is very text heavy. I suggest it be summarised, and it be supported by tables, (if possible PD-images), a few more images (I know they are FU, but those kind of images will always be copyrighted). Some graphs also could be useful. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you give a specific example of what needs to be converted into a graph?--Rmky87 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I am more than willing to accept that the prose might need cutting down in places, I'm afraid I can't really see how tables or especially graphs might be appropriate? On the subject of images, I was very wary of adding any more Fair Use ones given that it seems there's to be an impending crackdown on these; that was certainly my impression, anyway. Can anyone with more knowledge of the current Fair Use guidelines advise? Angmering 10:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I specifically oppose adding tables - this is an FAC, not an FLC. LuciferMorgan 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decent article, well cited, and gives the reader a great insight into Kneale without being POV. LuciferMorgan 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to travel, I haven't had time to read the article, but the structure looks excellent; perfectly formatted footnotes, no apparent MOS violations, good prose size, well-referenced, etcetera. No obvious problems; just need to find time to read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quatermass and Sex Olympics were ahead of their time he was a genius. Good article. Mariegriffiths 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems like a fairly decent article: detailed, but doesn't go too in-depth into topics which are covered in other articles. I would just suggest one thing if you want to get a strong support from me: expand on Family a little, it seems to me a little short (especially since it doesn't discuss his parents). But otherwise, you have my support. --JB Adder | Talk 08:44, 14 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Maximus the Confessor[edit]

Self-nomination. This article has been through a peer-review, and has been approved as a Good article. The biography is as complete as the sources available, and I don't see much room left for expansion. I am more than willing to make whatever changes/edits are deemed to be necessary for this to be a FA. Pastordavid 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I have added a brief section on Maximus' theology in the legacy section. -- Pastordavid 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update #2: With the help of Thanatosimii, the lead has been expanded. -- Pastordavid 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'll assume good faith that it is comprehensive - other than that I tweaked a couple of typos - otherwise fulfils criteria. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak OpposeStrong Support - The lead section needs to be expanded. There are a lot of terms that need to be linked as only somebody with a theological background can understand some of them.Balloonman 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Could you suggest some of the unlinked terms that need wikilinks? I have tried to explain and wikilink unfamiliar terms, but have no doubt that I may have missed some. --Pastordavid 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to supportBalloonman 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This strikes me as a great start to an article. I have several reservations. First, the references are mostly to tertiary sources, rather than the impressive collection of scholarly resources mentioned only in the further reading section. I would want to see those works cited in the notes. Second, I think that the contributions of Maximus as a thinker/theologian need further elaboration. semper fictilis 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have attempted to present the facts of his life, and not draw conclusions about his theology -- the most importance aspect of which was his opposition of monothelitism. The reason that I did not use the resources listed under further reading, is that they focus on his writings rather than the historical facts of his life. -- Pastordavid 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely his writings could be described and placed in their historical contexts for us: they are, after all, an important part of who he is and why he is important. semper fictilis 00:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks for your helpful comments. I am working on a "Theology" section, and should have an update in a few days. I will post here, to see if it is what you are looking for. -- Pastordavid 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it seems fairly comprehensive to me, given that the article has about as much information as the general reader might want. Scholars won't be using wikipedia for comprehensive research, so it's an excellent article for the layman (which is whom wikipedia is for, surely). InfernoXV 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's a good, concise article. Majoreditor 22:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article seems very small. If Maximus is fairly unknown, then it is at an appropriate length. I only have a few questions about if some places might benefit from having more material. First, there's a reference to some Maronites who apparently didn't like him, and it might not be a bad idea to explain what he did to get them so angry with him so as to write a biography about him. Second, if he was a theologian, might not some comments on his theology outside of the Monothelite controversy be in order? Thanatosimii 05:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A nice effort, but a series of things need fixing so as this article to be a proper FA:
  • The lead is not well-worked. Let's see some issues:
    • "Maximus was involved in the Christological controversy known as Monothelitism, in which Maximus supported the Chalcedonian position" Why "Maximos" twice in the same sentence? Wouldn't it be better to say: "Maximus was involved in the Christological controversy known as Monothelitism, in which he supported the Chalcedonian position"?
    • "Maximus (also known as Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople) is". The parenthesis should go in the first paragraph, where his name is referred for the first time.
  • You wikilink single years without full dates. This is against WP:MoS.
  • I have added two [citation needed]s in "Early life", where there is uncited biographical information.
  • You wikilink more than once the same articles. Christology is wikilinked at least three times.
  • "For more detailed info on the controversy, see Monothelite." What is the purpose of this footnote? Monothelite is already linked (again more than once!) within the main text.
  • Are his "Writings" surviving or do we know them from another source(s)? If they survived how where they saved?--Yannismarou 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replies:
Changed the article lead to remove double use of proper name. Un-wikilinked single years (I believe you, but could you point me to this in the MoS ... I looked and couldn't find it ... thanks). I removed the unnecessary note about Monothelitism (a hangover from my days writing papers -- where more notes are always better than less) and removed duplicate wikilinks. I will look into how his writings were preserved, and provide citations for those two facts. Thanks for your helpful suggestions. -- Pastordavid 16:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For MoS see here.--Yannismarou 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have added the citations you requested. -- Pastordavid 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The article is extremely short, but much more information seems to be available, considering the references section alone lists four books on him. The text can't be considered comprehensive. Sloan21 16:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The books in question are not what I would call accessible for the general audience. They are quite sophisticated, complex, and represent some theological "heavy lifting." I am adding a section on Maximus' theology, per the discussions above ... but an in-depth analysis (such as presented in the books in the further reading) would require the reader to have advanced knowledge of some of the most obscure parts of Christian theology. (And I'm not sure that I agree that 4 books on a person is a significant amount, but that is neither here nor there) -- Pastordavid 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The text is still very short for a historical/biographical FA, but I'm certainly not an expert, therefore I can't assess whether it could be longer or not. Sloan21
  • Oppose: The sexy article is imho too one sided in the sense that it does not go in depth regarding Maximus' theology, focusing somewhat exclusively on biography. If I read a FA on, say Karl Marx, I expect to read a bit on Marx's thought (which is the case with the Karl Marx article). Also it would be nice if the article directed the reader to original sources (such as P.G. 90 and 91). References to the work of eastern orthodox scholars such as Dumitru Stăniloae could also enrich the article. Apart from that there exist some stylistic aspects that are still lacking in FA standards, for example double wikilinks (such as the one for Pseudo-Dionysius, that I fixed). All in all this is a really good article, however I think it lacks one of the two legs to get it standing at FA status, that is a "Maximus' thought" section. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thanks. Please see above ... I am working on a brief "Theology" section. -- Pastordavid 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The major objection to this page is that it is too short. I believe that the recent addition of the Theology section helps to deal with that problem significantly. However, none of us who are reviewing the article, I suspect, are experts in church history, and what this page could really use is input by another person who is. (Ironic timing, since wikipedia's resident expert in all things catholic just turned out to be a fraud!) However, as a layperson, when I read the article, I do not get a sense of closure. You have a lot of info on the Monothelite issues, and that paragraph seems comprehensive and complete. The section on his early life, however, seems very short. Now, if that's all we know, then that's just fine, however a note should be worked into the prose somehow that we don't know a whole lot more about such and such aspect of his life whenever a unsatisfyingly short section appears in the article.
    Additionally, now that the article is bigger due to the theology section, the lead should be exapanded to fit. Thanatosimii 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Looking at the article again, I agree about the lead and am going to take a stab at expanding it. As to his early life, there is just no info there - the details of his life only became of interest to those who recorded such things with his involvement in the monothelite controversy. I will make a note of that and work it into the prose. Thanks for your helpful comments. -- Pastordavid 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have worked a note saying as much about his early life into the prose. -- Pastordavid 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have expanded the intro in the way I might have done it had I been writing this article, however I can make no claims for the accuracy of what I have written. I think that it now adheres to WP:LEAD, however someone should probably make sure I haven't commited factual error. Thanatosimii 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strike that, the prose in one sentance I wrote was just terrible. Can anyone think of a better way to say "However, later in life he entered the monastic life."? Thanatosimii 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gave it a shot with "However, he gave up this life in the political sphere to enter into the monastic life." -- Pastordavid 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            Added one fact change, from "declared a saint" to "venerated as a saint" (many saints were recognized in a "grassroots" fashion, and to use top-down language like "declared" isn't quite accurate), otherwise the expansion looks great. -- Pastordavid 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination. All my concerns have been taken care of. A fine article. Thanatosimii 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much improved during the last days.--Yannismarou 10:02, 8 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Cape Feare[edit]

This is an article about an episode from the TV series The Simpsons. The article was modelled after Pilot (House), which is a FA. Compared to the House episode, this article holds more information that is not just the synopsis. The article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed. I will try and fix any objections that might come during this candidacy. --Maitch 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Shouldn't the "Three Little Maids From School Are We" song from The Mikado, sung by the Simpson family during their car ride, be mentioned in the cultural references section? Or is this supposed to only be for "hidden" references? Andrew Levine 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I left out the cultural references I could not cite. I could mention a few more myself. --Maitch 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I imagine that you could simply cite the libretto; after all, they sing five complete, unaltered lines from the song. Andrew Levine 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel a bit uneasy about it, but if the people involved in this FAC thinks it is a good idea, then I could include it. --Maitch 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I decided to include it. Since it is not a matter of interpretation I do not think there is a need for an additional reference. --Maitch 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article, especially the production section. The lead could use a bit more bulking. Agreed with the above commentor; the cultural references should probably be expanded. Shrumster 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, cultural references sections aren't needed as they just seem sloppy and thrown together. I think most of the stuff that can be easily sourced is there. -- Scorpion 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The concerns I raised during peer review have been dealt with. I also supported Pilot (House) and I think that this article is better. Jay32183 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image:Rake_Joke.png and Image:Bates Motel.png areis decorative fair use. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the fair use rationales state otherwise, you will have to be more specific. Jay32183 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if you could direct me to a formal policy describing when an image is "decorative". Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, which is a FA, uses five screenshots and I can't see the difference between those and the ones in this article. --Maitch 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:FISHING. I do not believe the screen caps are discussed adequately - perhaps the rake scene, but more importantly the motel, which is basically just throwing a fair-use image in that does not, in any way, provide information beyond the text. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both of the screen caps illustrate stuff discussed within the article. BatesMotel shows that it is a reference to Psycho and Rake_Joke shows one of the more famous sequences from the episodes, which is discussed at length. -- Scorpion 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What does having the image of the sign substantially add to the article? I cave on the rakes - while I still think the value the image adds does not outweigh, oh, having a free encyclopedia, and I am 99% certain that image will be deleted within the next 3 months when the new fair-use dicta comes out, I'll pass, for now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • My point is that you claim it's just for decoration, but the BatesMotel image illustrates a point made in the article. -- Scorpion 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Does the image add substantial non-decorative value to the article? How so? How is the image any better than writing, in the text, that "there was a sign outside the motel that said Bates Motel?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My point was that the image has a complete fair use rationale and you aren't making an argument as to why that rationale is insufficient or false. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your assessment, I just want you to frame a better argument. Jay32183 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Part of WP:FUC reads "The material must contribute significantly to the article." This image does not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • But you are still ignoring the fact that fair use rationale claims it does. You must make an argument with regards to that fair use rationale. Jay32183 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes it does. The article makes a point and the image illustrates it. There was an image in there before that WAS decorative, but this one is not there just for decoration. -- Scorpion 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I'd say that the rake scene may be a little baffling to someone who hasn't seen the episode and the picture might help, but the sign is easy to imagine and doesn't need to be illustrated. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I fully support the statement of CC directly above, and reiterate my oppose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • The problem with the policy that states that fair use images may not be "decorative" is that in most cases it is a subjective assessment. If I wanted images that just looked pretty, I would have used some other screenshots. Actually, I removed one image prior to this nomination because it was purely decorative. The images left had relevance to the article. I don't consider it just decorative and therefore I believe that the image should stay. In this case I think we should let the majority rule, so if you can find more people who are against the inclusion of this image, I will remove the image. --Maitch 14:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • That is not how things work here. Consensus (or majority voting, which we NEVER use) does not trump policy, which you are violating. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Well, if I am not following policy, which you still have not proven that I do, then it should not be very hard to find people supporting your objection. --Maitch 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Ok, I give up. I won't insert the image again. --Maitch 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article still needs a little work. It could use a good copyediting as some of the prose contains several uses of the word "the". Overall, I'd say that it's one of the better Simpsons articles. -- Scorpion 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gotta say Support. "The" is pretty unavoidable and didn't jump out at me. I think the intro can be longer, but then again, there might not be much to summarize without people saying "You can't say that, it's POV." Altogether, it's great work. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I decided to expand the lead a bit. I know it is slightly POV, but there are plenty of citations to back it up in the reception section. --Maitch 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the lead could be a tiny bit bigger, but then again that could be hard. So its good, very good. Gran2 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd almost forgotten to add my support. I have gone over the article a dozen times and I am now happy with it. -- Scorpion 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bob stepping on a rake is alluded to several times without ever explaining what this actually entails and what sort of abuse to his person this inflicts, i.e. the rake's handle hits him in the face. It is very possible that people reading this article who have not seen the episode may be confused. Some way should be found to correct this. Andrew Levine 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said before, it's baffling. I was trying to think of a way to say that- "the rake's handle hits him in the face" will do. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm partially reponsible for that, I don't like getting too detailed with jokes in the synopsis, especially throw away gags, and I didn't think it was necessary to get into too much detail. -- Scorpion 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, pls see WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pilot (House) and Abyssinia, Henry are both FAs and they have short leads. -- Scorpion 04:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:LEAD says one or two paragraphs for less than 15000 characters, which the article follows. You have to be a bit more specific as to what your objection is. --Maitch 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pilot House and Abyssinia are not under review here; the lead should summarize the article, able to serve as a stand-alone article. Whether it is one paragraph or four, this lead does not summarize the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it does. What more do you want? An extended summary? Some of the production information? I looked at some film FAs and they have general production info (check), a BRIEF summary (check) and info on its release/impact. (check). What else needs to be added? -- Scorpion 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I have expanded the lead. Is this what you want? --Maitch 14:02, 12 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

The Log from the Sea of Cortez[edit]

Self nomination The story of a specimen collecting expedition taken by John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts around the Gulf of California. It was a stub until a couple of weeks ago when I took pity on it. It's been through a helpful peer review and I now present it for your consideration. Yomanganitalk 11:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick skim makes it look pretty good, but I haven't read it in enough detail yet to say more. Adam Cuerden talk 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've given this article a pretty good read and I've decided it's very well written. It is also well sourced, formatting appears flawless (as I expect from all FAs), and has a good use of images. There doesn't seem to be anything missing, and the details do not become overly trivial. Good work. Jay32183 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lovely piece of work, very readable, just the right length for the subject, and with a well-judged structure. An excellent addition to Wikipedia's best articles. qp10qp 04:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions;
  1. the picture could be larger to fill up the infoboxes' width.
  2. the picture also needs a fair use rationale
  3. the quality of the picture isn't that great
  4. only two categories? surely more could be added.
Just a few small suggestions after a quick look.--Empire Earth 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestions. I missed the fair use rationale for that image, as it was already being used elsewhere. Corrected that now. The image quality isn't meant to be that good under a fair use rationale, and hence the smaller size (I've upped it a little, but I can't see a reason to make it as big as the infobox). Feel free to add any other relevant categories - those two seemed the most useful to me. Yomanganitalk 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is in fact really well-written and flawlessly formatted. The problem is that the "Expedition" section relies primarily on the logs of the expedition themselves. This is especially a problem since the article itself admits that the book is "to some extent a work of fiction". You can't rely on a work of fiction to tell you about real events. How do you know that some of what is claimed to be true was not in fact invented by Steinbeck?--Carabinieri 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a problem with only having a single detailed source (although having multiple sources wouldn't necessarily make it true). Perhaps if I retitled it "Steinbeck's account of the expedition"? Apart from the points mentioned in the article, there has been no attempt to revise the account presented of the trip, something that would have undoubtedly have happened given the interest in Steinbeck (to take another "travelogue" example, the account of his adventures that T. E. Lawrence presented in Seven Pillars of Wisdom have been picked apart, and I'd expect much the same approach by Steinbeck scholars). If you take the approach that it is a work of fiction, then the article still needs to cover the "plot". Jaws, for example, covers the plot from the primary source, and there are other FAs that rely on presenting details from a primary source as fact. I think pointing out the flaws with Steinbeck's account, while still using it as a source is valid, just as we'd use Suetonius to detail aspects of Nero's personal life while acknowledging he was something of a sensationalist. Yomanganitalk 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I know nothing about John Steinbeck other than that he wrote The Grapes of Wrath, and that he has one of those names that stands out. I know nothing about the subject. After reading the article, which was painless, I feel that I know a little bit more about John Steinbeck and a lot more about the subject. Which is amazing for Wikipedia. However I am not happy with "it was assumed by many", which is naff. That might have been acceptable a few years ago, when Wikipedia was a plaything for anime-loving manchilden. But for an encyclopaedia that aspires to greatness, and is currently the fourth Google return for "cancer", [31] I expect more than "it was assumed by many". -Ashley Pomeroy 18:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know too little about the subject to comment on content but the writing is very good. Pascal.Tesson 16:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, another fine piece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Mars[edit]

previous FAC

Having read through the article, this article seems to meet all the feature article criteria. Atomic1609 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If, when, or before all the Planet articles reach FA, should a survey/comparison be done to see how they appear side by side? Is there a general trend, or are the articles on the planets generally done in an individual way? There might not be anything wrong with tailoring each article especially for the planet in question. For a biography article that would be acceptable, but is it acceptable for a Planet article?-BillDeanCarter 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current FA'd planet articles Mercury (planet), Venus and Jupiter are laid out in a comparable fashion. Mars appears to use a similar arrangement, with just a few differences in section titles. (I've been gently coaxing the Earth article toward a similar layout. :) But there's probably always going to be a few differences between those pages, due to the nature of the planets and their differing history. How close do you think they need to be? — RJH (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, but there's a featured topic on the Solar System here Solar System topic that addresses what I was getting at. As long as these Planet articles generally cover the same information in the same depth when possible it should be good. The infoboxes serve that purpose well. I just wanted to make sure it was something being considered.-BillDeanCarter 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects would probably have the most interest in this topic. Perhaps you could raise it as an issue on their talk page? They're usually fairly receptive to logical suggestions. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BillDeanCarter, I've just been taking a look at the Moon article and I begin to see your point, its quite confusing to find my way around now I'm used to the structure of the Mars page - some kind of *gentle* standardisation would be a good thing. sbandrews 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was skimming through and found two external jumps ("history of the observation of mars" and "These maps are now available online at Google Mars.") in the Historical observations of Mars section. Those should probably be converted to footnotes. External links section needs pruning. Gzkn 03:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the two external jumps now fixed sbandrews 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
external links pruned sbandrews 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object — The page has improved, but I still have some issues that prevent me from supporting it. Sorry.
  • Weak Support — Most of my issues have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section needs work, at least in the form of a reorganization. The second and fourth paragraphs switch their subject abruptly. What does "it was hoped ... that Mars had ample liquid water" mean in the lead section? Ample for what? The first two sentences of the fourth paragraph in the lead section seem more appropriate for the third paragraph. The topic of Mars' moons is less important than any of the information it precedes and I think it should be pushed down.
      • Intro substantially reworked, sbandrews 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much improved, thanks. — RJH (talk)
    • There is a lot of redundancy between the second and third paragraphs in the "Geology" section and other parts of the article. (The "Magnetosphere" and "Possibility of liquid water" sections.) I'd like to see that information consolidated somehow.
      • Magnetosphere redundancy fixed. Water section more problematic, now split between geology and current missions - would like to see it all put into geology. sbandrews 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC) All water info now in geology section sbandrews 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing space: "...light red sand.[14]Despite being closer..." Fixed.
    • There is no discussion of Mars' retrograde motion during opposition with the Earth; nor of the synodic period.
      • Added to the 'Viewing Mars' section sbandrews 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph of the "Life" section has no references. But it is speculative in nature; describing conditions we think are needed for life. So citations are needed, I believe.
      • Added good text on the subject, more refs are in the main LOM article - At some point the idea of the 'habitable zone' needs putting in a historical context, somewhat 'old-hat' sounding now imo.sbandrews 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there citations for the first paragraph of the "Future plans" section?
      • all three plans are wikilinked and have full referencing there - this is a long article, the reference section is already heavy... sbandrews 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe there's a reference quota: Supernova has 110, for example. I think the article should have as many as are needed. But there are an absolutely astonishing number of external links. Couldn't most of those be merged in as references? — RJH
    • Why is there a "Astronomical observations from Mars" section? Only the second paragraph in that section seems of much importance, and that could be covered in the Magnetosphere section.
      • demoted it to subsection of Exploration of Mars - needs pruning sbandrews 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, but that has just moved the text around. I'm wondering why so much text is being spent on "Astronomy on Mars" than the more important "Past missions" section, for example? :-) Also the sentence about the occultation of Mars by Venus is probably more appropriate for the "Viewing Mars" section. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cropped astronomy section and enhanced exploration section - balance restored? Can't bring myself to delete this section - what to do :) sbandrews 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "In fiction" section has zero references. The "Moons" section has a fiction reference to the moons that I think belongs in the "In fiction" section. Moved punctuation before citation tags, per MoS.
      • references put in, moons moved and referencedsbandrews 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references section needs work. I see one that is just a URL. Many don't have retrieval dates, and I suspect more could list their authors. The "Climate" section has a couple of external links that should be in citation format. Likewise for the linked text, "history of the observation of mars" and "Google Mars".
      • Climate section fixed - likewise linked text problem sbandrews 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reference section tidied up - only reference 58 (Mars Factsheet) waiting for check or replacement. sbandrews 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nearly there. I feel it does satisfy criteria apart from the prose. I made a couple of mundane corrections but it still has a clunky feel in places. I'd move the areology sentence from the lead as it is not essential to be there and the lead reads badly with loads of bits of info jammed into it. I do think it is nearly there however. Would you like me to go ahead and tweak a few grammatical/style bits or suggest them here? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you've time, I'd be delighted for the help - but suggestions are appreciated otherwise - and thanks for the encouragement :) kind regards sbandrews 22:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — Is there a reason why this article is not receiving more support, but is also not getting any objections? It seems odd. — RJH (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been through to copyedit a bit but having trouble; there are spots I feel the prose needs tweaking but can't put my finger on how/what to fix. I've had this trouble when working on my own FA candidates that sometimes things seem to go awry and it can be very hard to figure out how to proceed. I am just about ready to support but something looks a bit 'messy' cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah okay. Yes there are a few sections of prose that, while technically correct, struck me as not quite having good "flow". Usually it seems like some skilled editors seem to show up right about now to help with the polish. :-) The only other minor issues that come to mind are the early mention of the Tharsis bulge without further explanation; a sentence about "other classifications" that leaves the reader hanging a little, and the disconnect between the "The image to the right..." paragraph and it's illustration further up the page. — RJH (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • fixed the latter two problems sbandrews 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are some comments by marskell in the previous FAC that might help - my prose is poor :( but I'll give it a go... sbandrews 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC) that I have addressed, save for the 'geologically active' bit. If we note here any poor sections of the prose, (i.e. as per Casliber's first offer) it will help to push this FAC forward by combined attack :), kind regards sbandrews 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support: This article has greatly improved since the last featured article candidacy. The geography and geology sections have been improved. My only complaint is the third paragraph in the geology section, which still sounds like "Article by Press Release". This section should be incorporated into a "Mars Water" section, and how this result relates to the role of water on the present-day Martian surface, which given the current astrobiology obsession, is an important topic to cover. --Volcanopele 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a hydrology section and toned down the 'press release factor', needs fleshing out into a Hydrology of Mars article some time in the future :) sbandrews 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice work but that last paragraph still sounds rather "press releasy". I wish I knew more about this to edit it myself, but it should first introduce the concept of Martian gullies and what they tell us about the state of water in the Martian near-sub-surface. It can then mention the relatively youthful appearance of the features (few impact craters observed superimposed on the gully aprons for example. THEN, mention that a few gullies may have formed in the last few years, as observed by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. Cut out the date of the announcement, it isn't necessary. --Volcanopele 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ready for inspection :) sbandrews 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sweet! I've edited it a little bit, but I think this section is much better. Changed my vote to support. --Volcanopele 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Other: This article also draws on the corresponding Wikipedia articles in various other languages" - Using other language Wikipedias as a source isn't verifiable, although if those are properly referenced you can simply add the references here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - will remove that, it was a hangover from a long time ago.. sbandrews 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The reference "Peplow, Mark. How Mars got its rust. Retrieved on 2006-04-18" requires a subscription to read. I think a more public reference should be used in its place. References 14, 34, 59, 61, 65 and 68 are missing the date, which are available from the web sites. 22, 59 and 60 are missing the author's name. 72 is missing a year. 17 is from the web site of an acknowledged psychic—how reliable is it? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We Martians have advanced far beyond your primitive earth concept of "sources", :D - fixed sbandrews 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article would be improved by the inclusion, with the Keplerian orbital elements, of one or more moments of time for which Mars was at the perihelion of its orbit. (Jerry Abbott)
    • I think they are in the viewing Mars section. Also there is an 'Aspects of Mars' article linked from there - which incidently was flagged for deletion recently as being unencyclopedic - but I rescued it - see its talk page. As for the Keplerian orbital elements I'll take a look.. sbandrews 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article now qualifies in terms of prose (as well as other criteria).cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as good as the previous FA planet article, Jupiter. And why it is still in the "Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification"? igordebraga ≠ 17:19, 13 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Hurricane Kenna[edit]

I did this article about a month ago, and after looking back at it I think it's featured worthy. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to pass all criteria. It is a bit small, but smaller articles have passed. I'm not sure to whether support this or not. Evilclown93 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Length is not a requirement. Comprehensiveness is. Additionally, it is 20 kb, a reasonable length and twice as long as the shortest featured hurricane article. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work, as usual. Jay32183 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- the units should be SI first, then imperial. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Two reasons, Mexico uses metric, and this article is related to science. Additional comment: gif image should be converted to png. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've talked to others, and the consensus is that though it primarily affected Mexico, the basin is under the jurisdiction of the National Hurricane Center, and they use imperial units. Thus, the article should be imperial units. I did, however, change the image (and also uploaded it on commons). Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you point me to the relevent discussion? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There hasn't really been a relevant discussion. However, this is mainly to keep the status quo. For starters, the infobox automatically places the units as mph (km/h), as well as the fact that there are dozens of other articles, some of which primarily affected Mexico and some of which only lightly did as well, that have the same uniformity. The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject prefers to keep everything as unified as possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At first thought, I wanted to object as well on that basis. However, WP:MOSNUM indicates that when in doubt, "Put the source value first and the converted value second." The relevant primary source here would be a Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre, in this case, the National Hurricane Center. There's reasons to put units in either measurement system, so that clause is applied. Titoxd(?!?) 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, appears to meet the featured article criteria. --Coredesat 04:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; yet another excellent article from Hurricanehink. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:32, 7 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia[edit]

This is a self-nomination. This article has been through a peer review and was rated as a Good Article. I've attempted to cover the subject matter as broadly as possible and to present a neutral tone. I think it's well-written, but I'm open to any suggestions to improve upon it. --Bookworm857158367 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support. Close to support, just a few issues that need to be resolved:
  • At three sentences the lead is not an adequate summary of the article per WP:LEAD.
  • Page numbers need to be added to refs 6 & 30.
  • Both Massie and Radzinsky have been used twice as sources, their paticular books need to be distinguished in the notes (Radzinsky: 14, 29, 66, 67), (Massie: 26, 38, 47, 76). Ceoil 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle that sometime this weekend. I don't have time to do it justice right now. Thanks for the suggestions. --Bookworm857158367 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I believe I've addressed most of the things you mentioned. I'm not sure if the saint section needs to be rewritten, even though it's duplicated in the Anastasia article. The subject matter is as relevant to Olga as it is to Anastasia. Is there anything else you think needs to be fixed or addressed? --Bookworm857158367 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with duplicate text on FA articles, and I've already recommended on your talk that you either rephrase one, or spin out the section to a daughter article. However, I take your point, and will wait for other views. Otherwise the article is easily within criteria.
Congratulations on Anastasia bty, was just promoted. Ceoil 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly willing to rewrite it or turn it into a separate article if that's the consensus, but I'm just not certain it's necessary. I think the section is valuable and essentially the same related to all four grand duchesses. The same section is also in the biographies for Maria and Tatiana. Regarding the Massie and Radzinsky references, I think those have also been fixed. I cited the references as Massie (1967) and Massie (1995) and Radzinsky (1992) and Radzinsky (2000) instead of listing the title of each book after each reference.--Bookworm857158367 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the quality of your other Romanova bios, it's probably reasonable to assume they will also be FA candidates in the near future. In that light, my suggestion is that the section is converted to a daughter article, and rendered in summary style on each indivdual bio article. I've switched to support regardless, my remaining concerns are trivial and easily fixed, ie refs 13 & 37. Ceoil 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about a separate article for the saint section. I'll attempt to rewrite those sections and do the separate article at some point tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for all your help. --Bookworm857158367 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, a dedicated article on their sainthood will allow for the development of threads and an overview that would be extraneous in a bio article. Ceoil 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Done. The new article is called Romanov sainthood. I've summarized the contents in the Olga, Maria, and Tatiana articles. I didn't change the Anastasia article since it passed FA with the sainthood information included.--Bookworm857158367 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support DrKiernan 10:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Very well done. Look forward to seeing more of your Grand Duchess articles at FAC soon! Gzkn 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nicely done!--Yannismarou 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you intend to make a Featured topic out of these Romanov articles?--Rmky87 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was a featured topic category. I suppose they would qualify. I was planning to submit the other two grand duchess articles for featured article consideration when they're ready to go. First this one needs to pass. Is there anything else that needs to be done on it? --Bookworm857158367 13:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably get the other grand duchesses past FAC first, and get their parents and brother past it, too. Or at least up to GA. You're less likely to be accused of only picking the best articles in a topic that way.--Rmky87 18:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind: the presence of a lead article has been a requirement since 13 February.--Rmky87 02:07, 12 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Ernest Emerson[edit]

Self Nomination I've been working on this article for quite some time. I helped build it up from a stub article to where it is now. I have properly formatted all sources in the Harvard Citation method and documented everything within the article. It was originally 2 articles, one on the Knifemaker, the other on his knives and I merged them into this current version. I welcome all comments and advice to get this article to Featured Status.

  • Support my own Nomination.

Thank You --Mike Searson 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object I think the introduction can be a little longer, plus, some more information on his early life would be nice (for instance, what made him interested in martial arts and knife making?). There's some trailing whitespace after the "Popularizing the tactical knife" section and a few grammar mistakes punctuation-wise. Also, there seem to be too many pictures; they seem to be decoratory, which would bring in issues of fair use. Lastly, one of the pictures is way too large and disrupts the rest of the article. It's a good article, but it still needs some little tweaks to perfect it. I know that some users may object to the Harvard citation style, too. Helltopay27 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, I will work on most of it. All images have the proper tags, I didn't see that as an issue. Which image is too big? I was under the impression Harvard inline citations were the preference here...have I been misinformed? Thanks again for the help! Mike Searson 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Image:Emersonlottery.jpg is much too large (at least on my browser it is), and even if they have the proper image tags, too many pictures can be a problem, because excess use is also an issue with the fair use policy. As for the Harvard citations, I personally have no problems with it (though I prefer MLA style), but I've read other users' comments against Harvard style citations.
        • I may clip that one or remove it. Thanks for pointing that out, on the peer review I was told to make the pictures bigger and add more.--{[User:Mike Searson|Mike Searson]] 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are numerous manual of style, grammar and other issues here:
  • The birthdate should be in parentheses straight after the name, per here.
  • Images generally shouldn't have specified widths, per here.
  • Months and days should be wikilinked together for date preferences; single years generally shouldn't be wikilinked.
  • Decades should be given without an apostrophe, e.g. 1980s
  • First use of dollars should probably be written US$ to eliminate ambiguity.
  • edged weapons authority - I assume he is an authority in edged-weapons rather than a weapons-authority with an edge, so hyphenate it. Hyphens missing throughout the article.
  • You shouldn't use numbers for the notes as well as the references, to avoid confusion. I'm not sure how you've done it, but can you use letters?
  • For the Emerson Knives infobox, why are "Revenue" and "Employees" marked as "N/A"? I don't see how the information isn't applicable to a company.

