Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absinthe[edit]

self-nomination: a number of people have worked on this article to get it to its current state, which I think is up to FA standards. It has gone through peer review and is currently listed as a good article. Ari 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think that the article could use a good checking for style. I just cleaned up one section that was a little iffy (removed words like "downright," as well as some scarequotes), and a quick glance shows that the whole article could use a final cleanup. Otherwise, it looks quite good. Exploding Boy 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the corrections, hopefully any others can be ironed out, I know the topic but am not always grammar inclined when it comes to encyclopedia type standards. -- Ari 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How do you pronounce "absinthe"? Some people say ab-sin-thayˈ while others say abˈ-sinth (like "absent" with a lisp). Just a question. Jtmichcock 01:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In english it's commonly pronounced ab -sinth (like 'synth' esize) where as in french it is pronounced ab -sant. -- Ari 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to say something about the different pronounciations at the start of the article. This is one of those really "basic" things that any encylopedia article should address. Jtmichcock 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, I added IPA pronunciation for both english and french, as best I could (not being very familiar with IPA). -- Ari 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. There are only three issues I have with this article, all of them small:
    • Ordering of sections. I would like it of the "Czech" section was included in, or placed nearer to, the production section.
    • Why are the countries mentioned in the regulations mentioned, and other countries omitted? If it's because those other countries don't have regulations regarding absinthe, that fact shoulod be mentioned.
    • Copyedit. We all speak English here, but we also all make mistakes.
Overall a very good article, I just need a few clarifications/corrections before I lend my full support. RyanGerbil10 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the czech section has to do with production and preparation I reordered it underneath the preparation section. I added some clarifacation of the regulations. As absinthe wasn't banned in many countries they never made any regulations about it. All EU countries must comply with the EU regulations, only france is specifically mentioned as they have additional laws. -- Ari 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • I think it might be wise to give "Czech absinthe" its own article. Aside from the placement issue above, it is largely uncited. For example, the statement that the method of preparation is fake and for tourists doesn't have a source; the cite provided instructs readers how to do it, but doesn't say when it was invented or that it's just for rubes. In addition, there seems to be some dispute about the accuracy of the rest of the section (see the article's talk page). As I understand it, Czech absinthe is its own distinct thing, so maybe giving it its own page would kill four birds with one stone.
The talk page is all but addressed and I know of sources for most of what is said and will find them. Ironically the bohemian style section was its own article under absinth but a number of people questioned why it wasn't part of absinthe so it was cleaned up and put there. Perhaps a sub-page under absinthe would best satisfy concerns? -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two sentences about the ban in the US make it seem as though the law is somehow contradictory, but the FDA doesn't govern alcohol so the two aren't really related. It's apples and oranges.
The regulations are contradictory, the FDA controls substances in alcoholic beverages, such as the use of proper food-coloring. Customs also points to the FDA for more information about the regulation. -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absinthe is banned, as I understand it, as having an unapproved food aditive, that's why it's the FDA that regulates it. It's not a controlled substance, so its legal status is iffy. It's illegal to make it in the US, because the FDA regulates additives in food manufacturing. But FDA has no enforcement mechanisms (or legal standing, really) to prevent people from possessing it, owning it, consuming it or probably buying it, except that unapproved food or food additives can be seized by Customs (on FDA's orders) at the border. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also in the US section, there are a lot of unsourced "probably" and "occasionally" statements. I know reliable sources can be tough to find on this, as I've tried many times, but something needs to be in there to back up those claims. Since it's stating that the position is based on general consensus between American absinthe drinkers, it might be good enough to use an absinthe forum as a reference, but I wouldn't bet my life on it when it comes to FAC.
I can clean that up a little bit and provide a basic source, however some of the speculative language is because the most anyone so far has dealt with the regulations is customs seizures so the exact legal ramifacations for something like selling absinthe in the US is unknown, although I could see if I can find information about companies breaking other FDA regulations. -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I think this is a great article. With a few tweaks, it will definitely have my support. Kafziel 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the czech section and added citations. If you think more should be included (such as a citation for companies hyping thujone) I can add those as well. I've tried to clarify the US laws as well as adding citations. It states absinthe is occasionally seized by customs because even a blatant declaration of "absinthe" on customs forms results in hit and miss seizures. -- Ari 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are three separate bullet points about US customs, all basically saying the same thing - customs doesn't like Absinthe and they will sometimes, for various reasons, confiscate it when they find it. That could all be under one bullet point and covered by the source you cite. I think that's about the last of my comments before my support - it looks good. Kafziel 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object Comment There seems to be a factual omission that makes the article look slightly incomplete: traditional Scandinavian absinth liquor. There are (or have been) several brands, at least one of which is currently sold by Systembolaget, see http://www.systembolaget.se/SokDrycker/Produkt?VaruNr=214&Butik=0&SokStrangar= , and I seem to remember seeing similar drinks in Norway, too. I don't know anything about their legal status in pre-EU times, but there seems to be some history waiting to be discovered. Given that the legal hisotry