Added to the above, the article has a tendency to read like a puff piece. There are POV statements, like "The system is based on simple and effective techniques" (who says they're simple and effective?). The second paragraph of the lead in particular makes him seem too good. Have there been criticisms of him or his knives? It feels unbalanced at present. Trebor 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trebor, Thanks for the input...I was not aware of many of the items you pointed out (date formatting, etc) and will correct these ASAP. I will use letters for the footnotes and plan to add some more, I saw the numbering used on another featured article and used the formatting i saw there.
  • I'll work on the POV as well. There are no formal documented criticisms...for example, some critics do not care for the chisel ground edge or feel the grind is on the wrong side of the blade. Some people resent the long wait to recieve knives (in excess of 10 years). I could put these into the article, but they would be unsourced and hearsay at best. If you can think of a way I can include that sort of thing, I'll be more than happy to put it in to achieve balance, however it's been non-existent in the 70+ print sources I've researched. Mike Searson 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, okay. If nothing's been published there's not a lot you can do. I think, then, that it just needs a weed out of anything too flowery: phrases like "numerous books", "countless numbers of...", "numerous articles", can lose the "numerous" and "countless numbers of" parts. They are redundant (the meaning isn't really changed without them; numerous is non-specific in amount) and seem to be bigging him up too much. If you give it a go, and I'll come back and take another look. And I didn't mention this the first time, but the amount of referencing is very impressive, well done. (Another nitpick: sometimes the page references include "pp", sometimes they don't.) A little work and I think this can become featured. Trebor 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I removed that stuff from the beginning, but I'll have another scan for flowery prose like you mention. I'll also make the referncing consistent, I apologize, I was looking for shortcuts to the Harvard style. Thanks again, looks like my weekend is cut out for me! {[User:Mike Searson|Mike Searson]] 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Got it, it was in the lead section...I was under the impression that was ok...but I took them out and will work on running down accurate numbers if possible. Many thanks!Mike Searson 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Back for another look, sorry for the delay.

  • Ref 68 has an unwikilinked accessdate
  • The notes are a bit odd (and change size halfway through). I've never seem them used to collect quotations before, but I suppose it's okay. I feel they should be ordered alphabetically through the article, and also consistently come before or after the references for the sentence they are attached to.
  • The double dash (after "baseball player") shouldn't be used; see WP:DASH for more.
  • The prose is generally alright, but could perhaps do with a copyedit from an uninvolved editor. I spotted a few occasions where punctuation was used incorrectly. If you can't find anyone to run through it, I could give it a go myself, but not for at least a couple of days. Keep up the good work. Trebor 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the second look and your comments, Trebor. I wikilinked the access date, for some reason I thought that was done as part of the template. Found a stray tag in my "Footnote section" it threw the size to normal halfway through, ordered them alphabetically and put them after the source. I removed the double dash, will have another copyedit done. Mike Searson 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there still appears to be a stray tag in the notes, and the year should be wikilinked in #68 as well. The reason it isn't happening automatically is that you're using accessmonthday and accessyear, as opposed to accessdate (personally, I don't see the point in having two options). Accessdate can be filled in in a YYYY-MM-DD format, and will automatically wikilink. Trebor 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! OK, either I found it and forgot to remove it, or walked on my own edit. Fixed now...ok, access date it is! I'm still kind of new to all this and probably used another article to see how this tag was used...Thanks again! Mike Searson 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, it looks good. Trebor 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too have a few issues with the article...
Support My concerns have been addressed. We're now left with a well-referenced and comprehensive article that edumacated me. Caknuck 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The opening paragraph of the "Background" section reads "...traveling to another state twice a week in order to learn." Um, which state?
  2. The "Viper Knives" section reads "Although he always maintained that his knives were fighters first and foremost..." I think "fighters" is too jargonny in this context. I'd suggest changing it to "fighting knives" or "combat knives".
  3. Why are all of the section headers third-level, except for the last four (which are second-level)?
  4. The caption for the butterfly knife image reads "First Emerson knife." I'd suggest changing this to "Emerson's first handmade knife." to better coincide with the text. Also, the caption for the Viper Knives image should indicate (if possible) which model is which, since the model names are referenced within the article.
Once these issues are resolved, I'll be happy to support this for FA. {[User:Caknuck|Caknuck]] 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and for catching those things, the state in question was/is Minnesota. I fixed the captions on the two pictures, one of the earlier pictures I recently deleted showed 4 of the 5 Viper models and an early CQC6 marked with a Viper logo (Viper-6), I kept the current picture as it was better quality than the other, but didn't realize it was missing a descriptive caption. I made all headers Second level, I didn't realize they were different. Sorry for using the term "fighter", I realize now that this would be jargon.Mike Searson 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the fair use comment; some of the images probably shouldn't be there at all. Which images are unsourced? Trebor 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, help me out. Some are pictures I took, uploaded and released to public domain, the majority were released to public domain by Mr Emerson, 3 were taken by other contributors and uploaded by them and released to public domain. If anything is unsourced, let me know and I'll make sure that it is. Which do you think should not be there? Mike Searson 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Most of the logos. The first states that it came from a knife itself, but the others don't say where they came from, and in the case of Image:Eki.gif, there's nothing but the {{logo}} template. ShadowHalo 21:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh okay. I thought you meant some non-fair use images were unsourced. Trebor 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Ack! All of the pictures look like they're appropriate for the article. However, some of the logos don't say where they came from (a picture of the knives, online, etc.), and all the copyrighted pictures (the logos and the book cover) need an explanation of why they meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria. If you need help, there are some guidelines at WP:FURG. ShadowHalo 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I walked on your edits. OK, thanks...I'll get to work on it. I used the template on the photo of Ernest and on the Bowie logo...is this what I need to do for the rest? Do I need added permission from Emerson? Thanks for pointing this out. I'll do what it takes to make them compliant. Mike Searson 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. I'll withdraw my objection. ShadowHalo 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping me honest, ShadowHalo! Mike Searson 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I first encountered this article on peer review, and did some help early on with copyediting and referencing. Fine job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with no comments - I like it just fine.Peter Rehse 07:43, 8 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

The Smashing Pumpkins[edit]

Self-nomination. This article was nominated for FAC a while back here at a point where almost everyone agreed (including myself) that the nomination was premature. However, after much work I feel the article fulfills the nomination criteria and is ready for Featured Article consideration. WesleyDodds 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I like how the article has shaped up. I'll be glad to help addressing any concerns other editors have with it. I'd love to see more on bands influenced by SP, but Wesley and I had a stab at that and it seems the statement in the article about the Pumpkins being an "island unto themselves" holds true to some degree. - Phorque 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article seems very extensive and cites sources very well. It doesn't seem to be lacking in any areas. Good use of photographs and soundclips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.50.35 (talk • contribs)
  • Object images and soundclips need fair use rationales, when that fixed i would comment further. Jaranda wat's sup 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added fair use rationales where I felt they fulfilled the criteria and contacted the uploaders when I had questions. WesleyDodds 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks very thorough... although I do think that the post breakup section should include Darcy Wretzkys mugshot. -- UKPhoenix79 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A comprehensive and well-written article. However, my only concern is that the infobox picture doesn't seem to have a fair use rationale. CloudNine 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's been a pleasure seeing this article come together--it's a well thought-out, well sourced history with a fine sense of appropriate emphasis and detail. Per CloudNine's observation, a fair use rationale has now been provided for the unobjectionable infobox picture.—DCGeist 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 8 fair use images and 7 fair use sound clips, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia. Please reduce the amount of fair use media, many of the images serve simply as decoration and make no contribution to a persons understanding of the article (WP:FUC 8). Has any attempt been made to contact the management of the group to ask for free images?--Peta 00:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are for historical context, and given that the band has just reunited (although only with two of the members confirmed), getting free images is difficult, if not impossible. As for the audio clips, there's no way we'll get free soundclips until the band's material enters the public domain in a few decades. All other musician FAs rely on fair use soundclips, and we've tried not only to include the clips relevant to the release of each album, but also included additonal musical or critical comments.WesleyDodds 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They historical argument is very weak. We can read in the text how the number of members changed, we don't need photographic proof. --Peta 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the point of these images is that the band has changed their image a number of times. I'll try to make that clearer in the image descriptions. Looking at some recent music FAs like Pixies, Megadeth, and Frank Black they rely on a mix of images to illustrate the bands at various points in their careers as well as relevant album covers. Would a mix such as this be more acceptable? WesleyDodds 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask, can the reader understand this text without images? The answer will be yes; why not just make a timeline table to make sure the reader doesn't miss that the lineup changed? The articles you mention don't need those album covers for the reader to understand whats going on, they shouldn't really be there.--Peta 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones do you think the article can definitely do without? WesleyDodds 01:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is little evident basis for your argument, Peta. All of the images currently included in the article fall clearly within the boundaries of well-established fair use precedent in general and Wikipedia fair use practices in specific. If you have any good faith reason to believe that a particular image is being used in violation of defensible fair use practices, please (a) identify that image by name, (b) state why you believe it's in violation, and, if you can, (c) cite one single case of the presumptive copyright holder contesting fair use of the image or any similar one on Wikipedia or any similar noncommercial educational platform.—DCGeist 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specific issues.
1.Image:Smashing pumpkins 1990 promo.jpg fails FUC 8, we already know what the band looks like from the infobox
Arguably illustrates nothing not already illustrated by infobox picture. WD, can we find a more informative image here?—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2.Image:Smashing Pumpkins melloncollie promo.jpg, as for the previous
Picture illustrates major change in band's image. No case made that it breaches well-established fair use practices in any way.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3.Image:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg, same as the previous
Picture illustrates major change in band's lineup. No case made that it breaches well-established fair use practices in any way.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4.Image:Todaypromo.jpg, some guy and a van, this image does a poor job of conveying anything
Supposed description obviously misrepresents image and its significance.—DCGeist 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the samples go, consider FUC 3; The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. <snip>. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.--Peta 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally established practices are not necessarily the best precedent to go by, see this; we should limit all fair use media as much as possible.--Peta 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you completely ignoring the fact this band has a hugely diverse sound which is discussed at length in the article? Each clip serves the purpose of illustrating the musical progression of the band at that point in time, and each clip has its significance illustrated in the description. - Phorque 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, all the images in the article do not "clearly" fall within those boundaries when someone is expressing concern that they don't. Good faith concern alone should be enough to prompt a serious reassessment. It certainly establishes that the usage isn't "clearly" unproblematic. It's up to the person wanting to republish unfree content on any Wikimedia project to make a persuasive claim that it is absolutely essential. As for your "c)" point, please keep this focused on improving the article. It's not Peta's obligation to defend our fair use policy. Jkelly 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is most unclear is the case you're attempting to make. My "(c)" point is entirely focused on the quality of the article: if a known or putative copyright holder has a history of challenging fair use claims of identical or similar material on Wikipedia or similar media, then there is a strong rationale for subjecting such material to a higher level of scrutiny. And of course it's not Peta's "obligation" to defend our fair use policy (no one asked Peta to do that, by the way). Just as it's not my "obligation" to defend the article's adherence to that policy. None of us are "obliged" to make any sort of effort here--we're all volunteers, right? Each of us can choose to be more or less helpful, more or less proactive, more or less responsive, more or less precise, etc.
Also, please recognize the conceptual flaw in your argument that "Good faith concern alone should be enough to prompt a serious reassessment": as in all walks of life, good faith does not equal good reason. By your own logic, the fact that someone (me) is expressing concern about the images' proposed removal obliges you to "seriously reassess" your following claim that "we don't need" these or similar images. The precision of your observations below is appreciated; I now look forward to the results of your "serious reassessment."—DCGeist 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case, simply because we treat unfree media differently than we treat media that is part of our mission. Don't approach this as if it were a discussion over whether or not something that is free content belongs in an article or not. It's really unclear to me why you keep asking about whether or not we get complaints from copyright holders or not. Are you just curious? Our goal is to be so conservative in our use of potentially infringing media that the issue doesn't come up. If I say that we're not always successful in meeting that goal, does that answer your question? Jkelly 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It had always been my understanding that, in a practical sense, the heart of the mission was the creation of free encyclopedic text, in particular, and the creation of a freely available and highly useful encyclopedia in general. As I have acknowledged below, it does appear that the Wikimedia Administration Board is intent on establishing that totally free media is also at the heart of the mission. In the context of Wikipedia, this saddens me, because I believe it unnecessarily complicates, frustrates, and in many cases undermines the creation of a highly useful encyclopedia. I keep raising the issue of whether or not we get complaints from copyright holders—not in general terms (I know we do), but in specifically relevant terms—because I wish to demonstrate that the devotion to totally free media unnecessarily makes the creation of a high-quality encyclopedia much more difficult.—DCGeist 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, how does one create a featured article about a high-profile band under these kinds of rules? Almost anything to do with them holds some kind of copyright. In our case, trying to convey the sound and image of the band is near impossible without using copyrighted images under a fair use claim. If I'm not mistaken, most of the Smashing Pumpkins live shows would not have allowed an audience member to carry in a camera of any kind, because there would be official photographers making (once again) copyrighted images. How could we ever hope to find free photos to convey the things we are trying to illustrate in this article? Is there no solution along the lines of "keeping pictures (a), (b) and (c) would be enough, and audio clips (x), (y) and (z) would suffice and still keep this article featured." What about my suggestion of making the pictures smaller? I haven't heard one complaint about this article's prose or referencing. Once again, where is the solution, the middle ground in this debate? - Phorque 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point: the band hasn't been active since 2000, and while they have recently reunited, they have yet to make any public appearances. WesleyDodds 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images here appear to be taken by the uploader. I've been mainly focused on the prose and research of the article, so I'm basically in the dark about photos. How would I go about asking permission for photos and uploading (or if someone more knowledgable could do it instead, that would be helpful)? WesleyDodds 06:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wesley... I'm sure Billy Corgan has some kind of contact address, I guess it wouldn't hurt to drop him a line and ask where you could obtain promotional images of the band more "officially". - Phorque 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His website is down for the moment. I do have the band's MySpace page on my friends list. *ducks* It used to be Billy Corgan's personal page (the one where he posted his autobiography) so the band for sure has some direct involvement with it. I was about to send a message asking for promotional images, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase it (and I sure as hell wouldn't know how to upload or detail them). The goal would be to ask for images that illustrate the band's history; we don't want to just end up with that flag promo icon they have on the website right now. Additionally, it's very likely the request might get lost in the shuffle of all the fans that message the account. WesleyDodds 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to replace Image:sp1991.jpg with a cropped version (to remove the "smashing pumpkins" at the bottom) of the clearly promotional photograph used in the early days paragraph. I think this is fair. Hundreds over other websites (eg. Allmusic.com) and magazines use promotional photographs with the copyright info cropped out... that's what they are for, it's not going to make any copyright holder angry. We are not denying that the copyright is there by cropping it out. There's no need to get quite so pedantic about copyright rules... at this moment I'm almost tempted to use a bit of WP:IAR. - Phorque 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please don't crop out copyright holder information from images we're claiming fair use on. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Jkelly 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "That's what they are for"?! "It's not going to make any copyright holder angry"?! Reference to widespread precedent?! Phorque, you've clearly spent too much time in the real world—your analysis is way too sensible for this process.—DCGeist 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fear we must concede, comrade! Us damn kids and our "punk rock" are simply not what Wikipedia is about anymore! (Dear objectors, please excuse my sarcasm! Have a sense of humour will ya?) - Phorque 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody just hit a nail squarely on the head :) It's already a lost battle, the fair use cops have won I'm afraid. --kingboyk 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Peta and Jkelly, who follow Fair Use about as closely as anyone on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure they do. Unfortunately, their vision is circumscribed. To understand the issues, they need to be contextualized, seen in a broader perspective. I follow copyright-related legal matters fairly closely (Entertainment Law Digest is one excellent resource), and I am aware of not a single case in which EMI or any of its associated labels or The Smashing Pumpkins or any of the band's individual members has ever contested the use of any still image of the band in any noncommerical, educational medium such as Wikipedia. I have invited the previous objectors to cite a single such case. If there was even a single one, we could say that there was a reasonable basis for their concerns about the defensibility of one or more images in the article. But there is no such case, because EMI and its bankers and the band and the band members' financial managers are surely more than pleased to see the band well represented in a medium such as Wikipedia. That's the real world in which fair use law in general operates and to which those of us who defend Wikipedia fair use policy should remain mindful of if we're to best serve the project.—DCGeist 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL so its content may be used for commercial purposes and all content therein must follow the same premise.↔NMajdan•talk 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latest notice from the Wikimedia Administration Board does, however insensibly, support your position. Ah, well.—DCGeist 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, where is the solution? If we removed every promotional image of the band, removed all the clips would you feature this article? Personally, I wouldn't. I really don't get it... there are simply no free alternatives! How does the Foundation ever hope to illustrate and inform people about copyrighted subject matter that is highly significant to human history and culture? But perhaps DCGeist has hit the nail on the head... Wikipedia is not the real world. It's supposed to be some kind of GFDL utopia where everything is free and capatalism is no more. With a heavy heart, I fear that the objectors to this article are right. If there is a solution to this dilemma, please enlighten me, or just be honest and tell us that this band is not notable enough to warrant this amount of "fair use" tomfoolery. - Phorque 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has some free images already, so how can you claim that there can't be free images of the band or their concerts? Yes. There isn't going to be free copies of their music, ... I wouldn't oppose the FAC on the basis of some short fair use audio excerpts, although there should not be too many... this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan site. --Gmaxwell 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been able to find one free image that we could use since this FAC started, and even then that might be a problem since it's licensed for non-commercial use through Creative Commons. It's very hard to find free images this band on the Internet, not to mention ones that list the copyright. I browsed fan sites with image galleries an the hopes of finding suitable photos nd was consistently frsutrated that not only do they not list who owns what, but they mixed untagged fan images with promo photos. WesleyDodds 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wesley's comments, yes, we found one image, and it turned out to be non-free in the end. Yes it was live, and the author of the photo himself said "1991, when you could see them play on a stage two feet away from you." because after that the Pumpkins subsequently got wildly popular playing stadium gigs most of the time. I also think my assumption that fans wouldn't be able to bring a camera to shows after the band reached a certain level of popularity is fair. For instance: the other live show shown wouldn't have allowed fans in with cameras because they were filming, and wouldn't want flash photography messing it up. It's not that we don't want to find the free images, we're trawling the web and finding next to nothing, and still nobody is telling us what media in the article could go/stay in order to satisfy fair use and get the article featured... I'm really running out of ideas here! - Phorque 09:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Non-free headline image. Non-free concert image. I could possibly see some role for non-free media in this article: For example if we are discussing the bands copyrighted works we could include some excerpts of their works, but the current state of the article is pretty sad from the perspective free content. Until that is fixed, this is not the among the best that we have to offer. --Gmaxwell 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we get the image situation sorted out, I'm having trouble determining the amount of proper soundclip usage for an FA these days. In the past (that is, about a week ago) musical FAs were expected to have a number of pertinent audio samples, per the examples I've listed above. After all, we're dealing with a professional band who lives off of releasing copyright material for sale. We've tried to make clear the significance of each soundclip being there; certainly there's more uploaded to Wikipedia, but we've purposely tried to keep it to the bare essentials needed for an overview of the band. What are your thoughts on each clip used in the article as of now? WesleyDodds 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the featured article criteria mentioning that being "pretty sad from the perspective [of] free content" should stop an article being featured or that including free media makes an article "our best work". You also admit that non-free media should play a role in this article, but do not state which media we could do without. Please be a little more pro-active and get specific as to what can help us fix this article! Those non-free images have rationales, are they not good enough? - Phorque 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Considering that the band were so popular for so long, there should be many free images available out there, they just need to be tracked down. This debate is distracting from the fact that the article very easily qualifies on all other criteria; with bells. If a few images are lost, well that won't take from the fact that this article is easily "one of our best." + Ceoil 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your comments. We have looked on the commons, flickr and several other websites and fansites to no avail. I have also posted a request in a Smashing Pumpkins forum for free images. Can you suggest any other sources. - Phorque 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many photographers would be willing to grant permission to use their work on a high profile site like this, provided they are credited. However, you need to state explicity the implications of GFDL (There are sample image request templates here). Here are some starting points, I'll let you know of others as I find them: Mike Rynearson, Bob Masse . You can find others by searching online fanzines, venues, and local newspapers. How many of the online source are illustrated - would they be willing to grant permission? Have you considered using flyers or ticket stubs, bty. + Ceoil 12:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I have begun sending out requests to Flickr photographers and will see what can be done. I'm not sure flyers or ticket stubs would add significantly to the article's text, but I will keep my eyes open for relevant content. Thanks for all your help! :) - Phorque 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point: if the image already exists on Flickr, you can ask them to change the license to Creative Commons... just make sure they're aware they can't use the no derivitives or non-commercial tags! Ceoil is right in that a lot of people will agree to use their stuff on Wikipedia in a free-use fashion - I run around 50% success rate in my efforts. See my User page for some additional info - specifically the Luke Ford permissions page. Tabercil 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's what I got one photographer to do, the other decided he wasn't cool with commercial redistribution, so your 50% success rate holds true for me too. =P So at this point I'm not sure where this article stands. We've gotten a free image in to replace another, removed one of dubious source, and replaced all other promo shots with copyright info present to better satisfy fair-use. The objectors don't seem to be coming back to say how they feel now. - Phorque 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my objection iff the first image becomes a free picture of the band and the audio clips get converted into -Q0 or -Q1, ideally Q0 but if there are any artifacts -Q1 is okay, they are -Q5 oggs right now. I'll gladly do the latter part of my suggestion so long as no one will be mad at me. I'll change to support if we do the above take it down to one audio clip per album unless we're really going to have an indepth discussion about more than one... and if we use only free pictures for concert images. I've been trying to find some free images for the article, but wow there is a lot of copyvio (and smashed pumkins) on the internet. If I support I'll see if I can swing the other folks who have opposed. Obviously when writing about something mostly known for it's production of copyrighted works we're going to need to excerpt from some... but an article isn't among the best we have to offer if it's not as free as possible. The work we do to find free images will be useful to everyone else who needs a free image. --Gmaxwell 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clue about how to edit soundclips so if you can do that that would be great and much appreciated. WesleyDodds 10:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced the soundfiles with lower bitrate versions. I'm not familiar with -Q0, -1Q terminology, but the program I was using helpfully informed me that I was compressing from a bitrate of 128 to 112. Whatever that means. + Ceoil 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Vorbis#Technical_details. Vorbis' performance is much better than MP3, especially at lower bitrates[32]. Outside of situations involving trained listeners and pathological difficult to encode source material Vorbis at 128kbit/sec should be difficult to tell from the original CD audio. I went and changed the files to -Q0 ones, and fixed the vorbis tagging. Any luck with free images of the band? Perhaps we might want to try something unconventional such as putting a "Have you taken pictures of The Smashing Pumpkins? click here" *in the article* for a little while? --Gmaxwell 07:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one I'm particularly worried about is the infobox image, because it's been pretty impossible to find a free image of the four "classic" band members. This is before widespread use of personal digital cameras and it's not like the band went walking around together in their free time. However, this is not the current line-up. In fact, we won't find out what the current lineup is until summer when they perform at European festivals. I've put in image requests here and at Wikicommons, so hopefully when they do finally perform live we can get a free image. Basically what it comes down to is that the infobox image is a stopgap measure until we finally find out what the new lineup is. When that happens, we'll most likely change the image anyway to reflect that new lineup. I guess what I'm asking is if it's ok to use the infobox image until we find out what the new lineup is. Another solution I suppose could be using the one free image we have of Billy Corgan as the infobox image. The problem with that though is that it only shows Corgan. WesleyDodds 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also had questions about using soundclips from the last album Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music. It was released only in the form of 25 vinyl copies with instructions by the band for fans to copy it. So any copy of it would be obtained free and with the permission by the band. Would that qualify as free media? WesleyDodds 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly convinced this hits the same stumbling block as everything else because Machina II was not licensed for commercial re-distribution. Any samples from it would still have that problem, so unless a Machina II sample would be a better example of the band's sound, it's not worth uploading one. - Phorque 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per others who have cited fair use concerns, if it were to be used for a featured article, why not contact the Band's Representatives/Management or Record company, to see if free media (such as sound clips and images) can be authorised for use on Wikipedia by them? Then the problem would be solved and the article would likely get the green light all round. - Deathrocker 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful since the original band with the original members is no longer together. We will find out if more than 2 original members are back together in June/July 2007. -- UKPhoenix79 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dissapointed that the sound files are again an issue. Are you implying that a stricter interpretation of fair use, over and above the current guidelines should be applied to this specific article, in a break from precedent. Ceoil 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the way the article has improved since being nominated, and besides the fair use issues, it seems to be fine. The only other problem it had were with numbers under 100 needing to be spelt out, but I fixed that. So I support it and the editors endeavours to get it this far. Darthgriz98 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, comprehensive, well-cited and well-illustrated by images, with extras like audio samples and more.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object Image:The Smashing Pumpkins - The Everlasting Gaze (sample).ogg needs a fair use rationale. ShadowHalo 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected this so that it reflects the other samples' rationales. - Phorque 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. ShadowHalo 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arguments against the images and other media not being fair use are, I see it, simply looking for a reason to object. Nearly all, if not all, the images are promotional in origin and thus they qualify for fair-use. Additionally their removal has never been requested by the band or it's affiliations. Not to mention that pictures are always wanted on Wikipedia yet people bitch when they're used. It's obviously very hard to contact Corgan or the band for images so we have stuck with promotional ones. AgentA (Matt) 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great article, and like many other users, I have seen the proggression it has made in the past while, and I feel the final product if one of Wikipedia's finest articles. The only thing is the images, the articles weakest point. It isn't fair to harp on fair use images like Image:Smashing pumpkins 1998 promo.jpg, and Image:Smashing pumpkins 2000 promo.jpg, which show the band's distinctive image at a time before Wikipedia and dedicated Wikipedians and Commons people existed. It is just a shame there seems to be such a deficiency of free-use images taken by concert goers, or even images like Image:Billy Corgan pic.jpg under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 licence. I'm sure flickrhas been thoroughly combed through for any more. Besides that, there is the issue that SP is releasing a new album, subjecting the article to instability created by die-hard fans. But I have no worries, as I know dedicated users like WesleyDodds, Phorque, and others are there to keep shit in line. Two thumbs up, even though the right one is sprained. -- Reaper X 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice to see another high quality article about a musical group. The lead photo is absolutely fine: no free alternative from that era with that quality is going to be available, and the record label released the image with the express intent that it be published in the media (including the commercial media) - that's what promo packs are for, folks. --kingboyk 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - one of the finest, most concise articles on wikipedia. very well kept and updated. the pictures, although many fair-use, are a welcome addition. --ThrowingStick/Talk 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Probably one of the best band articles in general on Wikipedia, well cited, and the images are vital additions. Fair Use covers the images when necessary, and I think that the bald Billy Corgan image is the best and only image that a search for a free license image can find - any further searching would most likely be fruitless. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:57, 12 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Pinguicula moranensis[edit]

I wrote this article in January with the FA criteria in mind. It has since been peer reviewed. This article is currently the only thorough overview of this species available online (or in print since 1966) in the English language. --NoahElhardt 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Looks pretty good. Could you have a quick run through my checklist for a few minor issues - I can see date and image sizing issues. The first paragraph switches between using "cm" and "centimeters" - I think the former is correct. Trebor 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! I unlinked all dates except the year of description, fixed dashes I had missed, and fixed the one mention of "cm." in the intro (MOS dictates spelling out units in text). Four images remain with a defined size, but these have aspect ratios or details that necessitate size definition.--NoahElhardt 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I meant to say I think the latter is correct. Thanks, I'll give the article a proper read through in a bit. Trebor 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment make sure the accessdates in the footnotes are formatted properly. MM/DD/YY and DD/MM/YY are not acceptable formats. Jay32183 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks good, but:
    • Is the main source for the article Zamudio or Ruiz? For example these articles [33][34] from Acta Botánica Mexicana are credited to Sergio Zamudio (which suggests to me that Ruiz is actually the second surname).
      • Ruiz is indeed a second surname. It seems that in his latest work (the 2001 monograph), he decided to go by the name Ruiz, whereas his earlier publications list him as Zamudio. I ended up citing him as published. Is there a good way to denote that they are the same person?
    • Could you supply more details on the Ruiz (Zamudio?) monograph - publisher, series, anything like that.
      • The monograph is his thesis, but I've added the institutional info.
    • Ordering of notes - The extremely variable species has been redefined at least twice since,[5][4][6] - it would be less visually jarring if reference [4] came before reference [5]
      • Fixed.
    • Note [10] refers to Cieslak et al. 2005, while note [11]] refers to Cieslak, T. et. al. 2005 - this should be consistent.
      • Fixed.
    • Note [13] refers to Legendre 2000, but the reference list refers to Legendre 2002 - which is correct?
      • The former is. Fixed.
    • Unlike the other references, note [17] goes directly to a reference. Is there a reason for the change in format? Guettarda 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As is the case with [2] and [28], I couldn't figure out a good way to list [17] in the footnotes and indicate that a full reference could be found in the references, since these are web links and have limited bibliography data associated with them. Any suggestions? --NoahElhardt 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this was quite good when it went to peer review and it's even better now. One question, the names of related species are not written consistently - some are redlinked, some are bold, and some are just plain italic. Is there a reason for which is which? Opabinia regalis 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All species names are italicized as is customary for Latin names. Legitimate species have their first mention redlinked as pages for those species are planned. The first mention of species that have been merged with P. moranensis and are now considered synonyms are marked in bold since the article is about those "species", and thus those species are alternate page titles of sorts. --NoahElhardt 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was mostly the bold titles that stood out as odd. It's not a big issue, but I'm not sure that bolding them effectively conveys 'alternate page title/alternate name', especially to readers who are very unlikely to know that's what happens when you try to link a page to itself. Opabinia regalis 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks very thorough and comprehensive - the prose is succinct and easy to read. Images on first glance look a little repetitive but each highlights different aspects well, and are visually impressive. Overall a nice FA Cas Liber 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well-written, excellent attention to detail, easy to read, illustrated with excellent photographs. Great job! --Rkitko 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets and exceeds all of the FA criteria. Mgiganteus1 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm doing a thorough review before posting, so give me 24 hours from whenever I post this if this article is destined to fail FAC, but promote at will without my comments, thank you. KP Botany 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Can we take the references out of the lead? The lead isn't supposed to introduce any points not covered in the rest of the article, so I've always taken the approach that the references support the article, and the article supports the lead. It looks much neater that way IMO.
      • Note that not all of the footnotes in the lead sections are references. Some are notes (ex [3], [7]). The rest of the references cite information that is important in the lead, but that I feel people shouldn't have to root around the rest of the article for to find the appropriate references. --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No ecology section? I would be inclined to rename the "Plant characteristics" section to a "Description" section, to contain only information strictly related to anatomy and morphology. The carnivory stuff could go in a section called "Ecology", or "Carnivory" if this is the only ecological aspect covered.
      • Normally I would be inclined to agree. However, the carnivorous ecology of carnivorous plants is so closely linked to their anatomy that separating the two into separate sections results in either confusing disjunct data or two sections that basically repeat each other. Other ecological aspects such as pollination and herbivory are relatively unstudied for this species and don't warrant their own sections. --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third level subsections create an unevenness, especially when there is only one of them per supersection. Can we promote or upmerge the "Winter rosette" and "20th century" sections?
      • I'll look into it. 20th century, at least, is rightfully a subsection of botanical history. Is the unevenness that big of an issue? --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a couple of spelling errors; I'll try to find time for a copyedit. Otherwise nice. Hesperian 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback!! --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a well written article that needs a bit of attention to a number of details, that will take it up to FA status. I would like to see most of these details attended to, after which, I Support its promotion. There are two minor substantive issues, the rest are issues that I think, imo, will make the article more conform to a good standard for articles about plant species, and make them once they conform, accessible to a greater variety of readers. Carnivorous plants have a wide presence on the web, but not necessarily general articles outside of a few good ones already on Wikipedia. It will be nice to see some more up there. My editing comments will be posted on the article's talk page, so that all of the article's editors can address issues and discuss them where necessary. KP Botany 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I'm currently the only editor of this article, but I'll address your comments on the talk page. --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Hawksbill turtle[edit]

Self-nomination. After working hard on the article, I'm being bold and applying for Featured article candidate status. I hope this article is good enough now, I've tried to make it as well-referenced as possible. I hope to be able to address and fix anything else that may be needed to make it FA-worthy. Shrumster 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Very nice start, but the lead seems too long and if it's a summary of the body, shouldn't need 12 footnotes. Maybe some of the lead and its notes can be worked into the body.Rlevse 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually pulled the lead from the body, trying to summarize the different sections. Are there statements that are too-specific that might be better off left in the body? Shrumster 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & Question. After looking at the other FA's/FAC's, I just realized that most have no notes/references in the lead. Should I leave the references in the main body of the article? Shrumster 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if possible. A well-written lead will require few, if any, refs as it is a summary of details (and refs) in the body.Rlevse 23:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! Trimmed some superfluous parts of the lead and moved all but four references to the main body of the article. I left more-or-less just one major reference per paragraph, except for the last one where I left one for the turtle's IUCN listing and one for the CITES listing. Shrumster 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice work. Just a personal opinion, but I much prefer single column footnotes-;).Rlevse 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks! :) re: references, I'll try juggling between the different formats. I was originally following Nature Journal's 3-column style for their references, though I'll dig up some of my other scientific journals to compare what style they use. :) Shrumster 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. (With regards to the above, I don't mind 1 or 2 but I think 3 looks a little cluttered, and I'll also say that Wikipedia doesn't have to follow conventional scientific journals.) Generally, a pretty nice article. A few MoS issues - images shouldn't have preset sizes unless there's a specific reason for it. Is "Cheloniidae" bolded for a reason? I dislike the "Note the serrated margin of the posterior carapace" and the "see below" because they feel like instructions to the reader (this may be somewhere in MoS, but I can't remember). The latter seems a bit unnecessary too. I would try to merge or remove the one sentence paragraphs (like Much is not known about the life history of Eretmochelys imbricata and Throughout the world, hawksbill turtles are taken by humans even though it is illegal to hunt them in many countries) as they break the flow up. There are also a comment in-text about an issue, which should be resolved. Trebor 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Thanks for the suggestions. I unbolded "Cheloniidae" in the lead. As it stands, the family doesn't have it's own article (only the generic "sea turtle" one which also includes Dermochelidae") but that should be easy to stubify in a while. Also changed the caption of the pic and removed the "(see above/below)" lines, tried to integrate them into the more appropriate paragraphs. I removed the commented-out reference (EMBL) since it seems to be unexistent as of the moment. I integrated the other commented-out info (gait) and added a reference, and added more to the turtle's distribution and range from the same reference. Hope all these changes fix the problems. :) Shrumster 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sumoeagle179 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments a range map would be nice (not a requirement for FA though). I think the whole article is hard to read, the text does not flow nicely, some examples is the sub section 'Atlantic subpopulation' wich really is a long list written in text, not sure how to fix (if I knew I would but it is not that nice), In 'life history' I would like ot know the time from mating to laying eggs, now I think it is directly, but a more direct description of time would be nice. read WP:MOS for units of measurements and add conversion for ,metric and none metric units, follow MOS for when to use e.g. cm and when to write e.g. kilograms. 'Life history' and 'habitat' is a bit umbigious, they state that they are pelagic and primarily found at coral reefs and highly migratory species, and that they are pelagic for a undetermined amount of time which is until they get to about 35 cm, they also become mature at about 30 years (which might be at 35 cm?) not sure. Anyway, I understand that this is not that easy to find in the literature and probably conflicting, but the text as it is now is a bit confusing at least for me. Good job! I learned a lot. Stefan 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm not sure how to make a range map, I tried to address your other concerns. Added a couple of words that might give a better sense of the passage of time for their life history. Also clarified their habitat preferences (added a bit about hatchlings/juveniles). For the reef-recruitment, like many species, they are recruited to a more reef-associated lifestyle when they reach a particular size. However, the size itself is not a complete indicator of their maturity, which is why they're presented that way in the text (with no OR statements to "link" the two seemingly-related facts). Hope the changes are sufficient. Shrumster 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, range maps is a bit hard to do (as I said I do not think it is FA requirements), do you have a source map online? if so give me the link and I will see what I can do, but I do not think I can do it just from the text in the article. Stefan 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, expanded the measurement units into their full counterparts. Here's an occurence map I found from the WWF website [35], but it's not really a range map. I think this map from the commons can be used as a base, since both the spinner dolphin and hawksbill (and other sea turtles) have tropical-subtropical ranges [36]. For the distribution, I went with first describing the extent of the turtle's distribution per sub-ocean basin that is it found in. And then the rather disjointed-part of the text is a (as of now incomplete) listing of the turtle's nesting and feeding sites. So far, I haven't figured out how to rearrange it, but I guess when more info comes in, they should be separated into "nesting" and "feeding" grounds (which might pose a problem since some specific areas are both). Hope this is ok. I'll check for some more potential distribution maps. Shrumster 06:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a range map [37] will make one and upload, but a bit busy now, will see when I have time. For the MOS comment you should also be consistant with SI and non SI units, now the article sometimes stated inches and sometimes cm, also if we decide on SI, each unit should have the none SI unit in brackets e.g. "2.5 centimeters (1 in)" Stefan 13:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. I fixed the non-metric system stuff in the article (hope I didn't miss anything) and used the FIGIS source to expand the general range of the species to give the specific occurrences proper context. Shrumster 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written. Lead is a little long but other than that it's great. 24.6.160.190
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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Hovhannes Bagramyan[edit]

I began work on this article in early January and helped expand upon the biography of one of the most famous generals during Soviet times. The original article was only several kilobytes long [38] and so now in its expanded form comprehensively covers much of Bagramyan's life, especially his career during the Second World War. Its nomination coincidentally comes only 1-2 weeks after another article I nominated, the Nagorno-Karabakh War, passed its FA nomination. I believe the article meets the criteria to become an FAC: its stable, is well written in a NPOV perspective, is abundantly cited from a variety of reputable, verifable and easy to find sources and has plenty of images.--MarshallBagramyan 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object -- almost every image is entirely unsourced, and are candidates for speedy deletion. One is claimed fair use without credit to the copyright holder, while the others we're claiming that the copyright holder has been dead since 1954 and that the images were first published before then, with no reason to believe either. Please fix the image problems here. Jkelly 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd guess that most of the photographs qualify as PD-Russia anyways, having been produced by the Soviet government; the ones actually showing WWII scenes are all clearly pre-1954. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the photos were found right here (in Russian) [39]. In regards to the Sassuntsi-Davit Tank Regiment image, it was scanned from the Soviet Armenian encyclopedia (1984 ed. Vol. 10). The image of Bagramyan and the commanders was scanned electronically from a book in early January via Amazon or Google's scanned book features (I believe it was from Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War (Hodder Arnold, 2006) but I have to dbl-check). The image nevertheless clearly depicts the three leaders in obvious war planning). What remains is this image, [40]. I'm unsure who took it but is appears official (SovFoto agency perhaps) but the page does show numerous other websites that are using the image ([41], here [42] and here [43].) I'll try to find the one with Bagramyan and the Timoshenko but I'm unsure on how to go about resolving the information on the color photograph.--MarshallBagramyan 03:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that we need to demonstrate that the photographer died before 1954 for the work to be in the public domain in both the United States and Russia. This is very difficult to do when we don't know who the photographer is. Other people publishing something doesn't help us... random websites often worry less about copyright infringement than we do. Jkelly 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how come this issue was not raised on the Alexander Vasilevsky page and its use of WW-2 photos. I agree with you there however as that precondition "and" and if the author is known is next to impossible to verify unless specifically mentioned. We have many pre-1954 images of the USSR, have we raised issues with the authors of the photographers on all of them too?
Update. Ok, I verified and updated the source for the image of Bagramyan and the other commanders image. It can be viewed and be found in this book here [44].--MarshallBagramyan 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the only real answer to this question is that getting image copyright right is not one of our strengths. This isn't really surprising; there's no reason to expect that the ability to write good encyclopedia articles is related to familiarity with U.S. copyright law and international harmonisation. That said, "We must know who the copyright holder is for any image we republish, or must be able to demonstrate conclusively that copyright has expired" is not that complicated, in theory. Jkelly 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides the images taken during the war, I assume that the color photograph of him is, judging by the pose, an official work of the Soviet government, taken during the late 1960s or 1970s. It's a widely circulated photograph but asides from that (to reiterate, at least 4-5 unrelated links have published it, but it appears no other information about it can be extrapolated.--MarshallBagramyan 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the photograph's fair use rationale one more shot but if does not suffice, I suppose we have to look for a substitute picture.

  • Conditional support, once the image issue is resolved; the article appears to be in excellent shape otherwise. I'd suggest removing the "Notable units" section; they're mostly linked (or can be linked) in the text, and it's not at all clear what those units are just sitting alone like that. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent job. Is it possible to incorporate the notable units within the infobox?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another one of the fine works by this dedicated user. Very thoroughly researched. Good job Marshall! - Fedayee 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Marshal does it again! :) Artaxiad 05:13, 4 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore[edit]

Self-nomination - The article's had a lot of work up from a stub, a couple copy-edits, a peer review, made GA, and seems to be pretty stable. It's a little shorter than I'd like, but I think it covers the topic pretty thoroughly. - Mocko13 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article is very well written, and well cited. Probably one of the best historical biography articles I've seen. Good work. Jay32183 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well cited and easy to read with an excellent lead. All image copyrights appear to be in order. Caknuck 04:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that almost all of your footnotes come from an 1890 biography. As I am sure you know, the standards for writing history in the nineteenth century were quite different than they are now. Is there a way that you could find another source that verifies this information? I know that sometimes one is stuck with nineteenth-century biographies, but it is never ideal. If there is no other source, I feel that the article should make it clear (some sort of disclaimer?) that the bulk of the information is from such a source just in case the reader does not bother to look at the notes. Awadewit 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concerns, and had them myself. There are two more recent sources (ISBN 0938420240 and ISBN 0801879639) that could be used in referencing, but I do not have access to either of them (at least without expending a moderate amount of money) and so of course felt uncomfortable mentioning them in the references. I'm not sure how I'd go about putting in a disclaimer, though. What did you have in mind? - Mocko13 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth checking to see if your local library participates in interlibrary loan. Failing that, perhaps you could begin the article with a small section discussing the state of the evidence--"George Calvert biographical sources" or something like that. You could inform the reader that "Little has been written on George Calvert since the 1890s, therefore one must be cautious..." Do you happen to know why there is not more written on him? If so, that should be included as well. "Little has been written on George Calvert since the 1890s [because...], therefore one must be cautious...". I hope this helps. Awadewit 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a sentence to the lead and a footnote. Let me know if you think that adequately addresses the issue. - Mocko13 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you've got the idea but the clause is a litle awkward. The "although" does not seem to logically follow from the rest of the sentence. Perhaps the idea should be its own sentence beginning with "unfortunately"? I know that is a POV word, but from the POV of an encyclopedia, it IS unfortuante that there is not more reliable information. Also, perhaps you could be more specific in that sentence. Are the 1890s biographies the first ones? The sentence could read "Unfortunately, little recent scholarship has been added to the work of the first Calvert biographies written at the end the nineteenth century..." or something like that. Also, in the footnote I would mention the date of the Brugger book (and italicize the title of the book).
  • Support I support this article for FA, but I think that it can easily improve its prose before it becomes FA. For example, there are some commas missing. In the sentence "Calvert's father Leonard was a country gentleman...", Leonard should be offset. In general, I found the article short on commas. Also, there are several sentences that have clauses which seem to hang uncomfortably such as "George Calvert was born around 1580 at Kiplin and was later educated as a commoner at Trinity College, Oxford, receiving his bachelor's degree in 1597." Finally, for the Ark and the Dove, see WP:NC-SHIP. These are all very tiny things. Overall, I thought the article was extremely well-done and a pleasure to read. Awadewit 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all the suggestions. Added one or two commas, fixed the Ark and the Dove. Mocko13 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Reason for striking opposition is that I now feel the article meets my objections and is of FA standard. Since I have been editing it so much myself recently, I feel I shouldn't vote "support", as such, as I'm probably now biased in its favour. See my waffling comments much lower down.) qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) It's a valuable article, in my opinion, but not a featured one, though hats off to Mocko for the work he has done here. I have two objections: the first is that there are other sources that could be used to vary this article—if the article was totally reliable that wouldn't matter, but the narrative here seems a little shaky, with opaque motivations ascribed on the basis of only one source. Secondly, the prose style seems to me vague and even odd ("Sir Cecil" for "Sir Robert Cecil"?) in places. Here are a few examples which, for me, raise more questions than they answer:[reply]

By 1612, Calvert's star had risen enough in the King's eye that the death of Sir Cecil did no harm to his political career, and he was made a Clerk of the Privy Council in 1613. (Odd way of puttting it.)

In his new position, Calvert was assigned by the King to go to Ireland and review the results of English policies there, the failures of which Calvert blamed on the Jesuits.[7] Calvert was knighted in 1617 for his service to the King and only two years later completed his remarkable rise to power when he was appointed one of two Secretaries of State, a position similar to the modern role of Prime Minister. (What happened in Ireland? What was remarkable about his rise? In what way similar to the role of Prime Minister?)

Whether as a way to save face upon exiting the political arena or due to a true turn of faith, in 1624 or 1625 Calvert claimed to be a convert to Catholicism and resigned from his Secretaryship. (Archaic phrasing. It wouldn't be a claim if it was genuine.)

Just a few weeks later, King James died, but the newly crowned King Charles maintained Calvert's Baronet and his honored place on the Privy Council. (Baronetcy?)

The land he saw there was not the paradise that had been described by some early settlers, but was a marginally productive rocky island that had, unknown to Baltimore or his contemporaries, been too difficult for even Viking settlers from Greenland to stay. (Is this true? My understanding is that the Vikings only set up hunting bases in that area, before returning to Greenland. I don't think they were settlers.)

qp10qp 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Altered the 'Sir Cecil' sentence, not sure if the alteration deals with all of your concerns. Fixed the 'baronetcy' reference. Eliminated any reference to vikings, which is off topic anyway. Will expand on Ireland and the Secretary of State. But I don't fully understand your overall objections. The main source is reliable enough that modern historians like Brugger have used it as one of their main sources as well, which makes it very difficult to check the veracity source without doing original research. The other two sources I mentioned earlier are related but partially tangential and not necessarily likely to address the same basic biographical information as Browne. But could you clarify what you mean when you say the narrative is shaky, or what is meant by 'opaque motivations'. I'm happy to fix any specific problems with the prose being 'odd' beyond those you listed above. - Mocko13 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By shaky narrative, I mean that here we have a guy doing one seemingly unconnected thing after another (there are hints of motivation, but they aren't followed up). There is a suggestion that he had pinned his hope on a Spanish wife for Charles. Why? Because he was leaning towards Catholicism? When and why did he fall out of favour? What was the timescale of that, as he seems to still be a secretary of state in 1624 or 5 when he resigns (yet you say he reached the apex of his power in 1621, so how did he hang on to this prime-ministerlike job for three or four more years)? Did he fall out of favour because he was leaning towards Catholicism? Did he lean towards Catholicism because he was falling out of favour? If Calvert was falling out of favour, why did the king "suddenly" appoint him Baron Baltimore? The article merely says that James suddenly remembered his fondness for him, which seems a bit thin. And if Calvert was falling out of favour, why did Charles confirm him in powerful posts when coming to power? Because he sympathised with Catholics himself? This all seems very jumpy and unclear. And then, just as this business of falling out of favour and yet being given titles and posts is starting to intrigue me, the subject of Calvert's position in government is abandoned and all we read about from then on is his venture in Newfoundland, though he didn't go there till 1627.

Those are the sorts of things I mean by the narrative being shaky and the motivations opaque. qp10qp 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do another search tomorrow and see if I can find further secondary sources to fill in the narrative gaps you mention. But there has not been a tremendous amount of scholarship on him, which is why the article doesn't get more detailed on some of these topics. - Mocko13 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a little mean for just criticising, and so I've looked into the section I drew attention to above and have made edits which I believe fill out the narrative and motivations with referenced information. I only want articles to become FAs, even if that means some work, and did not intend to seem destructive. I do have further concerns about the article, which I believe would be easy enough to meet, but I'll hold fire for the moment. qp10qp 02:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a section on his childhood, which shows how his family were forced to conform to Protestantism (noted from Krugler). The article makes more overall sense, I believe, with that covered. Now that the article shows he came from a Catholic family which was forced to conform, his conversion to Catholicism in later life makes more sense, I think. I still have more concerns, but I'm addressing them one by one and am now two thirds of the way towards supporting. qp10qp 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For info: I'm still reading up on this FAC and making notes. I'm quite sure now that I can get the text to the point of meeting my own objections. A few days, at the most, and I should be there. qp10qp 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some referenced material to the Avalon section now. Just mentioning it here in case anyone thinks nothing's happening.qp10qp 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was improperly passed as a GA, no explanation for passing was given on the talk page, and it was not even listed on the main GA page. (The limit of visible review seems to of been an edit summary to the effect of "This is good") I've send it back to the GA candidates page, but I just thought y'all should know here since its an FAC too. Homestarmy 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that matters too much here, because GA isn't a qualification towards FA. But thanks for notifying this page. qp10qp 09:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the article has been quickly re-passed as a GA: see Talk:George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore#GAC. --qp10qp 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous and self-indulgent comment: I feel the article is worthy of FA status now, though it awaits a merge in about four days' time.

I sometimes wish I had never opposed this article, as without my objection, it might well have passed by now, with its three or four support votes and no other objectors. I don't believe in just criticising and running, and so I've been working for the last fortnight to meet my own objections. Since one of them was that the article wasn't sourced to enough books, that has landed me with a mother-and-father of a load of reading and editing. But as a result, the article now has at least double the number of references and much extra material, as well as considerable corroboration of the original information.

At first I was reluctant to get involved, thinking this guy was a minor figure in history (he hardly gets a mention in my three James I biographies—only a single entry in one of them, which is inaccurate, even then). But as I read through Krugler and Codignola, among others, he emerged for me as something of a quiet hero. In the age of James, when murders, plots, affairs, and corruption infested the royal court, here was a man behaving in a civilised, honourable way at all times, and for five years pretty much holding the government and foreign policy together singlehandedly. In his belief in freedom of worship, he is also a crucial figure in the history of the early American states, which might otherwise have gone too far down the Puritan road. In treating Calvert in this much detail, I believe Wikipedia has a unique article here (kudos to user:Mocko)—and it amuses me that quiet George for the moment sports a better article (in my opinion) than do the incompetent monsters who messed up England (and George's life) at this time in history and excresce the history books with their oozing odiousness—such as Sir Thomas Lake, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and, dare I say it (since his article purports to be a featured one), James I himself. If only that cartload of popinjays had listened to sensible George, maybe Charlie would have lived. qp10qp 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still support I decided to reread the article since it has altered so much. Nice work qp10qp - you have added a lot of detail and context to the page. I just want to mention a few little things.
(Thanks so much for coming back! It's become very lonely here.)
You're welcome. I get that feeling all of the time on my pages.
  • Working at the centre of court politics, Calvert exploited his influence there and with Cecil to grant paid favours, an accepted practice for the times. - this sentence seems incomplete
It seems complete to me, but then it would do (one of my faults, though, is becoming over-concise in trying to keep length down). It just means that Calvert was taking money from people in return for putting a word in for them at court. I'll try to think of a better wording.
So maybe "Working at the centre of court politics, Calvert exploited his position and his connections with Cecil, who paid for the favours (an accepted practice at the time), in order to influence the king and his advisors on others' behalf." - or something like that (although Cecil's role is still not that clear to me)
  • left him the single father of ten children, the oldest of whom, Cæcilius, was only sixteen years old - I would delete the "only" since sixteen was not really considered young in the seventeenth century.
I see what you mean. I expect the intention was to show how young the rest must have been if the oldest was sixteen. I've removed "only".
I thought that's what you meant. Would something like "He was left the single father of ten children, ranging in age between ? and sixteen" work better? (Of course, there were servants...)
  • The degree of his disfavour was made clear to him when he was carpeted for supposedly delaying diplomatic letters. - what does "carpeted" mean?
It means being in trouble and having to stand on the carpet in front of the desk. It's a familiar term to me and I adopted it from the source, but I have changed it to "reprimanded" to make it clear to anyone who doesn't know the expression.
  • had taken both Protestant and Catholic settlers with him, as well as two secular priests, Thomas Longville and Anthony Pole (also known as Smith), the latter remaining behind in the colony when Baltimore departed for England - what are "secular priests"?
The sources all use this term without explaining it, and so I thought I should follow suit. But they don't have the facility of wikilinks, so I've now wikilinked secular priests in the article. I think books describe them this way because Baltimore had been asking for Discalced Carmelite priests from Simon Stock and later used Jesuit priests.
  • In early 1630, he procured a ship to fetch them, but it foundered off the Irish coast, and his wife was drowned and all his possessions lost. - it almost sounds like you are putting his wife and his possessions on the same level here - I know women were bought and sold in marriage in seventeenth century England, but was she? Do you want to imply that she and his possessions were of equal value?
I've dropped the mention of the possessions, as I agree that it might make a bad impression. Since Calvert was broke after this, I wanted to imply the material as well as human cost. When he had left for Newfoundland, he had to all intents and purposes been emigrating, so I suspect a good deal of expensive clobber paid a visit to the fishes. There are actually some annoying gaps and contradictions where the information on this wife is concerned, which I've mentioned on the article talk page.
  • Also, I don't think you need to write "page" in the notes. It is more customary to simply include the author's name and the page number. Awadewit 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; but I felt that, since this is a nicety as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it would be polite to stick with the style already used in the article.

Thanks again for your comments. (I haven't forgotten that I was going to drop you a note about my "essay style" remark re Anna Laetitia Barbauld: I will get round to that before long.) qp10qp 09:45, 7 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Medieval cuisine[edit]

Grab a trencher, pass the frumenty and dunk a sop or two in the nearest cup o' wine, because here's a culinary delight sweeter than a galley worth of hypocras!

It all began with my accidental discovery of the none-too-humble subtlety when reading Timeline. From then on my fascination with medieval cookery just kept growing, and the result was a full-fledged gastronomical orgy of academic indulgence. I've plowed well over a thousand pages of literature by now, and considering how delightfully scrumptious the topic is, there's bound to be more in the form of various sub-articles (one has already been spawned). This is primarily a self-nomination, but I would like to thank Choess for his thorough and highly motivating GA-review, Andrew Dalby for his informative explanation on wine making, Geogre for a round of copyediting and miscellaneous pointers, Itinerant for providing useful URLs on calorie statistics, and, of course, all the users who have helped with everything from spell-checking to the occasional factual tidbit.

I'm sure that there might be a lot of things that need to be tweaked and copyedited. There's probably even gaps in the coverage, but I've reached the point where I feel that it's time to put the article through an FAC, as the peer review was unable to provoke anything but automated comments. So, without further banter, I bid you to do your worst! Peter Isotalo 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is meant by "Even though many of these plants were eaten on a daily basis by peasants and workers, they were generally considered less prestigious than meat."? The opposition you are drawing is a bit confusing as the two statements seem to be mutually supporting. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it as "peasants and workers had to eat the plants by necessity, but considered meat preferable" - I'd argue it's stating the obvious perhaps, but then I've no in-depth knowledge of conscience vegetarianism in the middle ages :-) Joopercoopers 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most veggies were at the bottom of the prestige scale, and that's what I was trying to say. I'm open to suggestions on how to make that sentence less oblique. Medieval vegetarianism was very rare and practiced only by necessity on non-meat days by those who couldn't afford fish or by severe religious ascetics.
Peter Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you able to find any more sources? You seem to have a lack of citations. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See the replies to Kosebamse and Mocko. Peter Isotalo 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment--is "apertif" spelled so intentionally or is that an error? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
    Of course not. It's Swedish... :-) Peter Isotalo 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - like the article generally, love the images. But there's a general paucity of citation that concerns me. I'd echo the earlier comment - the article needs more thorough citation to meet FA standards. - Mocko13 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the last two comments, it would be helpful to be more specific as to what requires a citation beyond what already exists. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not a single paragraph or section that isn't thoroughly referenced. They're just not hacked up into tiny[2] little[3] pieces[4] that cite individual sentences[5] or fact statements.[6] The exception are two rather rather specific statistics (spice imports and meat consumption). My impression from the literature is that this is not a particularly controversial topic and the facts included in the article are, to the best of my knowledge, agreed on by most scholars in the field. If I had found substantial disagreement, I would have noted this. I don't see why I need to present a pedantic blow-by-blow account of my own reading schedule unless there are concrete controversies. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor objections and comments (objections retracted, Kosebamse 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    1. The article should be moved to Medieval cuisine of Europe or something like that. Although the introduction makes it quite clear, and the connotations of "medieval" suggest that it's about European history, the title should reflect that as well.
    2. The abovementioned paucity of citation is in this case not too problematic, as this article is unlikely to generate much controversy, so it is not necessary to reference each and every detail. Nevertheless, it seems to rely on not too many sources and though I don't doubt their credibility, it would perhaps look better to have some more.
    3. Comment: The use of old-fashioned language in some sentences is quite acceptable in such an article, as long as it does not get too esoteric (although I am not a native speaker, I found it quite digestible).
    4. Comment: the pictures are just beautiful. Kosebamse 08:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. This issue has been discussed at the talkpage, and I believe it was addressed satisfactorily. The application of the term "medieval" is per definition something confined to Europe. You won't find references to, say, "medieval Chinese cuisine" or "medieval Arab cuisine", because the chronology applies to a stage of development rather than a specific time period applicable to all cultures.
    2. These are fairly exhausting sources. They are very thoroughly referenced in their own right and provide what to me gives the impression of a very good overall view of the topic. What's lacking is generally coverage of culturally peripheral regions like Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, due to the simple fact that most food scholars don't read Old Church Slavonic and all that. However, the article is trying to be reasonably general, and I already moved the regional cuisines to a separate article to not make it look as if I was ignoring, say, Scandinavia and Poland.
    3. Do let me know if you feel that the language is too high brow.
    4. Thank you! I was very pleased to find that many of them were readily available online and even at Commons. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad 1. Not really convinced; although I agree that "medieval" strongly suggests "European", I don't think that this notion is so widespread that one can rely on every reader's historical literacy, so to say, so for clarity the other title would be preferable. Ad 2. I am not really worried about the sources, it's just that the current cultural climate here is one where unsourced statements are frowned upon. I certainly would not refuse FA status because of this. Ad 3. No problem here, I do like the writing. And again, its really a fine article and fascinating to read. Kosebamse 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still very reluctant to ad "of Europe". One of the strongest arguments for the current title is quite simply that there's nothing do disambiguate it from. If someone produces references to "medieval periods" of non-European cooking (Byzantine and Muslim cooking on the continent feel like reasonable exceptions), I might change my mind. As for unsourced statements, let those with concern point out specific issues and we'll see if they need to be smoothed over or not. Peter Isotalo 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-specialist, 'medieval...of Europe' sounds very redundant to me. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is packed with insight, and is well researched, comprehensive and beautifully illustrated. Ceoil 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments well-written and fascinating article (I had no idea that what they call the most important meal of the day was considered weak!), but I'm not completely ready to put myself in the support column just yet. see below
  • The 'meals' section is focused almost entirely on upper-class fine dining. I assume that's because there's much more written about the subject than about smaller and more pedestrian events, but a short paragraph on anything known about lower-class meals would be good, and meals eaten alone/with just the family rather than as a large group. Comments below
  • I've heard before that medieval peasants had an unusually nutritious diet due the variety of grains they ate in the 'less desirable' breads. Any of your sources mention this? Comments below
  • Call me ignorant, but is a 'sick dish' something eaten by those who are ill, or does the phrase refer to something more specific? Done
  • 'The English Assize of Bread and Ale of 1266 listed extensive tables where the size, weight, and price of a loaf of bread was set...' - this could be clearer as 'was regulated' or similar; without clicking the link, 'set' could be read as 'described or presented', implying that it was a descriptive rather than prescriptive document. Done
  • 'The importance of vegetables to the common people is exemplified by accounts from 16th century Germany...' - I'm not one of those cite-every-jot-and-tittle people, and I assume this is in reference to the footnote that appears in the last paragraph of that section. But since this is explicitly talking about interpretations of primary sources, a footnote here would be a clearer way of demonstrating the proper source to consult for more information; I don't think it's a problem to use the same footnote twice in a row if they're different paragraphs. Same goes for '...mentioned in recipe collections' below. Comments below
  • I'm not sure that hedgehog or squirrel meat is considered 'inappropriate' - certainly not common, but I hear of people eating squirrel meat. (How much meat can there really be on these guys anyway?) Done
  • Maybe explicitly state that fish and seafood were not considered 'meat' (assuming they weren't)? I think the most common current usage places fish, at least, in the meat category. Comments below
  • Image:Monk sneaking a drink.jpg is overlapping text on my screen; anyone else having that problem? Comments below
  • Poor people drank watered-down vinegar as a beverage and not for some sort of health effect? Ewwwww.
  • Beer 'was a humble brew compared with more southernly foodstuffs like olive oil and wine' - I can't quite parse this sentence. Southernly = higher prestige, apparently, and wine > beer, but how does olive oil fit in? Hopefully people weren't drinking that too? Done
  • '...but with without hops.' - one of these must be a typo. Done
  • The paragraph debunking the 'spices disguise spoiled meat' myth is a bit overwritten. Done
  • 'A wide assortment of waffles, wafers eaten with cheese and hypocras or a sweet malmsey in northern France as issue de table ("departure from the table").' - this sentence no verb. Done
  • The caption for Image:Pietro Lorenzetti 001.jpg mentions the hand gestures illustrated, but I didn't see them discussed anywhere in the article. Comments below
  • See also list contains items that were linked in the text. Personally, I think this is useful, but I'm surprised nobody's griped about it yet, as it's apparently against the current manual of style. Comments below Opabinia regalis 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very attentive comments, I must say. I've ticked off the pointers I believe I've addressed by tweaking prose. The relevant changes are here Here goes:
  • The problem with descriptions of meals of the poor is of course that they never got their own etiquette books nor did they have as lavish banquets. I've simply not seen much detail in descriptions of a humble dinner in a small commoner's household. But it's interesting that you mention the idea of eating alone, because that one is mentioned, and it was not something that was really kosher. Medieval society was a collective affair and not eating with one's fellow man was considered suspicious. I'll add a comment on that later.
  • I've not seen anything about high-fiber bread being a boon specific to commoners, so I can't say if it's reasonable or not. On the other hand, it would seem as if this might have been negated by the fact that the diet was probably very monotonous. There's also the estimates by many scholars that the majority of the population suffered from a constant lack of vitamin C due to the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables.
  • I had problems with Image:Monk sneaking a drink.jpg overlapping text when I made a printout of an earlier version. It doesn't appear in online versions for me, though. I've seen it happen sporadically in other articles, but I have no idea why, how common it is or what to do about it.
  • The hand gestures of the nuns was more of a bonus associated with the picture. I didn't feel it was entirely relevant to include in the text. A bit like the long comment on the picture of the Duke of Berry.
  • I would like to insist on keeping the See also-links. One can't assume that someone checking it out has read the right sections, and these are only helpful in guiding those who want to read about related topics to the related and highly relevant articles.
I'll get back to you later concerning citations on the importance of vegetables and the specification of non-meat meats.
Peter Isotalo 10:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edits. That's interesting that eating alone was considered 'suspicious'. On the matter of the poor, even if there's nothing really to say about their meals, a sentence to that effect would be useful to demonstrate that the omission is due to the absence of evidence. Still, it seems that even nobles must have had meals that were not huge feasts? (BTW, I had a quick look to find where I might have heard the nutritious bread thing, and can't find anything reliable making that claim, so I suspect it's one of those cereal-box-type 'facts'.)
The image overlap problem is usually solvable by adding a {{clear}} immediately before the image. The problem is, that may produce a very large amount of white space for some browsers/resolutions. Your edits seem to have rearranged the text enough that the problem doesn't appear for me anymore.
I entirely agree on the usefulness of well-chosen see also links; I hope the anti-see-also-section fad has died down. But I thought I should mention it. Opabinia regalis 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go. I think that should clear it up (along with a few other tweaks). Perhaps even a bit wordy, but I'll leave that to others to decide.
Peter Isotalo 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, support. Now I think it's time for a snack... ;) Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I did a copyedit but it is generally very well-written. The lack of citations is a problem. Where chapters are cited, and a span of pages, there should really be multiple citations of the exact pages. Some paragraphs have no citations. I would generally cite anything that makes you question whether such a statement could actually be true. Overall, this article is full of really interesting stuff and I would suggest everyone here read it. I learned a lot. I will support this after some of my comments below are addressed, BillDeanCarter 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC):[reply]
    • In the Wine section it might be a good idea to mention glogg which is a perfect description of a mulled wine. It's popular in Scandinavia. Comment below
    • It might be a good idea to create a general Further information section at the end of the article, and possibly add a book version of Le Viandier that one can get a hold of. Include the external links section as well. It would be a jumping off point to actually make some medieval cuisine recipes afterwards.-BillDeanCarter 06:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
    • This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense: "Regretfully absent from most sources is the abundance of details about the humbler meals of the elite, and just about any information about the eating habits of the common people or the poor." Why is the abundance of details absent from most sources? Do you mean that there is an abundance of detail on elite eating habits, and none about common eating habits? I would also imagine that the elites meals were not humble.-BillDeanCarter 07:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
    • This phrase starts well and ends grammatically incorrect: "The collective and hierarchical nature of medieval society was reinforced in these rules of etiquette where the lower ranked were expected to help those in a higher position, the younger the older, and men women."-BillDeanCarter 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
    • I'm guessing this comment about the baker's wife isn't a joke: "The tables were later supplemented by adding the cost of everything from firewood and salt to a dog and even the baker's own wife." It deserves a cite of the exact page from whichever book it came from. It also leaves me with many questions.-BillDeanCarter 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
    • In the Cereals section the two images should swap positions. The image of the swindling baker should go alongside the third paragraph. Is the reason it hasn't been done because the swap looks awkward?-BillDeanCarter 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Comment below[reply]
      • A good round of comments (and a nice copyedit at that). So here are the replies:
        • Glogg is going to be merged with mulled wine any day now, so I'd like to hold off on the link.
        • I've been thinking about adding a list of some of the more well-known medieval recipe collections just before the See also-links, but I'm holding off on that until I've actually checked out details on them. A further reading-section seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure how to format it. Including the external links section in that seems a tad non-standard. (I mean, aren't external links just "further information" in of themselves?)
        • I tried fiddling with the baker pics, but it just doesn't work. To me it just looks awkward no matter how much I shuffle them about. The current layout was the one that seemed to work best, and considering how prominent both images are relative to the amount of text, I don't think readers will be confused as to which paragraph they correspond to.
        • Could you specify what you believe to be ungrammatical about the "The collective and hierarchical nature..."-sentence?
        • Medieval sources were written by and for the elite. That's a problem that all historians encounter to one degree or another. There are no guides on etiquette for the poor because they couldn't afford them, and most of the time they couldn't even read them. Same goes for the cookbooks (which were actually recipe collections included in books about general dietetics and medicine most of the time) that weren't intended for the cooks, but their literate masters. Cooks learned the trade through apprenticeship and experience, not by reading literature. The accounts of the common man that do remain are mostly incidental ones in various chronicles, legends, illuminations, etc. They are very sparse and are quite indirect. I have thought about mentioning it in the article, but I found it rather difficult to know exactly where in the text to insert such disclaimers without repeating them. There's also the concern about not making it seem overly academic. The "humbler meals of the elite" was an attempt to point out that the elite didn't sit down to banquet every single day. I'll try to rephrase it.
        • What do you feel is unclear about the specific details about the Assize? What are the questions that are raised by the statement? And why is a 4-page citation at the end of the paragraph not to be considered sufficient?
          Peter Isotalo 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are the "men women"? Are the younger, the older, and the "men women" those who are in a higher position? The end of the sentence makes no sense.
          • I'm asking myself why the baker's own wife had a price tag on her life? Was it a joke? I mean I thought this might be vandalism at first. I think this is exactly why you want to have more citations in this article. On which page of which book did you read this? It's an unusual fact.
          • Regarding comment, then the arrangement of images is fine.-BillDeanCarter 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought the wording of that sentence was a valid way of removing verb redundancy, but I'll rephrase it if you feel it's too oblique.
            • A wife was family and families cost money for the (heh) bread-winners, which were, of course mostly men. Scully quotes W. Duncan Reekie's book Give Us This Day... on the topic and the reason for all the odd additions was a successful lobbying campaign by the London baker's guild. I think it's a bit harsh claiming that the statement puts a "price tag on her life". It doesn't appear all that different from how salaries are still set in societies where men are expected to bring home (pardon the pun) the dough. The difference is that this explicitly defined the state of affairs rather than obscuring it with false neutrality. But I can certainly switch "dog" and "wife" to make it less distracting.
              All in all, I think this edit should take care of your concerns. Peter Isotalo 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final say Okay, I Support as done above. I still think that there are way too few citations, but I see you've made two edits to solidify your style of citations, so I'll let my gripe go. All my other comments have been met. Thanks and good luck. I look forward to reading other articles from you.-BillDeanCarter 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a very filling repast, best consumed by being cut into pieces by one's eunuchs and eaten with a delicate golden fork. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eloped 14th century pheasant about to be caught and shipped off to toil in the fields.
  • Oppose, first I have no issue with the citations; but there are some other things that need work.
  1. The lead is not a summary of the main text (see WP:LEAD), for example it discusses class differences at length and they aren't really mentioned again during the article; which also make me wonder if the article is talking mostly about the dietary habits of the nobility, pheasants or a mash-up of both (comprehensiveness issue). Ideally the article would have a section on how food was regulated between the classes - that isn't in the lead.
  2. Some of the giant paragraphs - like the seafood one - could be broken into more readable chunks.
  3. Quotes should not be in italics as per the MoS.
  4. All the items in the see also section are in the text; therefore this section is not needed.
--Peta 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One at a time, then:
    1. It might be difficult to notice off the bat, but the class differences are described throughout the article. Give me a few days to look into the rest of your concerns. As for pheasant mash, I'll see if I can find a recipe. ;-)
    2. Other than the seafood, could you specify a bit?
    3. Fixed, I suppose. But I thought it looked good...
    4. Oh, c'mon... What purpose does removing them serve? It's very probable that readers might check out the see also-section without having noticed those links. I suppose this is some MoS guideline, but I find it too harsh. It simply doesn't make the article less useful to repeat a few very relevant links in a section dedicated to it. And those links are very relevant.
    Peter Isotalo 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article definitely qualifies. Artaxiad 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nicely done. Meets all criteria. –Outriggr § 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.' Extrememly impressive and easily among our best. Can you bring everything else on medieval daily life up to this quality too? - Taxman Talk 03:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I certainly would want to, but I can never foresee what gets my academic juices flowing. Only time will tell... / Peter Isotalo 07:04, 9 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Ohio Wesleyan University[edit]