in various European countries is so prominent in the article, I think that there should be a sentence or two about this. Kosebamse 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find much information about Bäska Droppar, however not everything that is similar to absinthe is absinthe. On the anise side there are a number of products such as pastis, Ouzo Arak, etc. On the wormwood side some Bitters use artemisia species and some of those even use grande wormwood, vermouth was originally flavored with grande wormwood and some still are. The use of grande wormwood as an wine flavoring goes back many centuries and was used in ancient times as a stomach cure and to wean babies. Although interesting history and products none of these are specifically absinthe. Bohemian-style absinth isn't really absinthe but it gets a mild pass because it started the revival and is often marketed so closely with absinthe. An article on the use of wormwood and other herbs in alcohol might be good but is beyond the scope of this. -- Ari 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was more about the legal side of things - it would be interesting to know whether absinthe or similar liquors have ever fallen under prohobition in places where they have been produced traditionally (Bäsk is quite unlike absinth, not as high in alcohol and without anise, and it might be a far older recipe than absinthe in the modern sense). But I would not oppose the FA request because of this. Kosebamse 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think I understand now. AFAIK there really weren't any legal issues beyond the european countries mentioned. The ban really had more to do with corporate and political motivation such as wine-producers losing sales and the temperance movement than absinthe or anything in it. Countries were absinthe wasn't the most popular drink and there weren't pressures from political parties, corporations and even racism towards the french never made a big deal about it and its legal status remained the same as any other alcoholic beverage. -- Ari 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as my comments above have all been addressed. Nice job, Ari. Kafziel 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I think it is an excellent article. -Cribananda 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
In the art and absinthe section, it says: "According to Gauguin, Van Gogh had been acting in an unstable manner almost a week before the incident and had flung the only absinthe Gauguin had seen him order, before drinking it." Is this what was intended? I've read that VG tossed a glass of it at PG, but in this rendering, how does one "fling" the stuff and then drink it? Sfahey 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that should be "instead of drinking it." -- Ari 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, prose is average, run on sentences and miss ordered words are common, like these from the lead;
Absinthe had its start in Switzerland as an elixir, but is more well-known for its popularity in late 19th and 20th century France, particularly among Parisian artists and writers, whose romantic associations with the drink still linger in popular culture.
Modern evidence shows it to be as safe, or dangerous, as ordinary alcohol.
In addition to langauge problems there are comprehensivness issues, the article never discusses at any length the the mentioned dangers or evidence to the contrary (unless you count an quote about undetailed "scientific studies" from an author of a "popular" book on the subject). The regulation section is unnecessarily broken up into sections which further serves to highlight missing locales, I know that it is sold in New Zealand and a lot of other places, which leads me to believe that this setion needs to be refactored.--Peta 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prose. There have been a number of copyedit changes but I will go through it again and see if I can find anything else.
Studies. I have just recently added information about one 19th century study. I don't think we really need a large number of these types of studies. Some of the modern research is at thujone but I can bring over the conclusions.
Regulations. The regulations section is broken up into countries as different countries have different regulations. Many countries never banned it and never payed enough attention to even put regulations on it, I believe this is mentioned in the article. I don't see a reason why the regulations section should list countries it's legal in with no regulations. Other countries may have had regulations but neither I nor the page you listed provide any sources as to what those may have been or still are. -- Ari 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is the section heading only serve to (1) lenghthen the TOC and (2) highlight that this section is not comprehensive.--Peta 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what your objection is. The section is "Regulations" to list every country and then say "no regulations" is pointless. The link you posted contains no sourced regulations in any country that isn't already listed either directly or indirectly (as being part of the EU) thus I don't see how the section is not comprehensive. -- Ari 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, the subsections are completly unnecessary as they blow out the TOC and some are a single sentence long, and that not enough effort has been made to make this part of the article comprehensive.--Peta 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They could be bolded instead of subsections although that would seem to not match wiki formating guidlines. Although it blows out the TOC I think having a TOC link to say US regulations (a common topic) is important. What do others think?
Can you provide specific example of how this section is not comprehensive? -- Ari 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already have, there are tens of courties with laws which allow or disallow the drink.--Peta 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Name one that you have a source for and is not part of the EU. The only one on that list I saw not on this page was Brazil, which was listed as "unconfirmed" and I am looking for any solid data about it. Beyond that they are part of the EU, already listed or have no regulations. Perhaps I missed one. -- Ari 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate the only ones on the list posted that aren't already mentioned are Brazil,Israel,Norway,Russia and South Africa, of those only Brazil is listed as having regulations and those are unconfirmed. Searches for regulations for all has turned up empty. -- Ari 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information about thujone toxicity and rearanged a few words/sections to attempt to better the flow. -- Ari 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it's a good, well-referenced article. Raul654 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absinthe is a French word and the correct pronounciation is ab-sAAnth with the emphasis on the 2nd syllable.