I've spent a considerable amount of time working on the Ohio Wesleyan University article. The article has had two peer reviews (which are here and here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. user:Rintrah, user:Galena11 and user:SandyGeorgia from the League of Copyeditors have been incredibly helpful with both feedback and editing over the course of the last three months.

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. Thanks for any feedback, LaSaltarella 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article is thorough, well-written and meets FA standards. (Full disclosure: I am one of the editors LaSaltarella contacted to review the article, and made a few edits and suggestions which have been incorporated into the article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm an alumn of OWU and want to see this as an FA. I've also been one of the articles main critics. The article has improved drastically (namely in the POV aspects that bothered me during it's previous FAC nomination) but it still has problems and reads choppy to me.
-The introduction is choppy---possibly the most important section of the article, but in this article it is the weakest section.
  • Comment. Thank you for the comments! I appreciate it very much! Since I have to give credit where credit is due the League of Copyeditors has been behind improving the writing in the article. I will bring up the same issues that you mention here with the two editors who helped me with the copyediting and will try to address them, if necessary. Thank you once again for providing valuable feedback! LaSaltarella 07:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't, IMO, too far away... and I do believe that I will probably be able to support it... but as much as I would like to, I think it needs to be cleaned up a little more. One thought on the intro... I REALLY liked the into to the sports section and felt like that first paragraph could be moved to the intro to flush out the intro. It really is almost there.Balloonman 08:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-I have major problems with the continual usage of term Wesleyan as there are over 20 different schools that have rights to that moniker, but most notably Wesleyan University. OWU or Ohio Wesleyan would be much more appropriate. Since the school uses OWU on it's own website, I think the occurences of Wesleyan (by itself) should be replaced by OWU.
  • I suspect that this would be an exception, because "OWU" as you know is how the students/faculty refer to the school (for those not familiar, we say "Oh-wooo", not O.W.U.) I very rarely, if ever heard somebody refer to the school as "Wesleyan" because that does create confusion. I would posit that this abbreviation is more along the lines of an accepted acronymn for the school.Balloonman 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-"In the annual celebration for George Washington's birthday in 1862, an attending senior endorsed Wesleyan's "ideals of democracy" during his oration." What does "attending senior" mean? What relevance does he/she have?
-The Female College should have it's full name used the first time it is used, not just it's common name.
-"yet no major buildings were built in this time." seems out of place/disjointed.
  • The basic structure of the paragraphs is to lay out major curriculum and building expansion for a block of time, so that's why this was added to the paragraph. LaSaltarella 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-The article states, "formal ties to the Methodist church were severed in the 1920s" but the official website reads "OWU maintains an active affiliation with The United Methodist Church."<http://www.owu.edu/about.html> The affiliation is loose, but it is more than just a historical one.
-"More recently, Wesleyan has achieved several academic and athletic recognitions." The only academic citation to follow is from 1986.
  • The rationale was to add something academic of significance but that doesn't fall into the category of boosterism. LaSaltarella 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something more recent? Otherwise, get rid of the words "more recently." You introduce the period starting with 1984 and the item used to support "More recently" is 2 years later.Balloonman 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line covers the athletic recognitions, which start 16 years later. Can we think of another way to rephrase that? LaSaltarella 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-The article jumps around in tense--- EG the chapter that begins with "Wesleyan continues to undertake construction projects" immediately gives a recounting (in past tense) of construction over the past 15 years.
  • I am not sure how we can avoid this for this specific paragraph. The focus in the paragraph on the transition between the past history and the present. Any suggestions will be much appreciated. LaSaltarella 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about something along the lines of, "Over the past 2 decades, OWU has undertaken numerous construction projects. This began with the rebuilding of [what's that dorm that was rebuilt] and the new union building.... It continues on today with the construction of...."Balloonman 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-None of the sources cited support, "Since 1983, Ohio Wesleyan has been listed in U.S. News & World Report among colleges that attract the highest percentage of international students." One doesn't work, the other three deal with specific points in time and raw numbers. They are citing places that offer awards based on numbers not percentages (granted, the fact that the school has more international students than larger schools is a good indicator of percentage, but it isn't what is cited.)
  • I'll reword the sentence. You are right about the third reference...some of them are obviously a moving target, which is why the include the date accessed.LaSaltarella 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-"because of resulting shortage of people wanting to live in off-campus housing due to the off-campus lottery cap." Shouldn't this be: "Because of the number of people forced to remain on campus due to the off-campus lottery cap?"Balloonman 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if my rewording that last point is any better. But when I read that there is a "shortage of people wanting to live in off-campus housing" it says "We need more people to live off campus, thus we are going to force people to live off campus whether they want to our not." When I was there (and I believe you said it is still the case) that the problem is that more people want to live off campus than the campus allows. So the shortage isn't the number of "people wanting to live off campus," but rather the number of lottery picks allowing people to live off campus. If I'm wrong, let me know.Balloonman 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nomination. LaSaltarella 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niggling, boring comment: some of the titles of books in the list of references are in the "up" style (The Anatomy of Melancholy), others are in the "down" style (The anatomy of melancholy). I don't think it matters which is used, but the inconsistency looks a bit odd. -- Hoary 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for point that out! I fixed it. LaSaltarella 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good, well done. -- Hoary 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now, concerns met Comment: (mostly taken from User_talk:LaSaltarella#OWU_final_thoughts and edited for conciseness). I became involved with the article in peer review and have made comments since. I think it is much improved but am still concerned about the following before I can support it here.

    When OWU opened, it was an academy (prep school) for 2 years before becoming a University. This is mentioned in connection with the academy's closing in the 1920s, but I think it needs to be said at the beginning first. Also, the first college of the university was the College of Liberal Arts established in 1844. I think it is inaccurate to say "By the end of the 19th century, Wesleyan had added a College of Liberal Arts (founded in 1844)..." as adding implies there is something in existence to add to, but this was the first college and my understanding is that the University came into existence with the college's formation (unless the Academy was somehow the same as the University, which would also need to be explained here if true). The Academy and College of Liberal Arts need to be mentioned in the Founding section.

    I also wonder about the choice of buildings in the article and worry it might run into WP:Recentism problems, as it seems most buildings built in the past 50 years are mentioned, but none are mentioned between the purchase of Elliott Hall in 1842 and building University Hall in 1893 (the first 51 years). See History of Ohio Wesleyan University for other buildings built then. I would argue that for a very new University the decision to build a second or even third building is a much bigger event than building two dorms 110 years later (i.e. Thomson and Bashford Halls). Obviously not all buildings on campus now or in the past need to be mentioned, but some are omitted that probably should not be.

    Finally three minor points: I would add that the Ohio Legislature approved Poe and Elliott's charter; I am also not sure of the significance of a student in Ohio in 1862 praising Washington; and I am not sure that the other members of the Ohio Five (now mentioned in the article body) are worthy of inclusion in the lead paragraphs (which are a summary of the most important things in the article). Ohio Five yes, all other members no. I think the article is very close to FA and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the changes - I made some copyedits to the History section to try and smooth things out. Revert if I have made it worse or introduced errors. As for buildings, I am not an expert on OWU but the History of Ohio Wesleyan University and List of Ohio Wesleyan University buildings give all that are on the National Register of Historic Places: Austin Manor, Edwards Gymnasium*, Elliott Hall, Merrick Hall*, Perkins Astronomical Observatory, Sanborn Hall*, Slocum Hall, Sturges Hall*, Stuyvesant Hall and University Hall. Some are in the article, but I marked four with an asterisk that I do not think are in it and should be at least mentioned, plus should Thomson Chapel (torn down 1888) be mentioned? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added info on the four buildings that you suggested above. I am with you: they should be there. LaSaltarella 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Great article definitely worthy of FA status. Clearly, a lot of time and energy has been invested in this article. Extensive copyedits from so many editors (such as user:Josiah Rowe, user:LaSaltarella, user:Ruhrfisch, user:Rintrah, user:Galena11 user:SandyGeorgia, user:Indrian, user:A bit iffy, user:BryanD, and user:Balloonman; I probably missed a few other significant contributors in the history). It is amazing how many people helped out. Full disclosure: I did some copyediting of the history section as well. I think most the minor issues raised above are valid, and I will assume that you will fix those. I agree with Balloonman that the lead is a bit weaker than the rest of the article, which is somewhat disturbing since that is what should be the strongest. I think adding a bit about athletics would be a wise decision (also, I agree that the first paragraph of athletics would be a prime candidate for picking stuff from) or something else that is particularly important. I think two more sentences in the lead should make it more thorough and perhaps flow more naturally as right now somebody might say the lead is a bit choppy. -Bluedog423Talk 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despondent comment. In brief, I haven't read this article and I don't want to do so. ¶ I'm very much in favor of providing explicit sources, e.g. via footnotes, for information given. However, I'm amazed and dismayed to see an encyclopedia article with over two hundred footnotes. For an academic paper in law, or possibly an encyclopedia article on a Really Big Subject (e.g. general relativity), perhaps. But for an encyclopedia article on one university? I'd take it as a tip-off that something has gone very wrong here. ¶ Here's an example, chosen pretty much at random: [[Patricia Wettig]] (1974), the actress who plays vice president Caroline Richards on ''[[Prison Break]]''; and [[Clark Gregg]] (1984), the actor playing Richard in ''The New Adventures of Old Christine'' with [[Julia Louis-Dreyfus]].<ref name= "clarkgregg">{{cite web| url = http://www.cbs.com/primetime/old_christine/bios/clark_gregg_bio.shtml | title = The New Adventures of Old Christine | publisher = CBS |accessdate = 2007-01-06}}</ref> I wouldn't have thought that TV actors were sufficiently notable even to be worth a mention in this article (though I don't begrudge them their own articles); if they are notable then surely their appearances are known by those who will be interested and don't have to be repeated here, and their own articles will anyway both tell which programs they appear in and also provide evidence for their having graduated from this or that university. ¶ That was alumni, but I could have chosen something else. It's necessary that "information" is verifiable and relevant and of interest to some readers, but from my PoV -- perhaps atypical, which is why this is a comment and not an oppose vote -- it's not sufficient. From my PoV you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't important to the reader who has moderate but not unlimited time and patience. A lot of what's in this article does not seem to be important, and the result is an article so garrulous that I for one don't want to read it. -- Hoary 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding throughout the whole process of improving the article is that, unless it is a fact, the rule given in the page "Ten tips to make an article FA" is Cite everything!. User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA provides more explicit advice than that by saying One citation for each sentence!. For a couple of sentences the citations were added as they seemed to be controversial issues at a particular point in time and in others, the context dictated it if it covered a longer period. Correct me if the User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA is to be interpreted differently. LaSaltarella 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't that the article somehow "overreferences" what it presents as facts; it's that many of those facts are trivial. ¶ I suspect that this article isn't actually intended to be read straight through; rather, it's intended to be searched within, via Ctrl-F or however the reader's browser does it, and have bits of it read. To me, that's not a good encyclopedia article. ¶ Back to my example. Do you really believe that the article is helped by having descriptive sentences (referenced, of course!) about individual television actors who've graduated from OWU? I'd suggest either a list of people, of which a sample entry would be "Patricia Wettig, actor (1974)", or (much better) to relegate that function to a category and instead to survey the indisputably notable graduates (as opposed to mere TV actors and the like) in a single short paragraph. -- Hoary 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a fine article, with good structure, but it suffers from foonote overkill. A proper lead is a summary of the body and won't need 10 footnotes, they should be in the body. But in this case, the body has over 200. Something seems amiss here.Sumoeagle179 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, thank you for the compliment regarding the article. I really appreciate it! Many users have invested a lot of time in improving it via several Peer Reviews. Regarding the footnotes, I am reposting my comment from above. My understanding throughout the whole process of improving the article is that, unless it is a fact, the rule given in the page "Ten tips to make an article FA" is Cite everything!. User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA provides more explicit advice than that by saying One citation for each sentence!. For a couple of sentences the citations were added as they seemed to be controversial issues at a particular point in time and in others, the context dictated it if it covered a longer period. Correct me if the User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA is to be interpreted differently. If there are facts that don't citations, do let me know and we'll correct that. Thanks again for your time! I greatly appreciate it! LaSaltarella 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that for featured articles unless there is a direct quotation in the lead paragraphs (which needs a ref), typically citations are in the body of the article. Leaving one ref in for the direct quote saves 9 (from 205 refs now to 196 refs). It appears to me that the refs were added piecemeal as the article was written and so have some duplicates that could be condensed into one ref with the use of <ref name ="blah"> tages (as is already done for a few refs, such as current ref #3 "About US. The Five Colleges of Ohio"). For example current refs #114 and #115 are both "Learning at Linden" and seem to be the same ref (and neither works when you click on the link). Or current refs #132 and #133 are both to the OWU Greek life web page and its History sub page, so you could link both to one ref and add see also History subpage.

      I also wonder if there couldn't be some condensation of book footnotes. I searched on the Tull book notes and there are currently 14 different refs for this book, four of which are duplicates (current refs #49 and #50 are both "Tull p. 182", and refs #139 and #140 are both "Tull p. 132"). I think you could get away with condensing all 14 into just five refs, saving 9 more refs (at end of my comments). So just these saves 20 refs or about 10%.

Tull A = "Tull pp. 180-183" (substitute for current refs #43 (p. 180), 49 and 50 (p. 182), 51 (pp. 182-183) and 52 (p. 183))
Tull B = "Tull pp. 40, 127-132" (current #6, #139, #140)
Tull C = "Tull pp. 26-29, 49" (current #91, #190)
Tull D = "Tull pp. 140, 142-143" (current #105, #146) or pp. 140-143
Tull E = "Tull pp. 98, 99, 102" (current #152, #156) or pp. 98-102
    • There are 19 refs for Hubbart, two of which are duplicates (to p. 38, #20 and #21). Suggested way Hubbart refs are condensed to five refs, saving 14 more (34 refs gone, about 16% fewer): A (six notes now) "Hubbart pp. 10, 14, 22, 38, 45"; B (five notes now) "Hubbart pp. 68, 72-80, 87-88, 90, C (six notes now) "Hubbart 110, 112, 121, 127", D (three now) "Hubbart pp. 140-160" (now #42 plus #39 (p. 142) and #41 (p. 141)) and keep one "Hubbart pp. 160-164" (now #44).

      My guess is that the other books and other duplicates could save 20 or 30 more refs. In any case, the use of p. and pp. is not consistent for the books and needs to be cleaned up. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you, Ruhrfisch! I really appreciate your help! User:SandyGeorgia helped me tremendously with the referencing two months ago as is evident in both Peer Reviews. I added and dropped a few since then, but it is entirely possible that some of the formatting rules have changed. By all means, let me know if there are formatting issues. :) Thank you, once again! LaSaltarella 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are very welcome. Combining duplicates violates no policies. Putting similar page numbers together doesn't as far as I know, but you may want to check with SandyGeorgia to make sure it doesn't violate policy. If this doesn't work, another thought would be to do the book refs by chapter (all from Ch. 1, all from Ch. 2, etc). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I understand it correctly, the last of those ideas is a bad one, reducing the number of notes (and, trivially, of bytes) while retaining the same number of places where notes are referenced and causing the reader who actually wants to look the stuff up to go through entire chapters rather than directly to the specific page. You may wish to reread my comment above (newly elaborated), where I say that the problem is of the number and triviality of the factual assertions that are made (and that of course need referencing). -- Hoary 23:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has a self-congratulary mood that kinda bugs me, and can be pretty boring at times, but I can't really argue with its FA status. Good work LaSaltarella and congratulations! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I really wanted to find at least one major mistake... Nearly all of the sentences are referenced. Well done! NCurse work 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very comprehensive page but I do wonder if over 200 footnotes are strictly necessary. Is the place that contraversial? Giano 14:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would put this article as much better than good article but less than featured. The pictures are superb and the article certainly cannot be accused of not citing its sources. However, it seems disjointed in many places, whether this is a result of someone just turning a list into a paragraph, a lack of context for the content, or just the sheer volume of footnotes seemingly following every sentence, the reasons vary. What I'm trying to say is that I don't get the point of the content in many sections.
In the history section, for example, I don't necessarily care about when every building was built when I don't know what the building is or why it matters - these details might be better left on the List of Buildings page. The article does good job of pointing out how Wesleyan responds to major historical/cultural events (Great Depression and Vietnam), but what of the Civil War, WW2, or end of the Cold War? There are passing references made to the troubles Wenzlau had, but what are they and how did national coverage by the Washington Post contribute to his resignation? Given the authors' ability to marshal facts for the profile section, I would like to know more about how Wesleyan was challenged in this period between Vietnam protests and pre-9/11. Why did Warren conduct so many interviews and what topics did his discuss?
The profile section is just a torrent of facts, which, granted, many other universities' sections are as well, but this seems as though someone turned a common data set questionnaire into a paragraph. Tell me about trends, not just numbers in the abstract - ie, are average SAT scores, yield rates, etc going up or down? The whole paragraph starting on socio-economic equality is unnecessary - need-blind admissions, financial aid, etc are not unique to this university and no arguments are advanced as to why OWU is unique.
The campus section is too concise, probably a by-product of information being parceled off into sister pages. Now would be a good time to mention the size of the campus, not in the introduction. Where is it in relation to notable/major landmarks/cities? Is the campus urban or rural, does the campus blend into the neighboring area or is it strictly demarcated? What's its approximate shape and how are buildings distributed within it?
Many items in the student life section (acapella groups, governing bodies, etc) do not seem to merit mention. That they exist is uninteresting - most universities have analogous groups. What have they done or why are they interesting?
Reading over the sister page Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University, I think almost all of it should be brought back to the main article because it talks about events and topics that have stimulated debate and reveal something of the moral/ethical character of the university's community.
The notability criterion for the alumni seems to have been set low, as was mentioned before. Authors of textbooks, professors at Harvard, actors in minor roles? Scrub away some of the cruft.
If the international character of the university figures so prominently in both the intro and in rankings, why does it only warrant 3 paragraphs? In conclusion, I feel (1) this comes across as a "glossy brochure" and (2) that this page has become too balkanized - I can tell that a lot of interesting information was moved off onto sister pages, leaving this main page with many sections filled with, well, filler. Madcoverboy 02:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Madcoverboy, thank you for your feedback! I really appreciate your time and comments! I've been working very closely with two editors for two current Featured Articles for Universities, the Duke University and the Michigan State University ones. They were incredibly helpful and at various points even contributed as much as I did! I have worked with numerous others editors (evident from my Talk pages and the PR pages) who had brought many articles to FA status in the past. Some of your concerns brought up above relate to requests from these editors in the past two Peer Reviews. I encourage you to take a look. Unfortunately, striking a balance at times may involve tough decisions: what one editor dislikes may be what another editor likes. As most of them had substantial experience with Featured Articles, for the most part I only listened to what they had to say. My guiding criteria has been consciously trying to stay with the general editors' consensus. Unless a concern is brought up by more than one users, it is hard to strike an aggregate balance between likes and dislikes of the WP community. I will try to address the specific concerns brought up above. Thank you, once again! I really appreciate your feedback! LaSaltarella 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaSaltarella, I don't think that anyone has disputed that you (together with others) have put an enormous amount of work into the article. No need for you to remind us. ¶ "Unless a concern is brought up by more than one [user]": the concern about length and exhausting coverage of relative trivia has been brought up by at least two users, Madcoverboy and myself. It's possible that Madcoverboy and my ideals are incompatible with those of the other people who have rushed to say "support"; but I find this hard to believe: most FAs are long and (while I cannot speak for Madcoverboy) I usually approve of them, reading them (by which I mean reading them in their entirety) with pleasure. ¶ By contrast, I find this article unreadable. I keep wanting to skip. As I skip, I notice such attractions (?) as photographs of Charles Fairbanks, Frank Sherwood Rowland, Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli and Branch Rickey. I had never heard of any of them. This is not necessarily a criticism of either them or the article. My criticism of the article is its presentation of stuff about them that is (or should be) in the articles about them, to the extent of showing their photos: I don't understand how the physiognomy or taste in clothing of (say) the 26th US veep tells anyone anything about OWU (moreover, I have a niggling feeling that I've read somewhere, perhaps in a piece by Gore Vidal, that the position of veep was near-meaningless until fairly recently). -- Hoary 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Hoary! I appreciate your time and opinion! It certainly adds an interesting perspective. You mentioned earlier "From my POV you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't important to the reader who has moderate but not unlimited time and patience." Several considerations have guided my inclusion of material to account for what is important on the subject, most notably, Undue weight and Let the facts speak for themselves. I realize that these NPOV rules might have compromised what some consider interesting in general. My first priority has been to follow the FA guidelines and NPOV is certainly one of them. Just to help me understand your request, what are the specific changes in the text that you would like to see? Specific example of what you want to see get changed and how you want it changed will help me a lot! Thank you for your time again!!! LaSaltarella 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article that is definitely worthy of FA status. A lot of time and energy has been invested in this article and it shows. Enduchus 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - worthy of featured status - I've got no complaints. CloudNine 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great prose, amazing pictures. Definite FA. к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A lot of work has gone into this article; this is one reason why I didn't want to oppose it previously, when I instead wrote a "despondent comment". That comment doesn't seem to have had any effect; perhaps this will. A lot of material in this article might belong in an OWU website (which already exists and within which any interested person is free to browse) but it does not assist an article within an encyclopedia, which should cut away trivia dutiful listing of the unremarkable and instead provide a summary that (among other things) is sufficiently concise to invite a straight-through reading from start to finish. -- Hoary 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Hoary! I appreciate your time and opinion! It certainly adds an interesting perspective. You mentioned earlier "From my POV you also have to distinguish between what is and isn't important to the reader who has moderate but not unlimited time and patience." Several considerations have guided my inclusion of material to account for what is important on the subject, most notably, Undue weight and Let the facts speak for themselves. I realize that these NPOV rules might have compromised what some consider interesting in general. My first priority has been to follow the FA guidelines and NPOV is certainly one of them. Just to help me understand your request, what are the specific changes in the text that you would like to see? Specific example of what you want to see get changed and how you want it changed will help me a lot! Thank you for your time again!!! LaSaltarella 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and comprehensive article. It caters to readers across levels of interests and deserves to be Featured. One suggestion though; it may be helpful to trim and consolidate the footnotes, so as to balance comprehensiveness and compactness. --Ajaypp (I am here..) 05:28, 9 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Antioxidant[edit]

Antioxidants are important in biology and widely-used as nutrient supplements. This article gives a comprehensive overview of the various types of antioxidants and their applications. It is 65 kb in total length, self-nomination. TimVickers 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll actually read the article tomorrow, but someone will say this, so - wikilink the access dates in the references, so people's date formatting preferences work. Nice to see this article on FAC; this is such a huge improvement over where it was when I last looked at it during the science collaboration (November?). Opabinia regalis 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web cite formatting done. TimVickers 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All web based citations need retrieval dates. LuciferMorgan 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written as usual, well referenced, comprehensive, nice use of summary style and pretty lay-accessible as far as I can see—FA quality in my opinion :) Now for the nitpicks:
    • Access dates seem to have been added, so no problem there.
    • Could stand a couple of WP:DASH and MoS:T fixes; I'll see to these later if you don't mind.
    • I'd like to see a vector version of Image:Antioxidant pathway.png. Mind if I take this on when I have time? My support's not conditional to this, in case you're wondering :D
That would be wonderful, e-mail me if you need the original.
Thank you, but I'm afraid that won't be necessary :)
    • There seems to be a hilarious bit of acronym overload in the paragraph discussing superoxide dismutases. Is it Cu/Zn SOD or CuZnSOD? I'd also change "In humans, the Cu/Zn SOD..." to "In humans, copper/zinc superoxide dismutase (Cu/Zn SOD)..."
Removed and reworded.
    • You might like to unlink those unsightly redlinks in the "Industrial uses" table, until articles are created for them (if ever, that is).
Done TimVickers 16:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support another fine effort from Tim. With a few suggestions...
    • The history section introduces Moreau and Dufraisse by name, but never mentions them again, and doesn't wikilink them. Given the basic level at which the lead and first few sections are written, the contextless name introduction seems odd; better to either link them or take the names out.
Names removed.
    • 'Damage to DNA leads to mutations and cancer...' - I think this might be misleading to the biologically clueless. This reads like 'mutations' and 'cancer' are two distinct events, and that both are inevitable from unrepaired DNA damage. Since not every unrepaired lesion causes a mutation and not every mutation leads to cancer, this should be reworded a bit to avoid letting people draw unwarranted conclusions.
Qualified.
    • Along the same lines, it may be worth mentioning that there are pathways in the cell for isolating and degrading highly oxidized proteins.
Added link.
    • There's plenty of images already, but maybe the structures of ascorbic acid and glutathione would be good additions?
GSH has an image, I moved it to the third section.
    • The tea image is captioned 'a rich source of antioxidants', but the table immediately above identifies it as a source of tannins, which have 'anti-nutritional effects'. Expanding the caption to clarify what other antioxidants tea contains would be helpful. I'd rather see more chemical structures and chuck the generic tea picture if it comes down to it, though. Opabinia regalis 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caption expanded to add link common to the table on nutritional sources in the same section. I don't want to add too many structures as these tend to cause non-chemists to stop reading! TimVickers 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're clearly silly ;) I never like these generic little decorative images, but if a picture of a teapot gets people to keep reading... Opabinia regalis 02:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do have some small concerns, but this is a FA quality article.
    • From the lead: All plants and animals maintain complex systems of antioxidants to prevent damage by oxidation Throughout the entire article I can find no mention of plants outside of them being a source of antioxidants. At the least I feel the table in the "Metabolites" section needs to list which types of antioxidants are being used by plants. Also a reminder or two in the first sentence of the more generalized sections that we are talking in broad terms and not simply human terms would be nice. Another option is to take that word out of the lead and let the article be consistent in its scope; if however slightly misleading by omission.
Discussion on oxidative stress in photosynthesis added to "Oxidative challenge in biology" section. Info on plant SOD, GSH-metabolism and thioredoxins added.
    • In section "Measurement and levels in food": Some antioxidants such as lycopene are ascorbic acid can be destroyed by long-term storage or prolonged cooking However "lycopene" is missing from the following table; so readers don't know what product they should eat fresh and raw to obtain that antioxidant.
Expanded table to give examples. TimVickers 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Technological uses" It is clear thought the preceding text that antioxidants are obtained by eating things, taking pills, or through life processes. It is unclear how they are obtained for technological use. I would think that ease of making these compounds (i.e. cost) is a large factor affecting which particular ones are used in industry and which are not. Is there anything information worth adding along that angle? I guess this same issue can be raised for the History section. Any important developments in production worth mentioning there?
    • Part of me tends to think in the long term everything under "Health effects" should really be a summary of the daughter article Antioxidants in Medicine and everything under "Technological uses" should really be a summary of the daughter article Antioxidants in Industry. And that these two sections should be more comparable in length. However that has little to do with this article qualifying for FA, which I believe it does.--BirgitteSB 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, naturally. Another wonderfully elegant exposition by Tim on a very important and widely known topic. Here are some things I'm not sure about, but which you might want to consider. They're rather vague suggestions, and don't temper my support:
  • I'm pretty sure that selenium counts as an antioxidant, unlike zinc; it's in those enzymes because its redox potential is indeed much stronger than that of sulfur. Diselenide bonds are far more difficult to reduce than disulfide bonds.
This is an arguable point (see antioxidant talk page) but for me selenium is no more an antioxidant than zinc or sulphur. Some of the many selenoproteins do have antioxidant functions, but the cofactor of these enzymes does not function separately from the whole.
Hmm, I read the Talk section on selenium, but I was left a little mystified by the argument? Admittedly, free selenium probably doesn't play much of a physiological role, being so low in concentration, but selenium compounds are much stronger reductants (-400 mV redox potential) than the analogous sulfur compounds; they're like "thiols on steroids", if you'll forgive the biochemically mixed metaphor. ;) I think that selenium also occurs in vivo in several places where it might serve as an antioxidant, such as in the metallothioneins. There's also glutathione triselenide, methylated selenium, selenophosphate and a few other in vivo compounds; although I don't know whether they serve any antioxidant role, it would be strange if nature did not exploit selenium's great redox potential somehow, no?
Well it does, it uses it in enzyme active sites. Not metallothioneins though, those contain normal, boring cysteine, not selenocysteine. I'll have a read about those other organoselenium compounds, but I've never heard of them being proposed as biological antioxidants. TimVickers 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More discussion of the importance of terminating free-radical chain reactions, relative to mopping up non-radical oxidative species?
As I understand it, and I hope the article conveys, the antioxidant defences of the body should be seen as an interacting network. Consequently, it is very had to say that one part is more important than another.
  • Provide a centralized list of the most common oxidizing agents, and oxidizing factors in biochemistry? Perhaps make a daughter list page you could refer to? Perhaps include types of environmental factors that might provoke oxidative stress (smoking, sunburn, maybe)?
Some of this is already on the oxidative stress page, I will try to expand this daughter article a little in the future.
  • Perhaps lay more stress on the dangerous randomness of reactive oxygen species, and that the cytosol is mainly a reducing environment? More discussion of the peroxisome, etc. and biologically important oxidations, say, β-oxidation?
Radicals and metals added to "Oxidative challenge" section. Added peroxisome link and ref to catalase paragraph.
  • Mention other special cases of food antioxidants, such as those in beer and wine?
The sub-page on List of antioxidants in food should give details on this.
  • More on the isoprenoids such as lycopene as antioxidants? All those double bonds are such an inviting target. ;)
  • Metal chelators don't count as antioxidants, although they might slow oxidation by withholding a catalyzing agent, right? I think I've read in the popular press of chelators mentioned as antioxidants; perhaps clearing up that confusion is worth addressing explicitly?
Added to metabolites section, with iron-binding proteins used as example.
  • My tricksy memory is telling me that fasting has some pertinent relation to oxidative stress that might be worth mentioning here, but I can't remember what it might be. :(
Interesting, I might add this to the oxidative stress article. TimVickers 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention modern research into plant metabolic engineering to increase tocopherols and other antioxidants? I think I've heard about that going on somewhere, you know, GM food and all that.
Good luck as always and thank you, Willow 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's well-referenced, which must have been a bunch of work to do. However, I oppose because the image of fruits and vegetables seems random and uninformative. Half a sentence could have given the same information, as the caption demonstrates. I'll go so far as to suggest that the article would be better off without a picture; however, for it to be an FA, it probably will need an informative image up top. Second, the body feels choppy. The history is too brief for my liking, otherwise it's fine until the metabolites section, where things get a bit technical and text-heavy. My suggestion would be for some of those sections to have "signpost" terms in bold, e.g.
Antioxidants are classified into two broad divisions, depending on whether they are soluble in water (hydrophilic) or lipids (hydrophobic or lipophilic).
This will help people who already know a little about the subject, and makes it easier to skim-read for those hunting specific pieces of information. Thanks.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a suitable image? Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was told not to bold terms in articles in the DNA FAC. I'm not sure what to do, to bold or not to bold? I can't find any in-text bolding in AIDS, Cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome. I'll expand the history section a bit so it's comparable in length to the ones in the other featured articles, maybe more material on the discovery of the antioxidant effects of vitamins? I do need a top-right image according to the manual of style, if you object to this one, and I'm not over-keen on it myself, do you have any suggestions for new and eye-catching images? I think the pathway diagram you mention below is best kept in the enzymes section, since it is quite specific. TimVickers 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MOSBOLD specifically states bolding should not be used for emphasis; italics should be used instead, sparingly. I've raised this point in GACs before, so I think FAs should follow :) I wouldn't object to italicizing select terms such as the ones Samsara mentioned. Fvasconcellos 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of using the glutathione image? It is quite snazzy. TimVickers 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new header image, but maybe put the vegetables down with the tea? It's still not very informative per se, but a picture of antioxidant-containing foods seems appropriate in the foods section, possibly more than a teapot. Opabinia regalis 01:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I put that in on the suggestion of my tea-loving wife, but I suppose the vegetable image is more appropriate. TimVickers 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added the hydrophillic/phobic terms, but wikilinked them, as a compromise. TimVickers 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about those specific terms, it's the principle. I will oppose until the text can be made more manageable. And Fvasconcellos, what I'm suggesting is not emphasis. This is emphasis. Or that out of all my family, my shortest brother is the most famous. However, if I'm starting a new paragraph on the concept of emphasis, that's highlighting. If I'm talking about the concept of emphasis, that's emphasis. I hope that's clear. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal clear, and pretty dense on my part. Fvasconcellos 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to deal with this problem by breaking the "metabolites" and "enzymes" sections into new sub-sections. This should let the skimming reader find specific information more easily and also breaks up the text-heavy sections. What do you think? TimVickers 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After a cursory look, this appears to be a fine article. Tony 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added E-numbers to the list of antioxidants in the preservatives section.
Added MedlinePlus link, but the other is a commercial site so doesn't really satisfy WP:MOS-L. TimVickers 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway it's an unbelievably referenced article. NCurse work 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thank you, Tim for the corrections! NCurse work 17:07, 6 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Definition of planet[edit]

previous FAC, note on closing—former featured article


This article was originally Featured, but went through an upheaval following the contentious events surrounding the IAU's decision in 2006. It was subsequently stripped of its Featured status. I have gone through and attempted to answer most of the criticisms raised in its Review, and I think I have dealt with most if not all of the issues. Serendipodous 14:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Impressively comprehensive. semper fictilis 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Made me go whoa. Surprisingly thorough, satisfying. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Good work! — RJH (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support detailed, referenced and illustrated. Well done. igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well put together article, good job. Hello32020 01:57, 3 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Dime (United States coin)[edit]

This article meets all criteria for FA promotion. It has gone thru two GA processes, but denied because the reviewers refused to reasses after changes were made. And a peer review with all issues being addressed. Joe I 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support Very well written and interesting article.Balloonman 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although I should disclose that I did a lot of work on this article in preparation for its GA nomination, I think it is well-suited for FA status. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks up to featured quality to me. Congrats. Hydriotaphia 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. trickiest criteria is prose and I beleive it does this well cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article, well done making it featured quality. Hello32020 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good article. —dima/s-ko/ 04:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending Support. Add an Obverse/Reverse pic for the Barber Dime to the article and you have my support. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:34, 7 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Harbhajan Singh[edit]

This article has had a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Harbhajan Singh/archive1, it has been copyedited by ALoan, and the article is a comprehensive account of the life and career of India's most successful off spin bowler and the first Indian cricketer to take a Test hat trick. It is part of WP:CRIC's {{CWC Advert}} FA Drive for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work on the article/bio but can you please fix the two red links, ICC referee already have an article. I think, its icc elite referee or something like that so just redirect it.--Thugchildz 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'll look into the article content, but at first glance, the article seems to lack images. There are only 3 right now. I understand that you might be excluding FU images, but still, some more images can enhance the article. --Ragib 08:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support–Great article. Well done.--Eva bd 14:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well written article with detailed info. But same problem as ragib, lack of images or more specifically, lack of good quality images --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Incredible article. I am very impressed. - NYC JD (make a motion) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting, impressive, well qualified for FA--– Dakota 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I just gave this +GA, and I agree that it probably is FA standards. Nice work! Daniel Bryant 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have copyedited, as noted above, but I am sure more eyes would be good. As I said on the PR, it does seem a little heavy on the statistics (and thus a bit light on the "brilliant prose"). Also query whether a summary of his Test (and ODI?) career statistics, like those at the bottom of Paul Collingwood and Adam Gilchrist would be helpful. A batting Manhattan graph is unlikely to be very instructive, but what about a similar thing for bowling average? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, excellent dedicated work. Well done. The Rambling Man 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice effort in including a lot of details and weblinks. I would like to see that the controversies and criticisms in his career seperated out at a later point in time.Kalyan 10:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A captivating article.Bakaman 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with one comment Genrally speaking, a excellent article. But what does India's most successful off spin bowler in the opening paragraph refer to? The current team or in India's entire history? I suggest someone insert "currently" to make it more clear. GizzaChat © 07:02, 8 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Christ Illusion[edit]

This is an article concerning a music album that has been improved to GA, and after further improvement from many other gracious editors, I feel is now ready for FAC given the fact it has been sufficiently expanded per the sources currently available on the article topic. My thanks to all those that have contributed, who's help has been greatly appreciated (can any of those contributors who wish to comment on this FAC and / or vote please make the fact clear they've been contributors to the article when commenting / voting?.. thanks). If there's any concerns as relates the article not meeting a specific part of FA criteria, can they please be specific in what they feel needs addressing and I'll get onto addressing them asap. My thanks to all FAC reviewers in advance, and I hope the article is of joy. LuciferMorgan 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — as a light contributor to the article's prose, I must say the article is in good shape. I might give it another read to weed out anything remaining, but it's good. — Deckiller 01:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! LuciferMorgan 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is very well sourced and well written. The images and audio files make an important contribution and have valid fair use rationales. Good job! Jay32183 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support :) LuciferMorgan 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support The intro needs to be expanded and the prose seemed too X happened then Y happened... but overall a pretty solid article.Balloonman 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. The reason why the intro is the size it is is because I don't wish for it to grow out of control in proportion to the article's size. LuciferMorgan 10:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article on an excellent album. A few minor issues though:
*An external link label shouldn't be the name of the website itself ("ChristIllusion.com" > "Official website of the album").
*...the album recieved mixed critical reviews - Spelling.
*"Whilst" > "While".
*"Its June 23 European release saw the EP land at number 48 on the Swedish charts,..." - Reword. No need in a comma.
  • Some chart positions lack a reference, but you may cover all of them with this.
Citation 37 at the end of the sentence covers the ones not cited in the middle of the actual sentence - I did cite each chart position first of all, but 37 was duplicated a few times in one sentence which was criticised at peer review, hence the change. If I need to re-add them, I will using the Blabbermouth source, though as a former staff member of Rockdetector I won't use them due to reliability issues - they are notorious for making typos. LuciferMorgan 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't class Blabbermouth.net as a news reference - news is like CNN on TV etc. as far as I'm concerned, and Blabbermouth.net is a web source, thus why they have CD reviews.

Although Blabbermouth isn't entirely a news source, most of the references are to news archives. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, though I prefer using {{citeweb}} - I don't think there's currently a policy on cites, long as they're used in a consistent style, have retrieval dates, author, source etc. LuciferMorgan 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*In paticular the cover art - Spelling. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto these very shortly... LuciferMorgan 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for your comments and support Michaelas10, which are greatly appreciated. Any suggestions on improving an article are always warmly welcomed. LuciferMorgan 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have done some very minor copyediting work on this article a couple of weeks back, but feel sufficiently neutral to be able to say that this is an example of exactly the sort of well-written, well-referenced article Wikipedia's coverage of popular music is all-too-sorely lacking in. Angmering 18:12, 6 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Edward VIII of the United Kingdom[edit]

Support. Self-nominated. DrKiernan 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Change the name of the section "Trivia" - is that section really trivia? LuciferMorgan 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. Do you have a citation for the Windsor knot thing? Also, did you catch Yomangani's suggestion here about the "honours, titles, styles, etc." sections? Might be something to mull over. Anyway, very well done! Gzkn 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Citation added. Yes, I'm following the discussion there and here and will amend the section title accordingly once a consensus is built. DrKiernan 09:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat I peer-reviewed this article and I think it is quite good, but I still have a small concern regarding the lead. I think that there is a tad too much detail about the abdication and not enough about the rest of his life. WP:LEAD Awadewit 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Please take a look at the new lead. DrKiernan 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely an improvement. Awadewit 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strong article. --Bookworm857158367 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think all the concerns raised in the article's review are addressed.--Yannismarou 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — excellent work as usual. — Deckiller 16:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat — Very good. Are the military ranks correct, though? He was appointed in War Office at the very beginning of WWII before being appointed governor. Also, during his speech to parliament and the funerals of King George VI and of Queen Mary, he wore the uniform of an admiral.Tomhormby 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He temporarily relinquished the ranks of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force to assume that of Major-General in 1939, because the Head of the British Military Mission was a Major-General and you couldn't have a Field Marshal serving under an officer of lower rank. Full details of his military service are here: [45]. DrKiernan 08:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like the offending section was blanked. The entry on George VI doesn't have a rank section, so I support. Some of the citations aren't complete (ISBN's and whatnot), but I can add a lot of those. Esp. for Donaldson.Tomhormby 14:25, 6 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back[edit]

Self-nomination. I am continuing to work on the Star Wars film articles in the hopes of getting all six films promoted to featured status. I have been working on this article since A New Hope was promoted just a few months ago. It has had a peer review and has been rated as A-class. It is not only a good article, but also a part of the newly formed featured topic. If The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and A New Hope are featured worthy, I feel that this article is worthy as well. The Filmaker 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. This is written well and lays everything out coherently and easy to follow. Good Job! Mike Searson 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As is, it's FA enough for me. It could use some more additions, like pictures (I know...fair use). More info on some of the other derivative products, such as toys, books and games. For the games, I can remember a NES game, a SNES game and then the recent Lego Star Wars - The Original Trilogy. Plus Star Wars Trilogy arcade. Shrumster 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just realized though. Shouldn't Synopsis be before the Production section? Shrumster 19:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not required that Synopses be before Production section. In this case, the layout has worked well, and to change it would push images to awkward places. The Filmaker 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a section dealing with the games that were specifically based on the film. There have been so many games released that weave in and out of the Star Wars films or deal with the entire trilogy, that if they should be mentioned anywhere it should be in the main Star Wars article. The Filmaker 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is as good as the other featured ones. Hope Return of the Jedi gets there soon... igordebraga ≠ 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I think ESB is the most overrated movie of the series)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like citations for the number of people who listened to the radio adaptation, as well as its canonicity. WikiNew 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - I worked on this a while ago before it was GA, and I must say, as many times as I see it done, I am still impressed by how good these Star Wars articles are. I did some minor copyediting, and I think it is good to go! Judgesurreal777 21:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per Mike Searson and Igordebraga. This is what FAs are meant to be like; nice job. Cliff smith 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could do with a copyedit to weed out redundancy ("the fact that", "in order to", "both", etc.) and awkward phrasing. Some random examples:
    • Originally, Lucas had written an exchange between Han Solo and Princess Leia to read as Leia saying to Han "I love you." with Han replying "I love you too." could be shortened to 'Originally, Lucas had written a scene in which Princess Leia professed her love to Han Solo, with Han replying "I love you too."'
    • Harrison Ford felt that the character was not being taken advantage of That's a bit vague. What does that mean?
    • You can gut some unnecessary stuff, such as: After many different takes with several different and versions, Kershner shouted to have the cameras begin filming and told Ford to improvise; Solo's line was changed in this moment to "I know."
    • I'm concerned that the second graf of Production may be confusing to those unfamiliar with the movie since "Imperial walkers" are introduced without any explanation or link.
    • The DGA then went after Irvin Kershner. Vague, what does "went after" mean?
    • I didn't really understand this: The film includes a brief image of Vader with his mask off, facing away from the camera. For the original viewers of the film, this scene made it clear that Vader is not a robot, but instead organic — and possibly human. This fact becomes significant later, when Vader makes a surprise revelation that might be confusing without the earlier scene.
    • It also included 1930s film serials such as Flash Gordon Not sure "included" is the best word there. "Alluded to"? Gzkn 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some of the adjustments. WikiNew 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been copyedited by Deckiller, I believe all of your concerns were addressed. The Filmaker 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fair use images Image:ATAT_Sketch.png, Image:Battlehothesb.JPG, Image:Esbduelclimax.JPG, Image:Castesb.JPG. Add nothing to the article. Adding insult to injury, Image:Esbduelclimax.JPG is the kind of fair use image that DOES have sourced information that would lead it to be used for criticism or commentary (books have been written about the cinematography of the film, the meanings of the colors and the shadows, and the like), but it's not - in fact, it's just shoved into the overly long and detailed "Synopsis" section, which is poorly written. The fact that the article is basically sourced to the fanzine websites as opposed to the professional literature on the film adds the final slight. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not upload these and did not enter their fair use rationales, I have however changed them to the fair use rationale I have used for the images in the other Star Wars film FAs. It is common to include images within the Synopsis in order to illustrate the film's visual style. The cast photo is used to illustrate the appearance of the actors/characters within the film. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, the Synopsis should not be more then 900 words. This synopsis is 966. However the guideline also mentions that the section should be longer if specific reasons warrant it to be, such as a complicated plot. Empire has quite possibly the most complicated plot in the original trilogy, if not the entire saga. In addition, not only is Empire not far off from the other Star Wars FAs, but the Revenge of the Sith article contains a longer synopsis that has also been voted through as an FA. The Filmaker 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That things have been done wrongly in the past does not make doing them that way now acceptable. Those images are there to provide eye-candy to the article. They make Wikipedia not-free. This is a bad thing. There is not a single mention - not one - in the text regarding the film's "visual style." How can these fair use images be illustrating something that not a single word is said about in the text? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that my work is in line with what has been done in the past was not my main point. I provided a wikipedia guideline that stated that the Synopsis was fine. Why does the visual style have to be mentioned within the text? The images illustrate the Synopsis. When a user is reading the article they would most likely be interested in the visual style of the film. It is provided in the photos. The Filmaker 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair use images cannot be just thrown into articles because you think the user might like to look at them, or will likley want to see them. There must be a justification. Please review our fair use policies - WP:FU and WP:FUC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The fair use images are not simply thrown into articles because I think that the user might want to look at them. As I stated, I think that they most likely will want to look at them. Your reasonings are rather pedantic. By the same rationale, we should eliminate the poster from the infobox as well. We make no mention of the poster in the text, therefore we should remove it? No, because readers have come to expect the poster to be there, just as they expect at least one or two images within the synopsis. The Filmaker 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Users should not expect us to provide them with unfree content. We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. The difference between "might" and "most likley" is in scale - I merely state that you have innapropriately prioritized pretty article pictures over free content. Clearly we will not reach agreement on this - as such, I think that my actionable concern about the overabundance of not-free content is substantial, and obviously, my editing the article to correct it would meet stiff resistance from you. My additional concern that not a word of the cinematographic advances this film inspired are mentioned, and that the sourcing is incredibly weak are also uncorrected. Don't worry - the gloves have not yet been removed with respect to pretty pictures in articles, but everyone knows it's coming. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been through this argument before over fair-use material vs. free-use material and I am not willing to go through it again. Free-use material is not a requirement for featured articles and the fair-use material within the article does not violate any guidelines except for the most pedantic users. I also disagree with your assertion that the film was a major cinematographic influence on cinema and that the sourcing is "incredibly weak". The Filmaker 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fact that the article is basically sourced to the fanzine websites as opposed to the professional literature on the film adds the final slight." Only if you consider the Internet Movie Database, Underground Online, the official Star Wars website, Home Theater, Entertainment Weekly, the Motion Picture Association of America, DVD Active, Amazon.com, MSN Movies, Box Office Mojo, the Washington Post, The New York Times, the San Fransisco Chronicle, Rotten Tomatoes, RogerEbert.com (Chicago Sun-Times), the American Film Institute, Yahoo! Movies, Empire Magazine, Sci-Fi.com, and National Broadcast Radio to not be suitable sources. The Filmaker 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you understand what I mean by "professional." American Society of Cinematographers - unused. This is a film with major cultural and cinematographic impact, but the article is little more than one we'd write for a science fiction film. Not an example of our best work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Star Wars (as in A New Hope) was a major cultural and cinematographic impact. As a whole, the Star Wars saga was a major cultural and cinematographic impact, but only bits here and there. A New Hope was the caused the majority of the impact, any other impact should be discussed within the main Star Wars article. The Filmaker 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, the majority (if not all) of the sources I gave above are "professional". The Filmaker 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not fight people. Although I can see what Hippocrite is saying, but I have to disagree with him. The sketch of the chicken walker is in the "Production" section & one could invisage a reader imagining that the writers came up with that during this stage. This goes for the photo's in the "Sypnosis" section too, one would invisage that scene about the look & feel of the movie. Now I'd have to agree with Hippocrite if say, a sketch was in the cast section & a picture of george lucas was in the sypnosis section, but this is not the case. Spawn Man 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I definitely disagree. The synopsis images are perfectly fine in showing what happens in the film, as are the cast and production images. The latter compliments the synopsis in simply showing something going from concept to finished product. All highly mandated under FU. WikiNew 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would try to lose the IMDb refs. The way it's set up doesn't meet the requirements about reliable sources, an issue that has come up at FAR's, so older articles that use IMDB refs may be reviewed in the near future. Jay32183 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB is generally unreliable when it comes it's trivia and goof sections. Any information on cast and crew however is typically accurate. I use IMDB only for references to cast, crew, and awards given. The Filmaker 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is just as good as any of the other Star Wars articles. As a side note, I do not at all agree with Hipocrite's opinion regarding the use of images to illustrate the articles. JHMM13 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eveything in the article is fine. Just wondering if it could be exspaned a little. I think it needs a lit of references in popular culture, a section on controversy (if there was any) and historical allusions. Buc 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added the only expansion: video games. Sections on references in pop culture are simply trivia sections in disguise and there was not any controversy to my knowledge over the film. I also do not believe there were any notable historical allusions. The Filmaker 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there needs to be something about it's position in pop cul. Like the line "Luke I am your farther" has huge cult status. Buc 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a paragraph on "I am your father" to the reaction section. The Filmaker 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. Well-cited and very comprehensive. - Anas Talk? 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's pretty close in my mind. One point that bothers me is in the Special Edition subsection: "However, they remain controversial among fans, some of which believe that they relegate the film." Relegate the film to what? Also, once you've cited a ref in the <ref name=X></ref> format, you can use <ref name=X/> elsewhere. It saves some space and can make things less confusing when you're trying to remember where a ref ends and the text begins. J. Spencer 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other little thing. Do you want the first film to be Star Wars all the way through, or A New Hope, or do you want the name to change after whatever year that was added to the opening crawl? Right now, both are used in the article. I know, I know, pedantic, and it'll always be Star Wars to me, but I was wondering about the terminology. J. Spencer 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now I Support. J. Spencer 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support — 1a. Some examples from the text:
    • "In captivity, Han and Chewbacca are systematically tortured in order to lure Luke to the city." Two, perhaps three redundant words.
    • "The novel was originally published under the title Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, however, later editions were renamed Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back to conform with the change in the saga's film titles." Missing semicolon; "under the title" is redundant.
    • Redundant usage of "however" and "then".
    • "Like the other novelizations of the Star Wars films, some background information is added to expand beyond what is depicted onscreen." Redundant word, and clarification needed: what is being expanded (the answer is the story).
    • "A novelization of the film was written by Donald F. Glut, based on upon the screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett was released on April 12, 1980, published by Del Rey." This sentence needs a lot of work per obvious reasons.
    • Few instances of "over", which should be changed to "more than".
    • Cases of "utilize" - this needs to be changed to "use"; it's misplaced formality, and misplaced formality does not satisfy 1a.
    • Cases of "over the years"; this phrase is rarely needed.
    • Cases of "many different", etc.

A lot of work has been done, but it needs a lot more tweaking. I'll go ahead and give it a pass. — Deckiller 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took a quick pass, but I'm still a bit concerned with the "spoiler guard" paragraph in the development section, as well as the reaction, soundtrack, and marketing radio drama sections. There might also still be some overlinking or duplicate linking in the cast section. — Deckiller 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the article's prose is passable, but it might need another look to weed out anything missed. — Deckiller 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well constructed article. I agree with Deckiller's initial objections, but I see most of the problems mentioned have been weeded out. Qjuad 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a bit surprised to find that none of the Star Wars articles (including the FA'd ones) seems to have used the extensive and freely-available American Cinematographer archives. They are a wealth of information not only about cinematography, but general production and larger conceptual ideas. Girolamo Savonarola 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article. ZG 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Cinematic and literary allusions" absolutely must be sourced properly or removed. This subject has been written about prolificly, yet the entire article is built on horrible fansites. There is no excuse for this. Better sources exist. Use them. --- RockMFR 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references used in this section of the article have already been voted through before in the FA process. I disagree that they are horrible fansites and should be discredited. In addition, if you can claim that there are better sources out there, then you could provide them. The Filmaker 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes; a 1c objection is usually considered inactionable unless the person provides sources that show more reliability. — Deckiller 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My link to [46] is now the third time that it has been linked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That link does not contain any information on "Cinematic and literary allusions" and is therefore irrelevant to this conversation. The Filmaker 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are a wealth of information not only about the cinematography, but general production and larger conceptual ideas. Have you read the articles yet, at least? Girolamo Savonarola 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written and comprehensive article. Darthgriz98 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment refs 18 and 20 are incomplete. Jay32183 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this. M3tal H3ad 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellently written and well structured article. H4cksaw (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Montreal screwjob[edit]

(Previous FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montreal Screwjob)

Hi all - I've expanded and revised the article thoroughly. I feel the next step is the FAC, where I can obtain the main round of criticism and corrections. I request your input and support for this article to become an FA. Rama's arrow 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Not enough references, and some references are used multiple times in a single paragraph (as opposed to referencing the entire paragraph to that single reference by placing the footnote at the end of the paragraph. Helltopay27 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at this - [47]. I've added fresh citations and references to every paragraph - raising the total to more than 50 citations, plus 5 books. A single footnote style is not advisable because there is often a need for citations right after an important fact, which is considered essential as many make mistake the statement/fact as unsourced. Rama's arrow 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the images in question. Rama's arrow 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall, I think this is a good article. Some comments...
  • Can we cite the sentence where Shawn says "get the fuck outta my ring" to Bret? I'm sure the citation is there somewhere in the article, but can use an in-line citation for that particular sentence. While reading the article, my first reaction was to look for an appropriate citation, given that this was quite a charged statement made at the height of when the drama was unfolding.
I've removed the statement becoz I couldn't find a specific citation. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might qualify the lead paragraph..it says "McMahon called for the match bell to ring as Michaels held Hart in the latter's trademark submission hold, the sharpshooter"...I think we should add that McMahon called for the bell before Bret submitted; ultimately as I understand it, that's what made it a screwjob.
Done. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We talk in the article about irate fans after the incident occurred...we might want to add to the article that what further fuelled fans' outrage was that as a result of the screwjob, Bret's unblemished record of never having submitted in a wrestling match (at that time) had been brought to an end.
No the crowd had realized what had happened - plus, no source I've read discusses this as cause of the reaction, especially Dave Meltzer's account. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your thoughts on including some information about the repercussions of the incident on the careers of Bret and Shawn subsequently and on WWE and pro-wrestling in general. I know that there's some information on that in the "Legacy", but perhaps a synopsis of what happened to the careers of the participants and to the direction pro-wrestling and WWE took might be pertinant.
Done. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: there don't appear to be any free/cc images of the incident itself; however, are there any free images of the participants? Can we include those in order to give the readers a visual? Just a thought.
Done. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AreJay 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! One more point — "...Triple H and Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XX that won him the WWE World Heavyweight Championship and again at Backlash 2004 in Edmonton, Canada were considered a symbolic apology to Hart and Canadian fans". Did anyone from the WWE (McMahon, Jim Ross, or any of the powers that be) make this statement? If this is an opinion of a pro-wrestling critic, can we qualify it by saying something like "In the opinion of John Doe, this was in effect, an apology on the part of the WWE to Hart and to his fans" Thanks AreJay 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellently executed ;) AreJay 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has improved quite a bit since its last nomination and it is an interesting read, but I am curious about why all the fair use images were removed. Certainly it wouldn't hurt to have one fair use screen shot from the actual event? -- Scorpion 02:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe as the pictures are of a match, and the WWE sells this match as a product, it would undermine its commercial value if we use any particular image. As far as FU rationales go, it is considered best not to include if one is unsure about the policy. Rama's arrow 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but clips of the match have also been shown on TV. -- Scorpion 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support At last! A real potential wrestling FA! к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent read, has come a long way since it's previous nom. It could use a few more sources, but all of the parts that should be sourced are sourced. -- Scorpion 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Much better than when nominated.Rlevse 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great improvement over last nomination and although I don't follow professional wrestling I found it to be an informative article. Qjuad 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As a non-wrestling fan I found the article turgid and poorly-written. The opening sentence mentions a "double-crossing", but does not explain why the incident was a double-cross. As I understand it solely from reading the article, a wrestler was ordered to throw a match by his boss, and although he ultimately decided not to, the match was rigged against him anyway - who is double-crossing who, and how is it a double-cross and not simply a cross? The second paragraph uses the word "screwjob" a hundred words before the word is explained, at which point the word "swerve" is thrown into the mix. What does "swerve" that mean in this context? What does "Hart offered to drop the WWF Championship anywhere and to anyone" mean? What does "drop" mean in this context? Abandon, throw away, donate, or something else? The introduction mentions the WWF throughout, before stating that Hart was eventually inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame; although the first paragraph explains that the WWF became the WWE, this little piece of information would be better left to the main article. Reading through the text, I have the impression that there is a lot of information that I, a non-wrestling fan, need to know before I can understand what is going on. If I had a working day and seventy-five pounds to improev this article I would slash the introduction down to a pair of short well-written paragraphs, and then I would work on the rest of the article, cutting it right down, cutting out all the diversions. Take for example the "Hart's confrontation with McMahon" section - it is far too granular and could be shortened to "As recounted in (book), X angrily confronted Y after the match". It's full of "he said and then he said and then at the urging of X he went to Y and said W although at the time Y claimed that X had said W(n) to which X replied after which X said to Y although later all was forgiven". It's not written to a professional standard. I can't see anyone wanting to read it all the way through in one go. I am not a football fan, but I enjoy reading the Observer's football coverage (e.g [48]) because it is well-written and entertaining. This article has plenty of references and facts, but that is not enough. As a potential front-page featured article it would be a poor advertisement for Wikipedia. I think that whoever wrote this, and it has the air of something written by a dedicated individual, concentrated too much on the pennies. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyediting the article to fix the problems - please have a look. Rama's arrow 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This article seems to drift in and out of the fictional wrestling universe, often mixing fiction in with real world events. It seems to overemphasize the significance of the topic (or, at least, plays more into the storylines then it does into what all of wrestling really is -- a business that is simply perpetuated with stories of neverending conflict and controversy). Past FA candidacy has no relevance in an FA discussion -- it should be judged on its merits, not how much better it is than the last time it was nominated. This surely isn't the best wikipedia can offer. /Blaxthos 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what are you objecting to? Which part of the FA criteria does the article not satisfy? The "significance of the topic" is pretty high in the wrestling world. The article is completely factual, well-sourced with over 50 citations from reliable sources. "Past FA candidacy" is only a courtesy link. Rama's arrow 22:00, 2 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Fairy tale[edit]

Self Nomination I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, so I'm putting it up for FAC. Goldfritha 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks pretty good, with lots of info and images, no unsourced statements, and a lot of references. I say it is FA quality 2Pac 00:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article doesn't even mention Hans Christian Andersen, who is one of the most important people in this genre. --Maitch 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I add him, in what sense do you think him one of the most important people? Since I would like to address your actual concern. Goldfritha 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or now that I've added some information. (He was already in the list of compilations of fairy tales). Goldfritha 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Does the term "fairy tale" refer to a primarily European form of storytelling? This is the impression I get from reading the article, but it is not made explicit anywhere. If so, this should be mentioned in the lead, as it is important to distinguish it from other cultures' folktales. If not, the article is lacking information on Asian, African, and Native American fairy tales. Andrew Levine 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What information do you think is lacking? Goldfritha 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is either missing a statement that fairy tales are predominantly European in origin, or else If they are not primarily European) the article is too Eurocentric on the whole. Whichever one applies. Andrew Levine 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection is not clear. What information is missing from the article that leads you to assert that it is "too Eurocentric on the whole"? Goldfritha 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is. If the fairy tale is a predominantly European form of storytelling, then the article lacks any explicit mention of the fact. If the fairy tale is not a predominantly European form of storytelling, then the article needs to make many more mentions of non-European fairy tales. Andrew Levine 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not need to make many more mentions of non-European fairy tales just so there will be many more mentions of non-European fairy tales. The List of fairy tales exists to point to fairy tales. This article exists to treat the topic, not to itemize the instances; adding instances for the sake of adding instances is not strengthening it but weakening it. Goldfritha 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swapping out a few of the European fairy tales discussed in favor of non-European ones is more along the lines of what I'm thinking. As it stands, this article merits a {{Globalize/Europe}} template. Andrew Levine 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure anything is missing here -- a fairy tale isn't particularly European, nor quite the same thing as a folktale (it's a subdivision of folktales as a whole). All of the information regarding fairy tales that the article presents would apply equally to Asian, African, and Native American tales. The objection might stem from the history seeming Eurocentric -- but quite a lot of the early development of the study of the genre was Eurocentric. I suppose in addition to the Arabian Nights and Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio, some other non-European collections could be mentioned (Lafcadio Hearn's Kwaidan is one that comes to mind), but part of the point of the article is that these tales are, at base, surprisingly similar to their European counterparts. Aside from that, I wanted to note that the references aren't all consistently formatted; some of them appear to be incomplete. The text of the article, though, is well-written, well-referenced, and reasonably comprehensive. Shimeru 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, I'm afraid. First, it does need more about Native American and African fairy stories, I'd think a paragraph or even a full section on each, these are rich traditions. At least mention the very important Trickster motif which seems more common outside Europe. More specific complaints "According to a 2004 poll of 1,200 children by UCI Cinemas" - clearly needs a link or other reference information so we can find it. "Ethnographers collected fairy tales over the work" world, surely. The External links section is huge - many are more appropriate to the sub-articles, like on the Langs' tales. One paragraph talks about Briar Rose, and the next refers to Sleeping Beauty without any evidence that these are actually talking about the same story, we can't assume readers "just know". Why nothing at all about films, especially animated films? I'd think that to much of the world the Disney movies are now the iconic forms of Snow White, Cinderella, etc., and they introduced several other popular modern ones. Sorry, but you've picked a very big subject here, this article isn't comprehensive. If you don't think you have room in one article, then write a sentence or a paragraph with a clear "main article on this is here" link. Right now this doesn't have that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is distinctive about the Native American and African fairy stories that would require them to have a paragraph or even a full section?
By that "Trickster" comment -- do you want a section in the article about motifs in fairy tales?
I'll see if I can get a reference for that, or I'll delete it.
Corrected the word and the Sleeping Beauty article.
I'll take a stab at the external links and develop the contemporary fairy tales in other media.Goldfritha 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article isn't comprehensive. To be perfect, it needs to give an overview of nearly everything there is to say about fairy tales. It just doesn't. As so many have written above, it talks a lot about European fairy tales, then in an apparent effort to be politically correct, mentions Chinese fairy tales, but says nothing about African or Native American fairy tales, and doesn't point to an article that does. Here, let me contrast with another FAC I'm supporting, Solar System, up for review on this very page. That's another big topic, but that article does a much better job - it gives an overview of everything and refers to more specific articles for individual planets, units, history of discovery, history of exploration, etc. Notice the writers never say "What is distinctive about Uranus? Let's just leave it out." Yes, you need a section on common themes. You need a section on fairy tales from different regions and ethnic groups - all of them. You need to be able to answer any obvious question that comes to mind when a reader thinks about fairy tales, or at least give them an obvious pointer to what article they should go to for more details. Fairy tales are a huge topic, people get doctorates in this, many people devote their entire careers to this field of study. This article does not do that justice. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that having separate sections on European/Asian/African/Native American fairy tales is probably not warranted and would look like tokenism if done that way. I like the way Goldfritha has added them in the past few days, weaving them in with the mentions of the European fairy tales, as it emphasizes the similarities between fairy tales across cultures rather than their different settings. I think the article is now not too far away from being ideal. Andrew Levine 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if someone asked "What is distinctive about Uranus?" it would be simple to point out many things, from its discovery to its axial tilt. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that if by "so many have written above, it talks a lot about European fairy tales, then in an apparent effort to be politically correct, mentions Chinese fairy tales," you are talking about the opening paragraph of the history section, may I point out that in that a lot of those "European" fairy tales -- aren't European? (If not, what section are you referring to?) Goldfritha 21:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for me it is still far from comprehensive - though I do appreciate the addition of the film sections, etc. For example, the Association with children section only addresses European stories by implication. Were Chinese, Japanese, African, etc., stories similary bowdlerized? We don't know. Don't you think we should? The Popular tales section says European stories are popular, and cites an extensive collection, the opinion of someone who is both an important writer and a literature professor, and a survey, great. However then it says that Arabian Nights stories exist, but doesn't say whether they are actually popular, and who says so. Are they? Say so. How popular, where? That's what the section is supposed to be about. Anyway, are any other stories -- besides European and Arabian Nights stories -- less popular? If so, say so, and why. If not, say so as well. It also uses the wonderful lines "all people" and "most people" as if they really referred to worldwide popularity, though I humbly venture that Tolkien wasn't considering, oh, 1 billion Chinese who wouldn't know Perrault from Grimm if they bit them. That whole section could be used as a poster child for eurocentric bias. I still only see Africa and the Americas mentioned in a single sentence for the lot. No. If you want to rename the article "European fairy tales", I'll look at it again. For an article purporting to be about all fairy tales, it falls dreadfully short. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read that section - who says Lang's work provides "excellent examples of the genre"? Shouldn't puffery like that be cited to someone? You can say it's extensive just from the pagecount, but "excellent" is a value judgement, not Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's out. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say that this is not a criticism of Goldfritha's work, which is clearly improving the article by leaps and bounds just since my first criticism. That's great work, and I appreciate it. It's just a big topic, that people really do write doctoral dissertations on. Maybe the idea I threw out above is the best way to go about this, start with a sub-article on the European fairy tale, which really could more usefully take in 3/4 of the current content of this article, and would probably "inherit" most of the support votes from this FAC. Please don't take it as personal criticism, you're clearly a good editor, and I'm glad someone like you is writing here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about "European fairy tales" and I vigorously oppose any attempt to rename it. Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unindenting for legibility. Struck some comments that have been addressed. New ones cropped up:
    • Puddocky is not a maiden in the Tower tale - inconsistent Capitalisation
    • "Anderson's work" - spelling
    • Where is the Chesterton quote from? You should always add a citation when quoting published material.
    • "The anime Magical Princess Minky Momo draws on the fairy tale Momotarō." - how? The Minky Momo article doesn't say anything about this.
    • You still haven't addressed the "fairy tales were altered for children" bit for non-European tales. If we're writing about Japanese anime, I'd say there's at least an equal amount of fairy tales being altered to make them actually pornographic....
    • There is still a heavy European focus, not just in the sources cited, but in the stories described - as a rough estimate, I'd say the article is 85% European, 5% modern American, 5% Chinese, less than 5% everything else. If it's not supposed to be about European fairy tales, you need to explicitly say why they're so heavily represented.
    • By the way, this complaint isn't just about the classic third world being left out - you're also leaving out American folk tales - Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, Uncle Remus. Heck, how can you write an article about Fairy tale without mentioning Aesop? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Fixed.
It's out.
I provided a reference.
The equal amount does not refute that they are also being altered for children.
That's not my point; you don't say that they are being altered for children, just "draws on" which could mean anything. Did this also started with the Victorians, only with the coming of anime, or when? Are African, Native American, South Asian, Middle Eastern fairy tales also being altered? How and when? Again, this section seems European focused. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the tall tales article; therefore, Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill are unsuitable. So is Aesop, who wrote fables. Goldfritha 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I guess this goes to the insufficient definition of your main term, then, the one you have given -- "story featuring folkloric characters such as ... talking animals" -- seems to fit many fables quite well, and isn't far from tall tales either: Paul Bunyan is clearly a folkloric character, and though not one of the stereotypical ones of the definition list, neither is Bluebeard. Panchantra and LaFontaine feature prominently in both the Fable article and your Fairy tale article. That's a pretty strong objection, by the way, the article clearly needs to define its main term, and not in a way contradicted by the article's own main author. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That a collection contains both fables and fairy tales, and that a writer wrote both fables and faiy tales, is not an argument that they are the same.
And just because I've done a lot of work on it does not make the "main author."Goldfritha 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changed to Support -Susanlesch 14:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) at this time. Sorry but I do think you will get there eventually. By "modern versions usually have a happy ending" do you mean Disney versions of old tales? Or do you mean new tales written today have happy endings? Can you give some summary in the lead and in the article of who authored, or told, fairy tales, where, and when? Like for example, authors, countries and years? Which publishers are best known for fairy tales? Which editors worked with which publishers? Who did the publishers hire to illustrate the tales? Did that choice influence the popularity of some stories? Or do fairy tales exist apart from books? If so, who is responsible for repeating the tales? Did Disney influence the list of most popular stories? (When did Disney start to publish Little Golden Books? I don't know sorry.) Would it be helpful to say that the Brothers Grimm were German, that Andrew Lang was Scottish, that Hans Christian Andersen was Danish? -Susanlesch 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is meant by the "happy endings" comment, since I didn't put it in, but it's easy to pull out.
"Can you give some summary in the lead and in the article of who authored, or told, fairy tales, where, and when? Like for example, authors, countries and years? Which publishers are best known for fairy tales? Which editors worked with which publishers?"
To quote the article: "The fairy tale was part of an oral tradition; tales were told or enacted dramatically, rather than written down, and handed down from generation to generation. Because of this, the history of their development is necessarily obscure."
Or, in other words, No. I can't give any such summary. No one else can either.
For what reason do you think Little Golden Books important enough for this article? Goldfritha 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little Golden Books themselves don't belong here (unless you start talking about publishers). I meant to suggest they may give a date on which to hang Disney's influence. The release date of the Snow White (1937) and Cinderella (1950) films might accomplish the same thing. In the Popular tales section, we have Tolkien saying that people recognize tales of Perrault. The list of favorites made me wonder if and if so to what extent and when Disney replaced Perrault as people's source of information in their answers (the books are just one indication, e.g., they are labeled Movie or Television Tie-Ins at Random House).
Thank you for removing "happy endings," something that would have needed to be explained if it is true that tales have changed over time. On second read this article is a great deal better than I realized, and it was only the style of the treatment of facts I tend to scan for that had me lost. In other words, the people and titles of works are here. What I didn't see right away was that Panchatantra for example is Hindu and maybe 1700 years old. Sorry for that impatient reading.
After looking at Google I think you have the majority of the work done and very well. You may have seen parts of Twice Upon a Time in Google Books. I read it too fast but think Harries makes an argument that oral tales are separate from literary tales. If that seems reasonable, then one can give a factual history (countries, dates, persons) of the literary form, while keeping the view that the origin of oral tales is unknown. One of your external links has what looks like a suitable timeline that could be condensed into one paragraph of prose. But you and others will surely know better. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have included a history of literary forms, in the history section. Is your complaint that it doesn't have enough dates and countries? Goldfritha 15:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Goldfritha. Afraid I don't much like a change in vote being called a complaint. Thank you for removing the list of popular tales, a good edit that solved an issue. Yes, I think countries and dates are important. Dates would be enough, and here are some examples. "The oldest known written fairy tales stem from ancient Egypt", the Panchatantra or The Golden Ass, Carlo Gozzi and Pu Songling, Perrault's Cinderella, Lang and or Andersen and MacDonald. I have no more comments. Thank you and best wishes. -Susanlesch 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC). P.S. Another date that would help is some indication of when the Brothers Grimm worked. -Susanlesch 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You described something about the article as being wrong; I would say that a neutral description of such a description is "a complaint."
I will look at putting in dates, where available. Goldfritha 17:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More dates are in. Goldfritha 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I know that "fairy tale" is a very hard genre to define, but it seems to me that the page lists lots of examples of fairy tales, some characteristics and lots of competing definitions. I think that it needs to pin down either a single definition or a smaller set of competing definitions. It is not easy to figure out what a fairy tale is from reading this page. Doing so might help you determine what traditions to include or not include on the page. Once a genre becomes so inclusive that it appears all over the world and all across time, one wonder how helpful the definition really is. Awadewit 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is unsuitable for Wikipedia, arguing for WP:OR. Given that there are a lot of competing definitions of fairy tales -- and there are -- it is Wikipedia's place to report that and not to pin it down to a single definition or a smaller set of competing definitions. Given that folklorists agree that there are fairy tales all over the world and all across time -- and they do -- Wikipedia must report that, regardless of whether we think it would be helpful if it were more limited. Goldfritha 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If folklorists argue that fairy tales exist in all times and places, that is fine (I'll go argue with them, then). But I still feel that the page needs to tighten up its set of definitions. Certainly, among folklorists some definitions must be more accepted than others and it is those that should reflected in the wikipedia entry. I am just concerned that after reading this very thorough page, a reader may still not be able to say what a fairy tale is. Imagine reading it and then being asked to explain in a few short sentences "According to this article, what is a fairy tale?" I found myself unable to do so in a very coherent way and since the most important function of the page is to define the fairy tale, I feel that this is a problem. Awadewit 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article records that, in fact, the definition of fairy tale is unclear, less than coherent, and not capable of being defined in a few sentences without sacrificing accuracy about how the term is used. Some definitions are more accepted than others. Those are the ones I put in the article. Goldfritha 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this problem could be solved by simply organizing the article a little better. For example, could you create subsections for each definition? I think that such a division would greatly assist the reader in identifying the various definitions.Awadewit 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think the competing definition are clear cut enough to make that feasible. Goldfritha 04:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, where is Bruno Bettelheim in all of this? His Uses of Enchantment is a standard interpretation of fairy tales. Awadewit 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a mention. Goldfritha 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I find this an excellent treatment of fairy tales. Goldfritha has done excellent work encapsulating a topic that is broad and, in itself, somewhat ill-defined. Shimeru 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good article. This is neither a support nor oppose, but I expected to find quite a few references to Roland Barthes here, but I see he isn't cited in the article. Is the lack of Barthes an oversight or is it simply not necessary given the cited work of Angela Carter and others?-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you expect to find him referenced here? Bearing in mind that the article is concentrating fairy tales and not interpretations and uses of them. Goldfritha 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves me, Barthes - alongside Vladimir Propp and Angela Carter (who are cited in the article) - is a key text for students of fairy tales. [49] In fact, why would this article not also mention interpretations and uses of fairy tales?-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention them; it does not concentrate on them because this is about the tales, not the interpretations and uses.
Furthermore, there are a lot of authors who have written about fairy tales. Compare the counts from your search and from this one.[50] or this one [51] or even this one.[52] Goldfritha 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - comprehensive, well written and coherent. Fulfils all FA criteria. cheers Cas Liber 23:44, 26 February 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Calvin Coolidge[edit]

This is one of the more impressive biographies I've seen. It is well-cited, well-written, and attractively presented. It looks like a featured article to me.--Bookworm857158367 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done a lot of work on this article recently, so I'm not sure if I get to support the nomination, but I do think it's of good quality and should be featured. I'd be happy to make any changes that are necessary. Coemgenus 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This seems incorrect as written: "When the League of Nations attempted to revise the Senate's reservations, the Senate failed to act; the United States never joined the World Court.[7]" The League could not 'revise' the Senate's reservations; it might attempt to 'meet' them, however. Hmains 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was more like a counter-offer. I'll rephrase it. Coemgenus 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Done. Coemgenus 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Regarding his cause of death, it looks like he died from being disappointed in Hoover's defeat by Roosevelt. This seems medically unlikely. What did he die from? Hmains 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heart attack. I'll add it as soon as I find a citation. Coemgenus 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Done. Coemgenus 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- I like it. It definitely seems to be on the right level. FireSpike 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed the article in Biography project, and it is indeed very nice.--Yannismarou 13:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comment - minor concern - the Cabinet section (sec. 6.9) seems oddly formatted - The images and the infobox are placed apart and create too much blank space. Otherwise, this article appears to be top-notch. -- Oaxaca dan 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree. It was like that when I found the article, and I don't know how to fix it. If anyone knows more about layout, I'd be glad for the help. Coemgenus 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like its been largely dealt with - there's still some extra white space, but i guess there's only so much you can do with a table and a bunch of pictures. --Oaxaca dan 02:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Image:John W. Davis.png claims that the image is PD because the author died at least 100 years ago (1907). If the photographer were to have died that year, Davis would be 34, which doesn't seem the case. Regardless, there is no source provided whatsoever. ShadowHalo 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't noticed that. If I remove that photo, would the article be acceptable? Coemgenus 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, sounds fine since it's mostly decorative. If you do, feel free to strike out my objection; I'll ask the uploader in the meantime. ShadowHalo 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I replaced it with one I found at the Library of Congress website. If you find out that the old one is legit, let me know - I like that one better. Coemgenus 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you forgot to add the ID#; the link isn't working. ShadowHalo 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, yes. I didn't quite understand the template. Should be working now. Coemgenus 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Perhaps we can use this article as one to compare to other presidents?--Wizardman 16:30, 28 February 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Wood Badge[edit]

Currently rated A-class by the ScoutingWikiProject. An article on an adult leader training program.Rlevse 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is a great article. I'm still reviewing it to look for little things that might be improved. I would like to see some citations in the lead. I know it is not mandatory, but I feel they are helpful in case a reader wants to validate a fact when they first encounter it. Please consider this an optional suggestion. Johntex\talk 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations as in references? According to WP:LEAD the lead should be summarizing the article and not go in depth (that's what the article sections are for). So it would simply not be appropriate to add footnotes or references to the details in the lead, as there oughtn't be any. I typically move them from the lead to the core sections of the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I'm aware of what WP:LEAD says. I agree it should not mention topics that are not found in the main body of the article. However, even if the lead is just summarizing what is said elsewhere in the article, the reader will still be encountering the fact first in the lead. For that reason, it makes sense to put footnotes in the lead. It will do no harm if the same footnote follows again in the main body of the article. Johntex\talk 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Had a rare computer glitch and lost a long reponse. Short response then: there are a number of places in the text with jarring surprises:
    • Clan Maclaren mentioned in the lead but it may not be obvious to a non-Scout why that is relevant.(fixed)
    • Date in format usually only found in notes.(huh?...fixed by you)
    • Gilmore field initially said to be purchased is later said to be donated. Confusing.(fixed)
    • It's ok, but I would probably have used the paragraph on the origin of the term "working your ticket" as the intro for that section(fixed)
    • Seems numbers should go before mention of annual reunion.(fixed)
    • Apparently "Camp Chiefs of Gilwell" is different from "the Camp Chief". Should be clearer. Also the link there uses an anchor, and the section heading in the target is different.(fixed)
    • First mention of "new curriculum" near end, without really explaining how different, other than it apparently replaces "program-specific" courses, which are also first mentioned here. What are they? The three references don't appear to say anything about replacing previous program-specific courses. Those refs (and some others) are rather schematic like a presentation slide, which isn't ideal either.(fixed, with new ref)
  • Will try to get back to this later. With the various scouting FAs and GAs, have you thought of organizing a featured topic? Gimmetrow 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working this, pls give a few days to fix.Rlevse 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
did not know about featured topic, good idea.Rlevse 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support quite nice with these new tweaks. Sumoeagle179 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article. Randy just beat me to it for nominating it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Image:GilwellLogo.svg - please provide a fair use rationale for this image. Rama's arrow 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneRlevse 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedians must strive to raise to FA status. Why? A vast majority of Wikipedia articles are just like this - small articles on non-grandiose, non-detailed, simple topics that nevertheless make an important part of the encyclopedia and an interesting read. Rama's arrow 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I completely agree with your idea here! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. This is a great article. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and I can find no problems with it. Johntex\talk 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another solid article. Reading through it briefly, I didn't see any big problems to fix. I'll admit that I wasn't too familiar with Wood Badge, though, and the whole "working the ticket" reference in the lede is difficult to understand. It kind of makes sense — I guess it's explained as a project — but then the phrase "attain ticket goals" again sounds a bit odd at first, until you substitute the word 'project' in your head. Not a huge deal, but I just think that ledes should always be an extremely strong section, as it's all that most people will bother to read. Tickets are explained later in the article, but at this point, it serves more to confuse the average reader who just peruses the lede. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "ticket or project" to "ticket, also project", that should help some. Rlevse 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't find anything wrong with it after a first look over, I'll go through again later and check the prose again. Seems to be FA quality. Darthgriz98 03:50, 28 February 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Hoysala architecture[edit]

Hoysala architecture article has been through a peer review. This architectural style which was developed by the Hoysala Empire (which is already a FA) is considered an unique idiom in the annals of medieval Indian architecture. Please provide positive feedback to help get this topic to FA status.Dineshkannambadi 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have replaced "famous" with "notable" in 2 section titles. Bit difficult for me to read the article at one go. So will comment more later. Added a citation needed tag. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-->Will provide citation.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. fixed redlink with stub pageDineshkannambadi 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In " Temple deities", These sequences go right to left, in the direction of circumambulation by devotees. But in next section (Temple complex), Devotees can first complete a ritual circumambulation on the jagati by walking in a clockwise direction before entering the mantapa, following the sculptural clockwise-sequenced reliefs on the outside temple walls depicting the Hindu epics. There is something wrong in the direction here. Or am I missing something?

Reply-> I have tried to clarify this after reading the line in my book. The term clockwise (which has been used for clarity and does apear in my book, Foekema page 25) must be seen as a top view. When a devotee gets on to the jagati, the devotee starts walking towards his/her left to see the sequence of scenes (my book calls it "right to left sequence of epic scenes in the direction of circumabulation".Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these temples have secular features with broad themes depicted in their sculptures — temples cannot have secular features, if we go by the strict sense of the word. Even in flexible sense of the word, having both Vishnu and Shiva as deities can hardly be considered as proof of secularism (Hindu and Muslim worship places together could have been considered!). However if some noted historian has used this word, please give citation.

Reply--> I have provided citation (#4) from Prof. Settar. In the 12th century, when Islam hardly had any impact on South India and Christianity had not made its presence yet, I suppose a temple with Vishnu/Shiva and Jain depictions are "relatively" considered secular, given the competition among devotees of these faith.Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The names of Shiva temples end with the suffix eshwara meaning Lord of. Does this sentence end with Of? This may be hard to follow for readers who are not acquainted with the structure of Indian languages. Another question, is it a norm that Vishnu temple does not end with eshwara?

Reply My book says Lord of. I can change it to Lord. In "Hoysaleswara" temple, the word means Lord of Hoysala (Foekema, p20). My book says while a Shiva temple can have the ending word esvara or eswara, or the name of a devotee or person who commissioned the temple, Vishnu temples only are named after the deity form of Vishnu (Krishna, Rama etc). I will add this info more accurately with citation. Provided citation.thanksDineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna avatar (playing a flute as Venugopala, dancing on the head of Kaliya the snake, lifting a mountain as Govardhana) — please try to wikilink. People who do not know about these avatars would not understand.--Dwaipayan

(talk) 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Reply-->wikilinked. Will create stubs where necessary.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->I will address all these issues tonight.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfirmation-->Foekema does call the direction of circumambulation as clockwise on one page and "right to left" on another. They both imply the same thing.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a really good article. But is a bit difficult to read and understand for me. I read the whole article, and had to read some parts repeatedly and compare with other sections in order to understand. I am not specifying any particular section. However, can it be somewhat simplified? It's tough read for someone who is not at all acquainted with the subject.
  • "Temple complex" — can this be made more lucid? And include what every word means (though those words are explained later in detail). For example, jagati is followed by "platform upon which the temple sits" within brackets, but mantapa does not have any explanation, though wikilinked. Please try to give the meanings of Indian words. This section is very important in order to understand the rest of the article.

Reply--> I have added bracketed clarifying phrases and wordingDineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could not properly understand open and close mantapa. Are they always coexistent? Or is it such that one temple may have a closed mantapa while another temple an open one? Suddenly in "pillars" section outer and inner mantapa (open and closed) have numerous circular lathe turned pillars — but so far in the article outer and inner mantapas have not been explained (or I may have missed the explanation).

Reply-->I have made edits to clarify your doubts. In large temples, the open mantapa serves as outer mantapa and the inner mantapa is the closed mantapa. In Smaller temples, the inner mantapa is all the temple has. So the concept of outer/inner does not arise. I have also copyedited the pillars section to improve readability. Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could not properly understand the relation of the shrine and Mantapa. Is vimana the roof of shrine only (The vimana is also called the cella and contains the shrine)? Or is it the roof of Mantapa (containing the shrine) also? In the former case, what's and how is the roof of mantapa? I shall try to give the article more detailed reading, and comment later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->the Vimana is the "Shrine" (inner sanctum, its outer decorated walls), the Garbhagriha would be inside of the Vimana where the Idol is placed. If there is only one shrine with a tower it is called Ekakuta vimana. If there are two shrines with two towers its called Dvikuta vimana and so on. The term Vimana has nothing to do with the mantapa. The tower on top of the shrine does not seem to have its own seperate designation. The tower on top of the entrance porch is the Gopuram.Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer you questions in detail tonight.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support this is a great article and I support subject to the author dealing with the addendum section and research notes the content of which should be either given a proper section header that describes the information dealt within the paragraphs, or that information should be incorporated into the text. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-->I will see how I can better format the "addendum" section.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The "Notable temples" section looks poorly formatted in lower resolutions. Also, the issue raised by Mcginnly needs to be addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-->I will take care of both issues.thanks.

Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done please review.Dineshkannambadi 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now the text is much easier to follow. The images are also well-incorporated in text. Just one comment. In some images, the caption may seem somewhat misleading. For example, in the section "Temple deities", one caption goes like this, "Shiva, Parvati, Nandi, Halebidu". A reader who does not know what these are may think that all are names of deities. I suggest using brackets for the name of the place. The caption would read like this, "Shiva, Parvati, Nandi; (Halebidu)", or,"Shiva, Parvati, Nandi; Halebidu", or,"Shiva, Parvati, Nandi at Halebidu". What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->doneDineshkannambadi 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. All outstanding issues have been resolved. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another gem by Dinesh. --Blacksun 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Excellent article! Very well written, with some real good pictures to illustrate. Would make a good history FA. - KNM Talk 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very well written article. -- Naveen (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Crusaders (rugby)[edit]

Self-nomination. This article has been progressively re-written over the last year. Achieved GA status some time ago and has undergone a peer review. The article is about a New Zealand Rugby union team that competes in the Super 14. Believe it is well referenced, NPOV, comprehensive and well-written. Thanks. - Shudda talk 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggest the opening paragraph drop the peacock words that have drawn the cite need tag maybe to something like
The Crusaders (formerly the Canterbury Crusaders) are a New Zealand rugby union team based in Christchurch, New Zealand.They compete in the Super 14, formerly the Super 12 and are the current champions. The franchise represents the Buller, Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, South Canterbury, Tasman, and West Coast provincial rugby unions with their home ground being Jade Stadium.
Besides this citation issue, a small copy edit that I've already done I didnt notice anything that would prevent me supporting this article (except its not the Western Force), once thats addressed I'll have another read. Gnangarra 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is correct, they are the most successful team in the competitions history. They have won it six times in it's eleven years. As well, they did win the 2006 Super 14. They've also lost two competition finals. I'll add a paragraph to the Super records and achievements section summarising their results. This will be cited. I'll then removed the citation tag in the lead. - Shudda talk 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done that. - Shudda talk 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support just dont tell any one in Perth ok 8) Gnangarra 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comprehensive, reads well and referenced. Nothing POV jumps out at me. choice Cas Liber 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above. This is good work Shudda.----HamedogTalk|@ 05:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Minor oppose for now, due to many minor problems. The article seems fairly well written overall, but is worded a bit too colloquially or clumsily in places. While gameplay is generally described using past tense (as it should be), present tense has occasionally crept in, along with some jargon. (I suspect some readers won't know what it means to say Mehrtens "landed" a penalty, for instance). Essential terms such as try and penalty should be wikilinked on first appearance, and others avoided. The article also needs a thorough copyedit: for example, there's a run-on sentence in the lead section, a few spelling mistakes (e.g. rouded, "then" for "than"), widespread misuse of apostrophes (e.g. games' and games instead of game's, Crusader's main home ground, a Crusaders' victory), and other punctuation problems. This is a well referenced and comprehensive article, and it's a shame that these details detract from it. -- Avenue 11:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll give the article a thorough copyedit during the weekend and try to address your concerns. I hope you can reserve your verdict until then. GringoInChile 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy to review it in a few days and reconsider my opinion then. -- Avenue 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've finished the copyedit. GringoInChile 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I'll review it again. -- Avenue 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found quite a few remaining problems, which I fixed, but I suspect I haven't caught everything. I'll have another look tomorrow. -- Avenue 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article's now looking much tidier. A few other concerns have come to my mind while combing through it, however:
                • Could the Team of the Decade table be considered a copyright violation? We don't really say much about it, which doesn't help our position.
                • There's no mention of the fans, apart from the 1998 parade. Is there anything worth noting about them?
                • Does the article go into too much detail in the history section? I think there's a case for reporting gameplay for a few especially notable games, but perhaps not every final.
-- Avenue 12:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the team of the decade is a copyright violation. I can't see how it would be. As for the fans, a lot of sports teams' articles have sections on 'supporters'. However I believe these are very prone to being POV. I've read a few books on the Crusaders, and the Super 12, and there is nothing really much said about the fans to warrant an entire section. If you have a more specific suggestion regarding what should be mentioned about fans or supporters then let me know, and I'll see if I can find something on it. I think the detail is fine in the history section. If the section gets much larger (so maybe after a couple more seasons), it could be split off into it's own article and summarised in this one. However I do believe having a nice summary of each of their finals is good, as its the most important match of that particular season. - Shudda talk 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept your view about the fans, and the level of detail in the history section. I'm almost ready to change my vote from Oppose to Support, but I'm still concerned about the team of the decade section. I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misunderstanding the situation, but it seems to me that there's enough originality in selecting such a team for it to be protected by copyright. If so, the same principles apply as for the copyrighted pictures used in the article; unless it has been freely licensed by copyright holder, there needs to be a sensible rationale for being able to claim fair use (although it might not need to written out explicitly). Based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text, I don't think it would currently qualify. -- Avenue 10:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how applicable Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text is because it is talking about quoting something (for example a sentence, or statement written in a newspaper article). However I have not quoted anything, but simply listed the team, and their positions. Unfortunately I'm just not sure whether this is copy-right, or comes under fair use. If someone with more expertise in this could help clarify this I'd really appreciate it. - Shudda talk 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help I'll describe the article. Firstly it introduces that there has been a competition for readers to pick their Crusaders team of the decade. It summarises what the readers voted on, and then lists the team picked by them. It also lists the team picked by the panel of experts (see the main article for who they were), and then the main body of the article is about how the panel decided who they would pick, and detailing their discussions as they made their decision. Then it lists all the votes for every player, and how many each got. There was a competition for a reader to pick the same team as the expert panel (I don't think any did, but the winner was who got the closest). I can't remember what the prize was. So basically what is included in the Crusaders article is only a small portion of the newspaper article about the team of the decade. Hopefully this helps. - Shudda talk 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the description of the Press article. You're right, the fact that their team is only a small part of the article helps establish a fair use defence. It might however be seen as the most important part of the article, which would make it harder to justify. I'll change my vote to just a minor oppose nonetheless.
We are effectively copying/quoting from their article by reproducing their team here. I suggest we make it clearer that this is for the purpose of comment, teaching, or scholarship by actually discussing their team in our article. (Simply saying who created it is not enough, although it's important for other reasons.) One possibility would be identify the most controversial positions, perhaps by highlighting differences between the readers' team with the experts' team, and say something about the players who were missed. For instance, were any of the omissions All Blacks? This would help demonstrate the abundance of talent within the Crusaders, and make more significant use of the team within our article (which would help satisfy our fair use policy). -- Avenue 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that sounds like a good idea. There is only one potential problem and that is one of original research. There is definitely a discussion of the team in the article, but i'm not sure how many other sources for it there will be. I'll get something together, even if it's only a couple of sentences (i know for example that the omission of Reuben Thorne was significant). - Shudda talk 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, have added a paragraph. Have a look at it and let me know what you think. - Shudda talk 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks great. I've changed my vote to support. -- Avenue 10:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did know there would be minor issues like that, but as I wrote 90% of the article its harder for me to spot them then someone else (less attached). So I really appreciate you doing a copy-edit GringoInChile. I did request a copy-edit from the League of Copyeditors, but its been sitting there for about a month now without any movement. - Shudda talk 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a first-pass copy-edit. Fixed a number of things. Want to take a fresh look in a day or so. Unimaginative Username 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fair use image Image:Blackadder1998.jpg adds little to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an image of the captain of the team raising the championship trophy. I could not disagree with you more. It illustrates the articles perfectly. JHMM13 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with JHMM13. This team was created with the sole purpose of winning that same trophy (lately its successor, the Super 14 trophy) and has been the most successful team ever in achieving this objective. This photo strongly encapsulates the very essence of the team. GringoInChile 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the fair use rationale I gave on the images description page; "Is a historically significant photo of a famous individual, Todd Blackadder holding Super 12 Trophy in 1998. Historically significant for several reasons; first Super 12 victory by Crusaders, first Super 12 victory by team other then Blues, first time Super 12 final not won by home team." I think this is a perfect example of where fair use applies. Also, this is the only fair use image in the article, so I wanted it to be a particularly significant image. - Shudda talk 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Let me know if its now acceptable. - Shudda talk 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it's ready now. GringoInChile 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe its well written and also well referenced..why not?..--Cometstyles 17:17, 1 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

T-26[edit]

A lot of hardwork and time has been put into this article; although I understand that hardwork and time are not on the featured article criteria, I think that the article meets most of the requirements. Admittedly, the prose may not be brilliant, but hopefully this FAC will help get it there. This article has gone through a good article review, A-class article review and a peer review. This is a self-nomination. JonCatalan 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you make a difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources? Wandalstouring 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources, it's safe to say that the majority of them are secondary. Even Baryantinskiy's Light Tanks is built principally on Soviet archival evidence (or, at least, he claims so - no sources are actually given, but sourcing is rare in almost every tank book I have) and information he himself knows from seeing the tank personally, but it's secondary. I don't think I have any 'tertiary' sources. Maybe the only primary source is Freezing in Hell which is an interview published in Military History magazine. Given the subject of the article I think primary sources regarding use of the tank in combat are hard to comeby, especially considering the wars the tank was involved in. I personally don't own any combat memoirs of the Spanish Civil War, and I don't think combat memoirs of Soviet soldiers and generals oftentimes mentioned a tank that was overshadowed by the T-34 in importance. In short, they are all secondary sources. JonCatalan 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Concerning unreferenced statements in the introduction, I felt that these were referenced in the body of the article and so didn't need to be referenced twice - especially since theoritical the body is also much more specific. There are a few statements at the end of paragraphs that I didn't feel needed a reference. Specifically (this is also for myself, so that I can make the changes when I get home):
  • The T-26, however, saw wide and valuable service during the Spanish Civil War. - This end of the paragraph leads into a section that details the use of the tank in the Spanish Civil War. All referencing is in that section.
  • Additionally, the Soviets would provide over 50 BT-5 fast tanks. - This sentence needs a reference (and will get one).
  • The T-26 would remain the backbone of the Spanish armoured forces until the beginning of American military aid in 1953. - This sentence is actually repeated twice, and is referenced the first time it's mentioned. However, the first sentence's context is different, but the point is the same. I guess I should remove either of the sentences, and reference the one that's left.
  • Given the lack of information on the latter upgrade attempts it is possible to deduct that both projects never got off the drawing board. - Is actually referenced the sentence before it. I'll move the reference in order to encompasse it all.
  • Its perceived success fatally influence post-Spanish Civil War Soviet military thinking as it proved ineffectual against advanced anti-tank weapons and better-armed tanks. - This sentence was meant to lead into the next section, but there is a new section between the two old sections. I'll reference it.
  • Below is a comparison of the different tanks used during the Spanish Civil War. - I don't think that requires a reference.
  • The debacle in Finland persuaded the Soviet Union to reassess the value of armour in an offensive war, but also made public serious weaknesses in the Red Army's armoured divisions which were not corrected until after the catastrophic losses of 1941 against invading German armour. - Agreed; requires a reference.
  • By the end of the year most surviving units of the T-26 had been reverted to other duties, including logistics, and were often used as chassis for new tank surrogates. - Requires a source.

JonCatalan 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sentences I mentioned above have been referenced, if needed. JonCatalan 01:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In the design section a paragraph comparing the T-26 with it's close relatives it's ancestor the Vickers 6-Ton and it's half-brother the 7TP would be very apreciated, Especialy since the T-26 and 7TP could have been used against each other. Mieciu K 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sorry, I didn't see this comment before. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources on the 7TP. I was tempted to use information on both the 7TP and Vickers 6-Ton Wiki articles, but they weren't referenced so I refraind. I did add a small paragraph that compared the T-26 to the Vickers 6-Ton, but it's hardly as deep as it could be if I had proper sources on these two tanks. JonCatalan 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mieciu K 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Regarding the links, I'll get to changing those to links. Concerning the Soviet military failures in Poland it doesn't imply that the Soviet Union was defeated, just that the campaign was in reality a failure for the Red Army. But I'll make that sentence more specific. JonCatalan 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second Response I added the source where you asked for it - hope that makes a difference. Regarding the dubious tag on the sentence which reads: Although the offensive against Japanese forces infiltrating Mongolia was an unexpected success following Soviet military set-backs in Poland[45] and Finland[46], despite the ultimate Soviet victories in both cases, it became apparent that the T-26 was obsolete against newer tanks, including the Japanese Type 97 Chi-Ha, the older Type 89 Chi-Ro and German tanks which were showcased in Poland, such as the Panzer III and Panzer IV. That sentence doesn't directly say that the T-26 proved to be a failure, it says it became obsolete when compared to other tanks, such as the Japanese and and German tanks listed. I expanded the reference, including reasons why the comment is made and a source used by Glantz (which is Soviet), and hopes that justifies removing the dubious tag which I think is not necessary. However, I truly appreciate the help in improving the article! JonCatalan 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am always happy to nitpick. My point is that while the Winter War was certainly a near-defeat for the Red Army, and while the Germans PIII and PIVs that Soviets saw in September 1939 in Poland might have given them a pause for thought, the Soviets suffered almost none military setbacks in the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Without going into details (yes, they did suffer a defeat or two), comparing the hell of Winter War with the September walkhtrough (not that suprising considering they were invading an unsuspecting foe who stripped that part of the border from virtually anything) is confusing, and thus the sentence above needs to be reforumlated. I will give it a shot.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit you made is fine. Any other objections? JonCatalan 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a member of Military history I believe that this would make a very good featured article. Zazzer

  • Comment The pictures and the article tend to go back-and-forth over the tank designations (T26A, T26 Model 1931 etc.). I think it would be better if you used one nomenclature for the entirety (where possible) of the article and listed alternate designations only in the variant section. Oberiko 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but in regards to the pictures I think it's necessary. Some pictures show the tank with two turrets - somebody using the article as a source can mistake it for a later model tank; I think it's important to distinguish. When used in the design section it's meant to distinguish when certain upgrades took place. JonCatalan 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. Mainly because of the quotes at the beginning of some sections. They are unencyclopedic. They don't help the article at all and could even be seen as a way to introduce a POV to an otherwise very neutral article. But there are a few more minor concerns:
    • "Soviet Experimental Design department" should be linked not its acronym OKMO, even if the article it will be linked to is titled OKMO. You always link the "real" name of something not the acronym in parentheses.
    • "Around 1,627 tanks with twin turrets were produced between 1931 and 1933, and 450 were armed with the 37 mm PS-1." This sentence should make it clear that its referring to T-26A tanks.
    • I'm not sure about this one: but shouldn't it be "better-known" rather than "more well-known"?
    • The term "unfortunately" is extremely POV. It absolutely has to be removed. Same thing for the word "catastrophic".
    • I don't really understand why you organized the sections the way you did. There is both a section named "Inter-war years and the Second World War" and another one called "Second World War", which doesn't make any sense. Why not make the "Second World War" section as sub-section of the "Inter-war years and the Second World War" section?
  • I would be happy to make a support out of this, but I think these issues have to be addressed before the article can become an FA.--Carabinieri 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the quotations, this would not be the first article with quotes to be featured. The T-34 article has been featured twice, and it includes quotes - in fact, there were a great deal of compliments. The link to OKMO has been changed accordingly. Regarding the T-26A and making sure readers know of what type of tank 1,672 were built, the article never states that there was a T-26B until after, so I would have thought that the reader could have assumed that the figure referred to what variant was being discussed at that point in time - but I will make it clearer. I changed the wording to better known accordingly, as well. Unfortunately was removed completely and catastrophic was exchanged for large-scale. The headings were corrected and 'Second World War' was removed completely from the heading, as that heading never discusses the Second World War - I don't know why I made that mistake. I think the only thing remaining are the quotes, as I'd like to get the opinion of others. It's strange that this didn't come up during the candidacy of the T-34 article. The quotes used in the T-34 article are much more NPOV than the ones I use in the T-26 article. For example:
    • "The technological pace-setter of World War II tank design" —Steven Zaloga et al. (1997:3)

Really, the three quotes used in the T-26 article, IMO, are not suggesting a certain point of view. JonCatalan 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are precedents for articles using quotations passing FA. Had I participated in those FAC discussions I probably would have objected to them being granted FA status with the quotations in place. My question to you, however, is: How do those quotations improve the article at all? I only find them distracting and I think they mar what is otherwise a really good article (besides those few issues I mentioned above and some missing wikilinks I'm going to add myself soon).--Carabinieri 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I think that the quotations do contribute to the article. It may not be a completely "educational" contribution, as the quotes can be erased and the reader not lose any of the information from the article, but I think the quotations give a little life to an otherwise uniform article - like most Wikipedia articles. At least, this was an attitude shared by many during the FAC of the T-34 article. It seemed to have regenerated interest within the reader on the subject matter. In that sense, I do think they improve the article. I really would like for some other people to share their opinion on the subject on quotations in articles, and so we could perhaps get a general consensus. Besides that, I think most of the issues you brought up (and I forgot to thank you for reading and helping me correct those errors) have been corrected. JonCatalan 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those points have been addressed. So I'll switch to a weak support. This article is great, but those quotations do bother me. Do you think it would be possible to integrate them into their respective sections? I think that would be a lot better.--Carabinieri 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to do that. JonCatalan 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well all my concerns have been addressed. Strong support.--Carabinieri 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and for your patience. JonCatalan 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I copy edited this during A-Class review and was very impressed with the scope and referencing of the article. I see all the kinks it had then have been ironed out and I am happy to support.--Jackyd101 23:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Glad to see the process continued to improve the article. Great stuff (and I like the blue box idea to seperate comments, I'm gonna' steal it). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Good work on the article, very informative.UberVash 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 1 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Paul Collingwood[edit]

Worked on by a devoted cadre of editors, (User:The Rambling Man probably put in the most time and effort) and thoroughly referenced, peer reviewed and copy edited, this has been a wonderful example of how a collaboration can take a B class article onwards and upwards in a very short time. We are hoping to secure FA status in time for the start of the Cricket World Cup. --Dweller 13:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I was asked to copyedit this at a late stage (yesterday) - and no doubt infelicities remain - but I think this is pretty close to the definitive article on a modern cricket player. Again, it would be particularly welcome if editors who are not cricket afficionados can review this to tell us what needs further explanation or clarification. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Despite my inability to grasp the finer details of the sport, I've tried my best to understand cricket in the past. From what I know, this article seems to be a damn good cricket article. My only question is why you wikilink Cricinfo in some places and not others, and why you don't wikilink things like BBC Sport. Thanks, JHMM13 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment good point, on oversight... I'll look into it immediately! The Rambling Man 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hopefully fixed and consistent now! The Rambling Man 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - So much work has gone into this, and with few cricket FA's and the world cup coming up, we could do with some. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well-written, well-referenced article. Great work.--Eva bd 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at the moment. It seems very comprehensive and is surprisingly readable considering the vast amount of jargon and statistics necessary. However, there is a lack of consistency with spelling out numbers, the date format, and linking (for example Sri Lanka mentioned five times, linked three, Durham lots of mentions, linked once, Twenty20 linked every time). I found the lead tough going: introducing ODI as a term without explanation or a link, combined with some trivia that is not mentioned in the rest of the article, and a mention of "latter matches" which takes some working out (I assume that refers to the ODIs?) Why is natural athlete in quotation marks? There is also some language in the rest of the article that sounds like it belongs on the sports pages: "starred with the bat", "sprayed wide by Steve Harmison" (can you spray a ball?). Fix those and I'll support. Yomanganitalk 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did copyedit once, you know :) We will have to tighten up the areas you have mentioned.
  • I had assumed that the "natural athelete" was a quote from the cited source, but we should confirm.
  • Sri Lanka is linked to three different places (the team once, and two different tours)
  • Twenty20 is mentioned several times but only linked twice (perhaps one is enough?)
  • there are links to the city of Durham, County Durham, and Durham CCC - do you think we need more Durham links?
  • "Sprayed" is a common description of Harmison's performance (although spraying one delivery - the first ball - would be difficult without getting quantum)
  • Having checked again, I think the numbers are reasonably consistent - more than 10 in numerals, less than 10 spelled out (except for compounds like "2-1" and "number 5").
Anyway, I have made some tweaks. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Natural athlete" is a quote from the reference - it's the first words of Cricinfo's profile of Collingwood (below the stats). Thanks for the excellent review Yomangi; clear and precise. --Dweller 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some more number inconsistencies - I think they are all OK now. I didn't notice the Sri Lanka links were to different places, so it isn't as bad as I thought, but there are still inconsistencies in linking. Each subject should probably be linked once or every time, but not twice in two lines and then not linked elsewhere. The lead is clearer now, but the info about his shirt number is trivia that doesn't belong there. Yomanganitalk 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt number information hidden. Agreed, it's tacky and not particularly useful, as he's not beholden to it and spectators can see his name on his shirt in ODIs anyway. --Dweller 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting better. With regard to readability by non-cricket fans, I'm not a fan and I don't find it particularly hard to follow. It's hard to strike a balance between the dummies guide to cricket and an article on a cricketer, and I think you have it about right. My remaining problems: Harmison is still spraying that first ball wide (I would have fixed it but I don't understand it, I assume he is bowling?), and on a second reading I noticed that we don't get to know the effect of the "sledging" by Warne in the Fifth Test (I was sidetracked by the link the first time): it doesn't even give Collingwood's score for that test. Yomanganitalk 10:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased the spray - yes, it did mean bowling well wide so rephrased it accordingly. I've also added in that Colly had a mediocre Fourth Test while Warne made a very tidy 70-odd with some impressive boundaries...The Rambling Man 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my objections have been addressed and the added comparison between the performance of the "sledger" and "sledgee" is a nice touch. Yomanganitalk 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly the article is POV. It has sections focussing on 05/06 when he was batting better and skips through most of his time in the early years, only elaborating on good performances, compared to other cricketers which have all tours mentioned equally. Secondly the nominator seems to have a conflict of interest, hoping to get the page posted for the cricket world cup, which is clearly POV to the english team (why Collingwood and not a more famous world renowned out-side of cricket cricketer?). I believe the majority of this article is unnecessary detail. There is a literally a section for each tour he has undertaken from 05/06. This is rediculous given that over the career of a cricket player these tours are common. By the time Collingwood retires if this level of detail was still in the article it would be about 20 or 30 times as big as it is now. It is unlikly to even be stable considering the world cup and tours that will take place over march to june, so unless it is FA in the next week it will most definatly be UNSTABLE and a reporting on current events.--Dacium 03:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerns you raise in the first sentence will be addressed. The rest is less relevant. The reason why Collingwood was selected is not important and its future stability is mere speculation (he could retire tomorrow, for all we know) and is a reason to deny any living person's bio. For what it's worth, Adam Gilchrist (an Australian) is already receiving the same treatment and Harbhajan Singh (India) is next in the queue. --Dweller 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose -- 1. Personal life needs to be expanded. 2. Still needs a copyedit by a person not very familiar with cricket to remove weasel adjectives 3. Convert hyphens to dashes (&ndash;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - What more personal life information is needed? He's a pretty quiet guy and his personal life is pretty nn. 2 is a great idea - one of the reasons we went to peer review. If you can list any weasel adjectives, that'd be helpful. Is 3 a requirement; useful to know, that can easily be changed. --Dweller 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Parents' names. Early childhood, if he has an alternate career. Shane Warne has a bit more on his personal life. 3) Yes it is a requirement. See WP:DASH. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colly's a professional cricketer so, no, no alterative career, father's name in there now, plenty of talk about pre-professional career as well. The Rambling Man 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed all the hyphens to –'s where appropriate, obviously not in hyperlinks or wikilinks, but everywhere else, hope this satisfies your concern over WP:DASH. Thanks. The Rambling Man 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the personal life bit is too short. I found a reference [53] which could expand the section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life expanded a bit more now to incoporate your source, thank you. There really isn't much more to say, his early life is pretty unremarkable, it's his recent few years of outstanding form that's the major driver in this article I think. The Rambling Man 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences in the paragraph are too choppy unfortunately for me to support. It needs to flow better. ALoan might be able to help out with the flow perhaps. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Choppiness hopefully removed, more information added. The Rambling Man 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not happy with the flow in the text in quite a number of places. I'll probably step in tomorrow and make the changes. For example, the starting few words of a section look like they have been continued from the previous section, which is bad style. He subsequently kept his place; Upon this newfound success -- =summer of breakthroughs= is also on the poetic side. Collingwood toured with England to Pakistan and India in 2005–06. He played in the... -- choppy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, the chances are the paragraphs have been moved from one section to another without their flow being checked. It would be great if you could make the changes you're looking to see, if you have time. The Rambling Man 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few more changes in accordance with your latest comments. Thanks again The Rambling Man 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've removed my oppose vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Oppose What's with these blank columns and rows in the tables of his stats. Buc 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's down to seperating the rows and columns, but we can easily have a look at alternatives (e.g. removing these blanks). The Rambling Man 08:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blanks removed. The Rambling Man 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like the lead to give more of an evolution of his career, like explain when he first played 1st class, and then move onto when he broke into international cricket and became a regular. At the moment, I guess his career hasn't been that long (in Tests), but it sort of just states the CB series out of the blue. I think the numbering of his order in playing for England is too unimportant for the first bit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the numbering out into the main body of text in the appropriate locations for each style of debut The Rambling Man 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added details of when he debuted at each level of cricket in the lead. The Rambling Man 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)''[reply]
  • Support and Comment. As someone who is a fan of this man and someone who has kept the page somewhat decent shape before the Extreme Makeover, everyone else who helped are all complete stars. --209.90.173.40 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent cricketer article and well refereed; 104 refs...This is FA...--Thugchildz
  • Support It's a very good article. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As mentioned above "Early and personal life" needs expantion, also can we not have a better title for it? Maybe "Domestic career" could be expaned a little. Buc 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you've opposed already by the way. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 07:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look to expand the domestic career section a bit, but really see not a lot of interest in expanding his personal life section. It's almost non-notable and pretty much covered in its entirety already. The Rambling Man 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both sections expanded. The Rambling Man 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article :) 131.111.195.8 01:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been through this article a number of times and I feel it meets the criteria. Kudos to The Rambling Man and Dweller for polishing it so quickly. HornetMike 21:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Need to be some mention of the controversy surrounding his MBE. Buc 14:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple of mentions of this - eg There was some critical comment, that his limited role did not warrant the honour as he had played only in the Fifth Test and scored just 17 runs in 2 innings at the end of "Ashes 2005" - have you missed them, or do you think that they need to be expanded? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't had time to assess the article fully, but you have now changed too many hyphens to en dashes. Phrases such as "One-day International" should use simple hyphens. En dashes are used in number ranges. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I wasn't convinced that use of en-dashes was truly sufficient to withold an article from becoming FA, but I'll re-assess WP:DASH and then re-assess the article. Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent cricketer article. Should be made an FA. Well done.--Eva bd 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you've already voted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Are all objections properly addressed? I can't see any remaining, and Rambling Man has fixed the dashes that were incorrectly corrected! If there are outstanding concerns, please clarify - I think we're done. --Dweller 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A fine article on a fine cricketer. Includes everything I might want to know about the man without getting bogged down in trivia. One question: After the debacle of the Adelaide Test, did Collingwood not come in for criticism for failing to protect the English tail in the second innings?—DCGeist 01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, he did, and it's a good point. I'm trying to find a citation that would support this so I can include it in the article. Thanks. The Rambling Man 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's criticised in a number of blogs but nothing that would count as a reliable source I don't think. If you can point me in the direction of a useful citation, that'd be great. The Rambling Man 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I'll take a look at the sources you've provided and add some text about some discussion about this scenario. The Rambling Man 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added two ref's to the article, thanks for your help and good sourcing. The Rambling Man 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pleasure. Looks great. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 11:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent article. A couple of points:
1.One question from 'Early and Personal life' - can the reference to Shep be referenced? It stood out as lacking one [personally when I hear Shep in cricketing circles I think of David Shepherd anyway!] Also is there an indication on why he is called this - is it due to his fielding abilities?
2. The reference to Jonty Rhodes came out of the blue without saying what Jonty is notable for (if I didn't know anything about cricket, I wouldn't know why this is, but I suppose I could just click on the link!). Am I also right in thinking that for FA, anything mentioned in the lead should be expanded elsewhere?
  • Quite so, moved reference to Jonty into the text and left the conept of Colly being a top class fielder in the lead. The Rambling Man 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Could a reference to his injuries be added somewhere? I seem to remember his missing a lot of one recent domestic season with a fractured collar-bone, and another persistent knee injury (that is in article).
All minor points though. Well done to all.
  • No sign of a fractured collarbone, but he badly dislocated his shoulder, this is referred to in the article along with him missing most of the season The Rambling Man 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mdcollins1984 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: point 1 - both of these nicknames were referenced, but this seems to have been lost when the content was shifted a while ago. I'll look into this. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have fixed this. Cricinfo lists "Colly", and I think that The Cricketer's Who's Who lists "Shep" - could whoever owns the book please check this? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's me. I own the book and that's where it came from. I think it's quite funny and unusually ingenious for an English cricket nickname. --Dweller 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly beats the usual surname+y (goughy, harmy, hoggy etc...) Mdcollins1984 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very interesting read! - KNM Talk 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another break[edit]

I don't want to sound like an auctioneer, but "all done?" --Dweller 09:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still support and everything, but I was just wondering whether Collingwood ever went on any England A tours? Or perhaps youth tours, although that'd be harder to find out. Oh, and actually whilst I think about it, was his call-up to the Sri Lanka test tour on which he made his debut the first test squad he was called up to? Should have thought of these when the peer review was on, really... HornetMike 00:43, 3 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Wesley Clark[edit]

Very, very old previous FAC

There were a lot of issues brought up in the old nom that are now moot. Nomination reset. Raul654 04:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support again, still seems good to me. Trebor 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — engagingly written and well laid out with interesting photographsAhadland 13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note It's been replaced with a png version per request. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What? It's an image purposefully distributed to be reused, so it's not like the fair use is contentious. Beyond that, it's a campaign sign for a campaign section. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to believe this fair use image does not add substantially to the article. I suggest you replace it with an image that shows a campaign appearance, perhaps? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That things have been done wrong in the past does not make doing them wrong again ok. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why do you alone get to redefine what fair use is? Fair use is clearly allowed to include an image, such as a logo, that is freely distributed to represent the subject. That's exactly what this is. Heck, even Barack Obama shows his campaign sign. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not. Review Wikipedia:Fair use criteria - "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." This image does not contribute significantly to the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to sound argumentative, but yes you are. Why does {{logo}} exist? The fair use is specifically stipulated there, "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Unless you're suggesting that every image under Category:Logos be deleted, you are arbitrarily picking this particular logo out. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not suggested deleting logos from articles about the campaigns themselves, rather from the bios of the candidates. I'm also focused on fair use in featured article candidates, which this is, not on not-featured-article candidates. Our best should be free as in speech, not free as in beer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is the effective article on Wesley Clark presidential campaign, 2004, but it is not broad enough to warrant it's own article (John Kerry and George Bush are the only such articles I know of). It exemplifies the section, it is used exactly as the fair use template dictates, identical images in identical situations have been used in other featured articles. Please do not try and act like this is you voting based on policy, this is your opinion, which is not an actionable complaint. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oppose stands. Replaceable fair use should be replace. Decorative fair use should be removed. This is both. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then your objection is not actionable and I'll let Raul handle it whenever the FAC is closed. It is not replacable as there is no free way to display a campaign logo (though, just for you, the next time the woman I've been talking to emails me about photos I'll ask if WesPAC can release this particular logo image) and it is no more decorative than any other logo. So I expect you to propose, at the Village Pump most likely, that every single logo image be deleted or else this is just an arbitrary oppose. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, two actions you could take would be to replace the fair use image (you did that, but apparently you MUST MUST MUST have the image in) or remove the fair use image. Are those not actions? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have asked User:Persian Poet Gal for an independant administrator's opinion on the issue, and I will not comment further until she has to avoid violating WP:DICK. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest if you cannot keep a level head you either remove the image, thus fully satisfying me, or withdraw the FAC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not lost a level head... I asked for independant review, the proper next step when two parties cannot reach an agreement... Staxringold talkcontribs 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would be better if this image could be uploaded in the PNG file format. Harryboyles 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If only for the work that has been done since it was nominated. Harryboyles 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The entire article is nothing but campaign propaganda. Staxringold even deletes, repeatedly, the usual non-partisan links (such as FEC campaign finance records) in External links. Instead we are treated to old campaign websites and someone's personal blog about Clark. Flatterworld 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Usual such as in what featured article? Because unless I'm mistaken, trimming external links to as slim as possible is a very basic requirement for good articles. I'm not being biased, I'm trying to keep this already very long article trimmed. I'm removing the Wes Clark Democrat now, just to make it clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Look at the politicians included in Featured articles - Politics and government, such as FDR, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. 'Slim as possible' doesn't mean taking out everything, regardless of merit. It means don't include spam and don't include material of only slight relevance. Flatterworld 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added back some of the links to keep it trimmed, but with the campaign contribution site and such to keep it fair. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better. Change my Oppose to a Support. Flatterworld 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some copy editing to the article and if the one citation needed tag I added to the 2004 Presidential campaign section is addressed, I would be happy to offer my support to the article gaining FA staus. It meets all criteria. Good job to those who worked on it. Regards, --Jayzel 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jayzel 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For the completeness, fully documented sources, and NPOV writing stance, this should be an example of where Wikipedia should go in the future. --CTwikipedier 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good. Minor issue, though: while I appreciate the desire to use named ref tags, the situation with notes 32–37 is simply atrocious. Could you please combine those into a single note? Kirill Lokshin 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, I'll do that now. It is quite a long line of refs when they're one by one. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I certainly learned something from that article after reading it. It's very well-written, very well-cited, neutral and stable. I don't see a reason why not to support it. JonCatalan 21:51, 1 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Iguanodon[edit]

This article on a well-known genus of dinosaur is a product of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team, the same group who created Featured Articles Stegosaurus, Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, and others. This article is currently one of Wikipedia's longest articles on dinosaurs. Article is sourced with 84 references, mostly from primary scientific sources (over 260 cites altogether). A FAC reviewer went over the text to work out the last kinks. I find the prose compelling, and it is hard to imagine an article more comprehensive or factually accurate. The article presents now-discredited views (200 years of changing theories) but does not give undue weight. This article is not the subject of edit wars and is stable. Appropriate images are peppered throughout. In short, this is one of the best dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As the dino collaboration coordinator and (minor) contributor to the article I fully support its nomination. I feel it has stepped up a notch from the previous 3 successful FAs listed above. cheers Cas Liber 07:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe not T. rex... ;) Spawn Man 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As you might agree though, the votes received from the dinosaur wikiproject may be a bit biased. However, this is one case when you can put that thought out of your mind. This article is top notch & needs not cabal to back it up. Indeed it is the largest dinosaur genera article (non-enthusiast's eyes glaze over), & the article is very well written. I doubt there will be much, if any, corrections to be made during the course of this FAC. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely one of the best, if not THE best dinosaur articles around. Loads of citations, great informational writing. Very very big support.Communist47 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets all of the FA criteria. Mgiganteus1 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Moral Support to avoid any appearance of conflict of interestSupport as contributor. It's about as comphrensive as we can get on the topic without straying into mindnumbing detail, well-illustrated, provides citations, and it's an interesting dinosaur with a long history. J. Spencer 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who has contributed the most to this article, by volume of material and number of edits, it does not seem fair for me submit a full !vote, but as someone who has experience and knowledge concerning the topic, it also does not seem fair to have no vote but a negative. I would feel differently about it if I had been the nominator, but in this case, I choose not to lard up the discussion. I will be around to address concerns, and would like to see a qp10qp copy edit or two to get a feel for the suggested changes in style. If the article's FA-quality, it'll succeed without my !vote. J. Spencer 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well-cited and comprehensive. Definitely meets the criteria. Good job! - Anas Talk? 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons above. Comprehensive, well-cited, illustrated, etc... Oaxaca dan 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's impressive how many good dinosaur articles are there... igordebraga ≠ 16:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellent article. Qp10qp comments do need to be addressed however. CloudNine 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. How could I not support such a thorough, detailed article: it's definitely a tour de force, of a sort. However, I'm surprised at the complacency of the above comments. The two difficulties I had with the article were a clunky, sometimes ungrammatical, prose style and a tendency to descend in places into unreadability through too dense a use of technical and Latin terms. I also feel that the article is far too long at over 60 kb. If it was left to me, I'd address that by offloading the "Reassigned species" and "Dubious species" sections into a summary-style daughter article, particularly as these sections are really about non-iguanodons when you come down to it. They are also some of the worst for unreadability, containing material like this:

I. atherfieldensis, described by R.W. Hooley in 1925,[28] was smaller and less robust than I. bernissartensis, with longer neural spines. It was renamed Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis in 2006.[40] I. exogyrarum (also spelled I. exogirarum or I. exogirarus) was described by Fritsch in 1878. It is a nomen dubium based on very poor material and has been reassigned, by George Olshevsky, to Ponerosteus.[47]

I. foxii (also spelled I. foxi) was originally described by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 as the type species of Hypsilophodon; Owen (1873 or 1874) reassigned it to Iguanodon, but his assignment was soon overturned.[48]I. hollingtoniensis (also spelled I. hollingtonensis), described by Lydekker in 1889, is a synonym of I. fittoni. I. prestwichii (also spelled I. prestwichi), described by John Hulke in 1880, has been reassigned to Camptosaurus prestwichii. I. seeleyi (also spelled I. seelyi), described by Hulke two years after I. prestwichii, has been synonymized with I. bernissartensis. I. suessii, described by Emanuel Bunzel in 1871, has been reassigned to Mochlodon suessi.[1]

I feel that at such times this article forgets it is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry for the general reader. Far too many technical terms are introduced during the article without explanation (I don't believe linking is enough)—for example, the article takes for granted that the reader will know what a "clade" is, and I didn't. A Wikipedia article should explain its technical terms as it goes along, so I felt I was being catered for much better by sentences like:

The three toed pes (foot) of Iguanodon was relatively long, and when walking, both the hand and the foot would have been used in a digitigrade fashion (on the fingers and toes).[1]

Overall, I believe the general reader will be most interested in the discoveries and in the descriptions of the iguanodon's appearance, movements, feeding habits, etc. some of which was left rather late in the article (the article took me over an hour to read), by which time I fear some readers will have been put off.

The language rather wore me out. Often antecedents were unclear and grammar blurry, producing a wearying effect. An example would be:

As one of the first named dinosaur genera, numerous species have been assigned to Iguanodon.

Clearly the opening phrase is misattached to the subject of the sentence. However, I can't expect this generalised comment to be actioned without my making a long list of examples, and so I will maybe have a go at copyediting the article myself, sometime.

I hope these remarks don't take away from my vote of support for the article. We'd clearly be nuts not to feature an article containing this much valuable information. qp10qp 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the splitting off of the species section of the article have been moved to the talk page, for further discussion.

Support - excellent article. And hey if the article provides as much info as possible and is well written who says it must be short? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Firstfron of Ronchester, who said this above: "Because long parentheticals tend to disrupt the flow of the sentence, making it difficult to understand what is being said, I truly prefer using a wikilink on words which require a lengthier explanation."

I don't agree that a phrase of explanation would make it difficult to understand what is being said; quite the opposite, especially if it's a literal translation of the Greek. It's recommended Wikipedia practice to explain technical words as we go along, and wikilinks don't satisfy that recommendation, in my opinion. I've just had a look at the article with a view to maybe copyediting it, and the task really is quite daunting: I already have a row of wikilinked tabs open and a row of dictionary tabs. Finding the meaning of the wikilinked words purely from wikipedia is not as straightforward as it should be. Take the first sentence of the article:

Iguanodon (IPA pronunciation /ɪˈgwɑːnəˌdɒn/ or /ɪˈgwænəˌdɒn/, meaning "Iguana tooth") is the name given to a genus of ornithopod dinosaur which lived roughly halfway between the early hypsilophodontids and their culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs.

I looked up ornithopod and got an entry which started:

Ornithopods are a group of ornithischian dinosaurs who started out as small, cursorial grazers ...

More wikilinks to check out! I looked up hypsilophodontid, and got:

Hypsilophodonts were small ornithopod dinosaurs. The group traditionally has included almost all ornithopods other than iguanodonts, but recent phylogenetic analyses have found that the group is mostly paraphyletic and the taxa within usually represent a stepwise arrangement leading up to Iguanodontia (Weishampel et al., 2003; Norman et al, 2004). Thus, the only certain member at this time is Hypsilophodon.

None of this stuff helped me. My next stop therefore was dictionaries, and they proved more helpful—so now I know that ornithopods are "bird-footed" dinosaurs and hypsilophodonts are small, swift-running bipedal dinosaurs (and that hypsilo means "crested"). I think it would be nicer if the readers of the article had easy access to such helpful descriptions; after all, that same first sentence willingly gives us "duck-billed" for hadrosaurs, a helpful decision which saved me a third detour. qp10qp 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qp10qp,
I'm opposed to sentences like"
"Iguanodon (IPA pronunciation /ɪˈgwɑːnəˌdɒn/ or /ɪˈgwænəˌdɒn/, meaning "Iguana tooth") is the name given to a genus (a scientific classification higher than species) of ornithopod ("bird-footed") dinosaur which lived roughly halfway between the early hypsilophodontids (small swift-running bipedal dinosaurs) and their culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs.
Well, I'm opposed to sentences like that, too. qp10qp 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mult-parenthetical sentences like this break up the flow of a sentence, making it nearly impossible to figure out what is being said. Not to mention they cause the length of a sentence to exceed the recommended length. Further, a sentence like the above is problematic. For example, the "bird-footed" dinosaurs didn't give rise to the birds. Should that, then, also be explained in the opening paragraph of Iguanodon?! Why should the definition of genus appear in the Iguanodon article? Why should hysilophodonts be explained, when Iguanodon wasn't one? This article is about Iguanodon. This article is not about hypsilophodonts, genera, or ornithopods. It touches on them because that is required to explain Iguanodon, but summary style tells us when an article gets large, it's best to move the material best suited to another article into another article. You are free to edit the article as you see fit, but I am worried from your description above the parenthetical nightmare this article may turn into. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I perked up Hypsilophodont and Ornithopod a bit in their lead sections? No one really wants to see a number of parenthetical statements. Readers get lost easily in such cases, and it looks unprofessional, like a number of asides. Those specific cases were more faults with the other articles than the one at hand, and unfortunately not all of the dinosaur articles have had as much attention as this one. I guess one just has to trust the other articles; that's why we have them, so we don't have to keep redefining paraphyletic on every page it's used. If you tell me the links that are bothering you, I'll spruce up the pages. J. Spencer 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me repeat that this is an excellent article. I wouldn't dream of lousing it up. When it comes to language, I'm an Orwellian:

  1. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  2. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  3. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  4. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  5. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Trust me on the last one. I'm not going to do anything barbarous. (I may not do anything at all.) I'd only change something if I thought it would be better, and that would involve using fewer words, not more. By the way, parentheses aren't necessarily the best idea, I agree: clear, explanatory writing might be, using good old-fashioned subordinate clauses. qp10qp 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of another issue, but how's the introduction for hypsilophodont now? I may not always be the best for this; I just sent out an article for review to a journal that forbids first-person pronouns, so sometimes my gearshift gets stuck. J. Spencer 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's excellent now; it does the job. I'm going to stop nagging you guys. I'm just a language nerd. qp10qp 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal. I want this article to be as clear as possible, and anything relating to the taxonomy/classification or anatomy is going to be new to a lot of people as it is. I went through the lead and changed some of it. (Someone should have caught "paraphyletic clade," as by definition a clade can't be paraphyletic!) J. Spencer 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did some minor tweaking per WP:MOS, etc. trimmed some redundant wording, and made a few other fixes. I have no problems supporting now. — Brian (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It would be nice to have a diagram that illustrated how some anatomical feature evolved from the hypsilophodontids through the Iguanodon to the duck-billed dinosaurs, supporting the comment in the opening paragraph that the Iguanodon lies approximately "half-way" through ornithopod evolution. Bluap 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a nice addition, although I'm wondering right now how to do it while showing but not telling. There are changes in size, the hand structure, how the teeth are arranged...now that I'm thinking about it, some sort of chart would be particularly good on Ornithopoda...hmm... J. Spencer 03:01, 28 February 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Hamersley, Western Australia[edit]

Currently rated GA (as of 7 weeks ago), and has gone through a peer review and an exhaustive rewriting process. Special effort has been undertaken to ensure the article is inline-sourced, using the cite.php system of citation, and that all available literature has been consulted through the State Library of Western Australia. Nearly all the images are photographs taken or drawings made by myself, with only one image having been taken directly from an external source - all are appropriately tagged and have information sections. It also fills a gap in the online literature on this subject. The article is 54 kb, although a large part of this is because of the extensive citations. I hope that this article is worthy of FA status, and I am happy to work through any points raised in this review. Orderinchaos 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I am personally aware of the significant work Orderinchaos78 and others have put in, and I applaud his efforts on research and fact checking regarding it's content. I have taken the time to review the article, and I cannot find any issues that would cause it not to meet the Featured article criteria. In the interests of disclosure, I will note that I have awarded the user in question the geography barnstar for his efforts on this and a significant number of other articles relating to suburbs around Perth, Western Australia. thewinchester 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been doing some small amount of flow editing on this article over the past weeks and finally read the whole thing though. It's comprehensive, accurate and a good read. Very well referenced, no WP:MOS issues I can see and overall meets the Criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was asked to review this article and I edited some of the content for grammar, wording and readability, and rewrote the Early History section. The last thing I did was checked all the references for broken links. This article gives a thorough treatment to the subject and also is very solidly referenced, with no WP:MOS issues. I believe this meets the criteria --DanielT5 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've reviewed this a number of times offered suggestions on formating and wording where necessary. OIC has done a wonderful job producing this article which covers the subject completely has appropriate images and all WP:STYLE requirements are addressed. Gnangarra 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Endorse all of the comments above. Todd661 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well done, a truly encyclopaedic entry on the suburb and a great template for the rest of us Aussies who want to write up their suburbs (heehee) cheers Cas Liber 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent work, well done. Can you put the surrounding suburb names on the suburb map in the appropriate places? JROBBO 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nice idea in principal but I think it's fair to suggest this is not necessary, particularly since the information on surrounding suburbs is done in a compass format and could easily be related by the average user to the map. thewinchester 07:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This truly good article clearly deserves to be classified as FA. It is well written, well cited, and most importantly comprehensive. Cheers OSX 09:16, 28 February 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Abbas Kiarostami[edit]

I have been working intensively on this article for the last two months. The article has been expanded significantly. It has been copyedited several times too. Several other users help me with copyediting the article and/or commenting on the article (User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld, User:Mtevfrog , User:Francis Tyers and many others) Moreover it was peer reviewed and also GA assessed (promoted to GA). Since GA assessment the article underwent another major editing where its size was reduced nearly 27%. I think the article is in a good shape after all. Based on feedbacks from reviewers I have the impression that it is featured worthy. I would be very happy to have your comments for further improvements. Sangak 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Image:Khayyam translation.gif is, as far as my understanding goes, not fair use in an article outside the article of the book. It would be worth checking over other images for fair use status. - Francis Tyers · 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo replaced. I think the previous one was also fair, as we were discussing the Khayyam's poetry. (note: Khayyam has only one poetry book). The photos were checked in recent GA assessment too. Thanks for your comment. Sangak 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the individual editions, including the cover work will also be copyrighted, so even if the text is free use and the cover image is free use, the ensemble might not be. - Francis Tyers · 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Every edition may have a different copyright policy. In any case, I replaced Khayyam's photo. The new one is free. Sangak 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The article has had a great deal of work and effort put into it and has now been copy edited and full information on seperate pages. It has been condensed and referenced extremely well and anyone familiar with the work of Kiarostami will know that the information on his style is a very important part of the article and highlights the important elements of his work beautifully. The article is constructed in a coherent, structured manner and covers all aspects of Abbas's work -even covering every one of his films in the career including the short films. The only thing I saw was that the fair use rationale for some of the images wasn't given, but this now has also been done!!. The article looks quality. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — This reads like an excellent piece of work; well done! I could find nothing significant to criticize. The only minor issue I found were a couple of periods following the double parentheses at the end of some sentences. It would have been nice to read a little about his childhood family, but that's pretty secondary to the article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because it's about a person, it needs Wikipedia:Persondata. I have added some of it (it goes at the bottom between external links and the categories) but I think you should enter the alternative name/s (I'm not sure about that) [54]. Also it appears to have some British spelling mixed with American spelling (Javascript told me so). It doesn't matter either way, but the whole article should be spelt in the same way. Which is it? That way I can help out with finding every occurance. It is an excellent article and only these minor things need to be cleaned up. Good job. James086Talk 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James for your comments and kind helps (adding Wikipedia:Persondata). As far as I know Kiarostami has no alternative name. In terms of British spelling or American one, I will try to follow one of them. I have no special preference. I like both American and British. Unfortunately I am not an English native speaker and it is somehow difficult for me to recognize this point in the article. I will try my best though.Sangak 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "dialog" with "dialogue" (all other appearances were "dialogue". so I will use the British one.). There is one "realise" which is accepted in British usage. I replaced "color" with "colour", "neighbor/ing" with "neighbour/ing" and "center" with "centre". "Honours" is used in the article. I think "honorary" has no other spelling (I searched in google). I cann't find any other words. Please let me know if there are some others. Thanks again. Sangak 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I've just noticed that someone (User:Cbdorsett) was trying to change all spellings to American one. So I reverted all the changes I explained above. So let's make it American this time. I changed all other "dialogue"s to "dialog". Please let me know if any other change is needed. It looks like uniformly American to me. Thanks again. Sangak 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support After a bit of confusion there I think all remenants of British spelling are gone. It's a great article and deserving of featured status. James086Talk 10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been witness to the improvement process of this article and it seems to me that , finally, it meets the criteria required for a featured article - Marmoulak 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Informative, very well written and sourced. A minor quibble, though, about the main infobox image: why isn't it taken directly from the Commons? Uploading a duplicate image to English Wikipedia was an unnecessary step. — WiseKwai 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Convert gif files to pngs
  • =Films about Kiarostami= can be merged with something
  • =Filmography= section is empty. Content is needed, or else you can put the main link in the ==See also== section
  • Consider removing set pixel values for images. Without a set pixel value, the images will be resized to what a user has specified in his or her special:preferences
  • Taste of cherry.gif needs to be moved inside the =Individualism= section
  • Avoid starting sections with left-aligned image. It makes the text harder to read.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is:
  • I will consider changing gif to png as soon as I am done with other comments. I think it will take a long time. Is this a strict requirement?
  • Do you have any suggestion where I put it? Personally I like the way it is. I can for instance merge it with secondary literature: "Literature and films on Kiarostami". I am not sure merging makes the artile more accessible.
  • I added a context. If it is not fine, I am going to move it to "Film career" section. Please let me know if it is not OK. Then I will move it to "see also".
  • Done!
  • Done!
  • Done!

Thanks for your comments. Please let me know what you think about my plan.Sangak 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems other reviewers (James086) has a different point of view about left sided images. He prefers the image of "Bread and ..." at the beginning of the paragraph. (my former edit has been reverted) I personally don't care whether it is at the begining or not. Please discuss with eachother if you like. Thanks. Sangak 10:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. I thought I was only reverting my edit. Moving the image was a good idea. I hope I have corrected what I undid with this diff:[55]. I also added {{clear}} which means that the image won't offset the title below (Visual and audio techniques). I apologise for any confusion I have caused. James086Talk 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The conversion to png and subsequent upload shouldn't take more than 5 mins. As per the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format, gifs are only used for animations.
  2. There are only two films on him, so having a section with lists is kinda pointless. How about converting it to prose and adding it to =Reception and criticism=?
  3. Filmography section is also too short. Having it in the ==see also== section would be better.
  4. =Honors and awards= could do with an introduction
  5. "The dark graveyard in The Wind Will Carry Us" image can be moved to the section below
  6. The image "Where Is the Friend's Home?" pushes the heading =1990s= to the right, please could you rightalign the image?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report:
  • Done! I noticed three images were in gif format. I converted them to png.
  • Done!
  • Done!
  • Done!
  • In my browser the image is exactly infront of the paragraph discussing the topic. Moving it one section down makes it a bit ugly in my browser. But in case you want, I will do it anyways. Please let me know.
  • Done!

Sangak 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support : Good work, perhaps the place of birth could be added to the article. STTW (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Great job --Rayis 13:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Very well done. --Mardavich 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support An impeccable job and invaluable contribution - Very well done. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- (pending insertion of pngs) well written! Good work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see more complete image captions, but other than that I'll support. I'll get on it. - Francis Tyers · 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've done a few. The 'Book cover' one needs to be done, as does the 'Accepting the award'. What is the book, how is it relevant, and what is the award his is accepting? Also, what is 'Walking with the wind' book about? Why is 'Close up' an important film? See Wikipedia:Captions. - Francis Tyers · 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the improvements:

  • Caption of the award has been fixed.
  • Caption of Walking with the wind has been fixed.
  • Caption of Close-up has been fixed.
  • Caption of the book cover: I need some more time as the language of the book is Greek and I am waiting for translation.

Thanks. Sangak 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congratulatory Support on final caption change. - Francis Tyers · 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support-Very informative and better than the only other comparable article on a director, Satyajit Ray! Excellent work! Tombseye 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Long overdue, if u ask me.--Zereshk 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely FA quality. Well-written and comprehensive. - Anas Talk? 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow, very fine example of hard work of several users. Great improvement and definitely a FA quality. - Darwinek 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very informative, very well written. Congratulations all! Hoverfish Talk 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My god, a Wikipedia film article that is well written and informative! Whatever next? FA definitely!! Cop 633 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Maybe I should just close the debate now since the outcome's obvious :). Still, there's realy nowhere that needs to be improved, fixed, etc. This is definitely FA, and certainly front page quality once this FAC passes.--Wizardman 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done!, although it needs some more polishing but I fully support its nomination! Amir85 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Very informative. I have not seen a more informative article in wiki --alidoostzadeh 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is very well-written. Khoikhoi 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well. Just add more information about his personal life please. --♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! info about his life in Iran + the image of his place of early study (thanks to Ernst Stavro Blofeld)+ the story behind his sunglasses Sangak 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Cop 633, --Pejman47 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's (and other editors') hard work since GA pass. Disclaimer: I have reviewed, and listed, this article for GA status and have made minor copy editing. Please disregard my vote if you feel this is a conflict of interest. Fvasconcellos 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- gif images still present. Please replace by pngs =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Sangak 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, the same as the others. I have seen the author respond to many different reviews and suggestions to better the article, and it has worked. The article is now of FA quality. :) Cbrown1023 talk 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per everyone else, it is certainly FA quality.Azerbaijani 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A well-structured and well-referenced article, written in an impressive collaborative effort. Siba 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Incredible article, well-structured, well-referenced. Beautiful! Congrats! -Yupik 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to be a party pooper, but The "Cinematic style" section is quite long considering it's got a main article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the whole article is in the acceptable range. I personally prefer to keep the cinematic style as it is. Once I tried it to trim it more and it clearly reduced the readability of the section (I also got objections from some editors for that). The main article on cinematic style is quite big (40 kb) and we are also planning to expand it even further. In my eyes the most interesting part of Abbas Kiarostami is the cinematic style and it will be a pitty to make it even shorter. For instance the whole Micro-Digital section has been summarized in a few sentences. Any further trimming will reduce the quality of the article. I think at this stage such issues are the matter of tastes. In any case please feel free to delete those sentences that you find unnecessary. Thanks.Sangak 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I believe that an article on the filmmaker should focus on his life and the totality of his works, while the his cinematic styles should get the full treatment of a separate article. Who knows, they may both become featured articles. Xiner (talk, email) 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no consensus between reviewers, I can only suggest you to trim the article as you wish. I really cann't do much on this. Thanks. Sangak 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (response) - anybody familiar with Kiaroatami's work will know the cinematic style is very important in understanding his work . Like an article discussing the influences and style of an artist or painter and his techniques the section detail is very appropriate as it is and has been cut down enough as it is. Lets not ruin it now. Ernst Stavro Blofeld "I've been expecting you" 13:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand it's an important subject, but if you compare the section to the main article, it's almost the same size. Why have the main article when they're so similar? This only encourages people to add to the section instead of the separate article, making the latter redundant. I understand it's very interesting and you want to convey the topic to others, but I can see all the references to his films cut out from the section and the main ideas would still stand. Everything else can go to the separate article. Xiner (talk, email) 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is 40 kb while the section is 19 kb. We are also planning to expand the main article, as it is no more a subsection of Kiarostami's article and we do not face size limitation there. Kiarostami's article is composed of 22.5 kb film career + 19 kb cinematic style + 18.5 kb the rest. I think the ratio is quite OK (to my mind). Please note that there is also a main article for Filmography. Sangak 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status update: 28/28 in support
  • Comment This is a great article, & has come a long way even over the last 2 weeks since I looked at it. Just a couple of quibbles:
  • Too many irrelevant wikilinks: I particularly noticed the following in the lead section: poet, photographer, painter ... Why link to these words, which are well-known to any reader (unless you're trying to be helpful to non-English speakers)? Even the word child is linked (to an article which informed me that the plural is children). Both rural and villages are linked, too (I'm not sure we need "rural" at all there!). And why the link to car? I can see why you might link to road movie, for example, but no one is going to be any the wiser after following the link to car ("a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor").

OK, I'm just having a bit of fun to make you sweat a little! These are minor faults, & easily remedied (tip: the Delete key may come in handy).

  • It just happens that the Khayyam poem quoted in the Poetry and imagery section is quite well known in English in the Edward FitzGerald translation:
"How sweet is mortal Sovranty!"-- think some:
Others--"How blest the Paradise to come!"
Ah, take the Cash in hand and waive the Rest;
Oh, the brave Music of a distant drum!

I suggest you use this version—unless there's a compelling reason to use the version in the article (eg you prefer it, it was quoted in English in the film, ...).

Good luck! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:48, 2 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Uranium[edit]

Self nom. Article significantly expanded, cited and several sections rewritten. See also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Uranium/archive1. This is my first FAC in a long time and the subject matter demanded a huge amount of work, so please bear with me as I try to fix any remaining issues. --mav 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. --mav 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I skimmed through and it looked decent. The "See also" should probably be trimmed though. Per WP:LAYOUT, "it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article". I'll do a more in-depth run-through later. Gzkn 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also section cut down to size. Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to your more in-depth review! :) --mav 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Very well done! I do have a question on this sentence though: "The first major producer is as was Josef Riedel with his Bohemia glassworks in the 1830's." I think something went wrong with the "is as was". Also, this seems out of place in the ancient use section. Finally, is there a reason why this sentence uses the possessive plural for decades? Seems inconsistent with the rest of the article. But other than that, very nice work! Gzkn 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks! Sentence removed. It was redundant with a previous sentence and added by an anon who cited the fact with a link to a commercial website that sold uranium glass. --mav 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article a little while ago. It is informative, easy to follow (for an educated, non-specialist), well-written (if a little wordy at times) and well-referenced. I cannot comment on its comprehensiveness or accuracy. I will leave that to others more qualified than myself. Nice work. Awadewit 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Please tell me where it might be a bit wordy and I will try to tighten the prose. --mav 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are a few examples of the two major problems: unnecessary repetition of words and wordiness.
  • Uranium is used as a colorant in Uranium glass, producing colors that range from orange-red to lemon yellow.
  • Becquerel made the discovery in Paris by leaving a sample of uranium on top of an unexposed photographic plate in a drawer and noting that the plate had become 'fogged' as if it were partially exposed to light.
  • Two major types of atomic bomb were developed in the Manhattan Project during World War II: a plutonium-based device (see Trinity test and 'Fat Man') whose plutonium was derived from the uranium-238 isotope, and a uranium-based device (nicknamed 'Little Boy') whose fissile material was a blend of uranium isotopes that were highly enriched in uranium-235. Awadewit 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see and will take care of it soon. --mav 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specific examples noted above have been shortened. A more complete copyedit soon to come that will look for other cases and fix those. Again, thanks for the feedback! --mav 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article! But I have some comments. The statment that U3O8 is the most stable form depends strongly on the conditions. It would be good to mention that the fluorides were researched because of the enrichment process. (F has only one stable isotope). The nitride and carbides are sometimes used in experimental nuclear reactors. The fact that Francis Perrin discovered the Okla reactor is strange, because he is not mentioned in several publications.--Stone 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I will try to fix the issues you mention ASAP. --mav 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • U3O8 issue taken care of. Perrin mention comes from the attached inline cite to a .gov website, which in turns cites a Scientific American article. I would not mind mention of him deleted. I looked and could not find any good sources for the other two facts you mention. Could you point me toward a good source or two (even if it means I need to drive to my local uni's library) for those facts? Again, thanks! :) --mav 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Image:180px-Yellowcake.jpg has to be replacable fair use. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment replaced by me - if my edit sticks, withdrawn.
      • Wow - I looked all over for a free version and couldn't find one. Great work! --mav 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Nice article. Here's a couple of points I'd like to see addressed:
    • The text has a sentence that reads: "Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels and always combined with other elements within all rock, soil, and water." This is somewhat ambiguous to me. Does it mean that uranium is ubiquitous within all rock, soil and water?
    • The "natural concentrations" section briefly describes the decay process, but it leaves me hungry for more information. For example, what is an "18-member ... natural decay series"? Why is the production of the daughter product radon not mentioned here, as it is listed as a hazard elsewhere? Nor are strontium-90 and iodine-131 mentioned therein.
Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great feedback - I will address your points by editing the article soon. --mav 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First point made more clear in text. Second point sounds like an interesting expansion, but something I won't be able to get to until this weekend. --mav 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a few points on the Production and reserves section.
    • Three million metric ton of uranium ore reserves are known to exist and an additional five billion metric ton of uranium are estimated to be in sea water
Both of these statistics need sources.
There would be more than 3Mt of uranium ore reserves – Olympic Dam alone has 761Mt @ 0.6kg/t U3O8. [56]
It would be more like 3Mt of mineable U3O8 is known to exist. I don’t think you’ll find a figure for straight uranium.
    • Consider changing metric ton to just tonne through out the article. Ton is used for imperial units throughout the article and it would be more readable for metric users to see ‘tonne’.
    • Yellowcake is then generally further refined using nitric acid to create a solution of uranyl nitrate.
For this general discussion the step to uranyl nitrate can be skipped and mention of uranium hexafluoride should be mentioned instead.
    • I don’t think the picture comment ‘to extract pure uranium’ is what is generally done. Uranium is mainly used as Uranium dioxide in nuclear reactors. Also 'yellowcake' is not generally the colour in the picture anymore (see below and yellowcake). I do appreciate that there are few pictures out there but maybe you could change the comment to reflect that this is an historic picture of yellowcake.
    • “The resulting mixture, called yellowcake, contains..”. It would be more correct to use “the resulting mixture is U3O8 and is commonly called yellowcake…” The powdered form is not yellow [57], Australia’s second largest producer doesn’t use the term yellowcake [58], their largest producer uses it only once [59], and the worlds largest producer uses the term U3O8 [60] more than yellowcake [61].
And Uranium mining makes no mention of yellowcake. I guess my point on this one is that general public usage is 'yellowcake' however the mining companies that produce the oxide (where you can go for more info) use U3O8. The section also uses yellowcake and ‘concentrated uranium oxides’ interchangeably when they are describing the same thing - it could be confusing.
Thanks Ctbolt 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some further comments:
    • in reference to the Cold War legacy and waste section, it would be useful to have a sentence on the use of dismantled nuclear warheads for nuclear fuel for power stations. [62] Megatons to Megawatts Program
    • for the Biotic and abiotic section:
      • Do we need the sub heading ‘Biotic and abiotic’. If so can we mention in the next paragraph which one it is or link to the words some how? I didn’t know what they were – more encompassing words for organic and inorganic? I’ve only checked lead and potassium and there is no similar sub headings. Can we remove?
      • In reference to Its average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million do those references really say Earth’s crust. Most reference on the net have ‘Uranium occurs in rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 ppm’ [63]. If it says rocks in the reference can we change it to the previous sentence. If it is crust then a number closer to 4 maybe correct. crust is made up mainly of basalt (0.5ppm) and granite (4ppm) [64] [65], 4ppm could be reasonable as basalt is more associated with the earths surface. The 2ppm most likely is a reference to Uranium in soils. Greater than 2.5ppm is ‘high uranium concentrations’ [66]. US studies indicate that fertilised soils have 0.8 to 1.2ppm [67] and [68]. And I like the quality [69] of sites when I run 2ppm [70] in google compared to 4ppm [71] when looking at soils. So can we remove ‘depending on the reference’ and match the correct words with the correct numbers.
      • (it is recovered commercially from these sources with as little as 0.1% uranium[9]). This should be with less than 0.1% uranium. Olympic Dam is mining at 0.6kg/t (0.06%) of U3O8 and if uranium makes up 81% of this compound by weight then they are mining at about 0.05% uranium. This is due to the uranium being a by product (although these days it’s more a co-product) but the life of Olympic Dam will make this statement correct for as long as most of us are alive.

Thanks - Ctbolt 01:57, 3 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Edwin Taylor Pollock[edit]

This is a self-nom, I've been massaging this article for some time. It has been peer-reviewed and has passed GA. (It has also been assessed as 'A' by the Military History project.) I hope that it is good enough for FA now, but I am happy to make any changes that it needs to get there. I am very proud of this work. JRP 05:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This sentence needs reworded: "Like many naval officers, his name was often abbreviated as E. T. Pollock." As written, it means that many naval officers were known as E. T. Pollock, which would be quite surprising. —Kevin 15:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better? I agree it would be surprising, though I expected the meaning of the sentence to be clear given the context. Let me know if this is better for you. JRP 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; all the issues raised during the peer and A-Class reviews have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-cited, informative, comprehensive, stable, well-written and neutral. JonCatalan 18:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; very good work, meets all the criteria, all previous issues resolved. Carom 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support; great article. Three quick concerns:
  • Under U.S. Virgin Islands, shouldn't, "...the US signed a treaty to purchase the territory off of Denmark for 25 million dollars..." say, "...from Denmark..."?
  • The last 'paragraphs' of the U.S. Virgin Islands and World War I sections might be more appropriately appended to their previous paragraphs, so there aren't stubby paragraphs in the article.
  • Is there more useful information about his retirement? Three lines is a little short for a section, though it's a separate enough topic that if there isn't more information it does warrant its own section.
Good work. - Mocko13 22:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've corrected the sentence from your first and second points. For the third, I wasn't able to find any more post-retirement information without doing original research. I admit that what I have is imperfect, but as far as I can tell he didn't do much. (I found that he may have taught at a school in Michigan for a while, but I couldn't find a reliable source for that so it was omitted rather than risk it being outright wrong.) And his post-career didn't figure into the American Samoa, USVI, or USNO history books I've been using, nor are there any prominent newspaper articles about his activities, sadly. Is this acceptable? I just don't know where else to look. JRP 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's nothing there, there's not much you can do. Changed to support. - Mocko13 20:10, 1 March 2007 (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 review. 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Rhodes blood libel[edit]

This article is about a rather obscure event to which little research has been dedicated. As a result, the article relies largely on the reconstruction done by Jonathan Frankel in The Damascus Affair: "Ritual Murder," Politics, and the Jews in 1840 based on primary sources. It is a good article now, and it had a peer review most of the comments on which seems to have been implemented. I believe that the article meets all the featured article criteria and deserves a promotion. Beit Or 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The sourcing seems to be pretty thin, with almost all of the references coming from the Frankel book. semper fictilis 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I explained above, this is a very obscure event. Frankel book is the only work where the course of events was reconstructed in detail. Even Angel devotes at most a couple of pages to this event, even though his book is specifically about the Jews of Rhodes. Beit Or 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The first paragraph of body (heading "Jewish Community") is not sourced well enough. 1600 years of documents and measures surely deserve better documentation than a single reference to an encyclopedia article. The Roman document of c. 140 BCE (in 2nd Maccabees, if I recall correctly) should be cited independently, as should each measure in the paragraph. Ideally, the primary text should be cited together with whatever the standard bibliography is on that text. semper fictilis 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything that you dispute in this section? Theoretically, one can find more sources, but what's the point if the current one provides a reasonably good overview of the subject? The article is about the blood libel, not the history of Jews in Rhodes; this section is meant only as a brief introduction. Beit Or 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A reasonably good overview" is not the standard for a featured article. Since you ask about specific objections, the reference in 2nd Maccabees that news of the Roman treaty with the Jews was sent to Rhodes is not good evidence of a Jewish community there already in the mid-second century BC, though I'm sure you'll be able to find oodles of bibliography that suggests it. If you're interested in improving the referencing there are number of ways to do it: references to blood libel elsewhere (e.g., in England in the next paragraph) can presumably refer to more specialist bibliography, as can (I assume) growing Christian influence in the Ottoman court, which provides part of the background. Presumably there are works about Rhodes generally in the 19th century, and about the Jews under the Ottomans. One way or the other, without better bibliography the article falls short of featured status, in my view. semper fictilis 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well done article on a fairly obscure topic; good work in getting even these many sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks very good, but I would really like to see a bit more variety in the sources before I support. I acknowledge that the subject is obscure, but even obscure subjects will have more than one work written about them. —Cuiviénen 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a really well-written article. I have fixed a few really minor errors. This isn't an article that is likely to spawn any controversy IMHO, so unless you can point to any specific assertions you'd like to see backed up by more than one source, I'd say make this an FA. The only issue that could be a problem is the lack of an image that could be used on the main page. Are there any images in those books that depict any of the arrested Jews or a scene from the blockade of the Jewish quarter or even from one of the trials or hearings? Their copyright would certainly be expired.--Carabinieri 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the drawing of a Jewish prisoner on pg. 410 in Frankel's book? I would add it myself, but the book is only a limited preview at google books, so it can't be downloaded, but since you probably own or have access to the book itself, that will be easier for you anyway. Could you add that image? It is public domain and could therefore be used for the main page since it was published in 1840 or 1841.--Carabinieri 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and I second Jayjg's comment. Arrow740 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An interesting read. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yet another encyclopedia-quality article from Beit Or.Proabivouac 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is when I love Wikipedia. Very detailed stuff on an interesting, small subject. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very interesting, informative and well written. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:50, 2 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ 1
  3. ^ 1
  4. ^ 1
  5. ^ 1
  6. ^ 1
  7. ^ Greenberg, 114-116
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2007&oldid=214272757"