Chew Valley[edit]

Partial self nomination. This article describes a small valley in Somerset, England. It has undergone a lot of editing during its peer review including turning lists into text, additional sections etc & I now feel meets the FA criteria. Rod 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As of a quick scan, it looks pretty good- could Transport and Schools be expanded a bit more though? Even though it is not quite a city, you might want to use a guideline similar to WP:CITY's template. Thanks, AndyZ t 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. I've changed the all-caps in the etymology section to italics; that was my only concern. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:58 UTC

Thanks for the feedback. There isn't really much else to add on Transport and Schools and when you edit the page you get the warning "This page is 33 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable;" Thanks for the edits on the etymology section I didn't really know how to represent the other languages etc. Rod 18:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Excellent, excellent work. - Tutmosis 18:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very trivial point, but the "include/includes/including X, Y, Z" began to grate by the time I reached the end. I counted 26 occurrences. Assuming this quibble is addressed, Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the majority of "include/includes/including X, Y, Z" & hope this makes the article easier to read. Rod 11:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, quibble withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Object I think this is a fine article except for one thing: sequencing of "History" and "Natural History". First, I suggest moving Geology to the beginning of Natural History as it occurs first in time. Likewise, "History" specifically talks about humans, but the title doesn't say that. Also, why is "Natural History" near the end. It seems to me it should be at the beginning. Can something be done with all this? My suggestion would be to have only one "History" section with subsections in this order: Geology, Flora, Fauna, Human habitation, and Field patterns. The titles of the sections aren't the issue (change them to whatever if you want), it's the organization and sequence that I have an issue with. Other than this, it's a fine article. Rlevse 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that structure and ref numbering are fixed. Rlevse 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the history timeline you suggest is more logical & have rearranged the sections as you suggest & have tried to re sort all of the references to make them work but now have number 7's in the text & can't work out why. Rod 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your Darwin ref was orphaned and causing problems. This was because it was at the bottom and had line spaces between it and the previous refs. The ref/note systems does not like spaces between ref lines. I moved it to where I thought it should go. Aside from that, you should look over your ref numbering as I think it may be awry from the section moving. If you need help fixing this, leave a msg on my talk page. Rlevse 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now run User:Cyde/Ref converter & it seems to have resolved the problem of reference numberingRod 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Rodw's being extremely responsive to peer review comments helped make that process very helpful here. The writing is also very good. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Claudette (2003)[edit]

Self-nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I worked on this, and I feel it is ready to become the next Tropical Cyclone related Featured Article. I feel it is comprehensive, well written, and, in all, ready. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Just look at the article and you'll know why I supported it! Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You Tropical Cyclone Wikiprojecters are getting very good at this FA-standard article malarkey... Batmanand | Talk 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though not the most notable hurricane, this should be one of our most notable articles since it is so good. My only issue is that the infobox bites a bit into the storm history section, but I don't think that's a serious problem. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shortened it a bit, but I'm not sure how to remove the "bite". I suppose it isn't too serious of a problem. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very well-done article. -- RattleMan 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This could be the 10th featured hurricane-related article, how many do you plan on getting featured? Fine Support - a couple of minor things though, 236 million cubic feet needs a conversion and nbsp;, and there should be a comma following states following cities (like a comma after High Island, Texas). AndyZ t 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL. OK, I got the metrication for cubic feet and added a comma after High Island, Texas for the TS warnings. What is nbsp; though? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "nbsp;" is an HTML command for a non-breaking space. It prevents something attached to it from wrapping to the next line if it's at the very end. -- RattleMan 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. Where is it needed? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although I've never used it before, I think I know where it goes; between the conversions, like "236 million cubic units" (use edit to check the code). Looks messy, but I think that's it. Try resizing your browser window, and notice that the entire "236 million cubic units" moves to the next line instead of just one word (say, "units") moving to the next line. -- RattleMan 01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, you'll see that our evil plot is to overwhelm Wikipedia with tropical cyclone featured articles. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 01:57 UTC
  • Comment. I'd like to see a longer lead before I support. I'm not sure how it could be expanded, but it seems too short. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 01:57 UTC
    • For a storm that killed only one and caused only minimal damage along its path, anything more in the lead would become redundant. Also, Irene was featured with a shorter lead. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everyking 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. On the lead a bit more detail on the storm history would work (thats the one thing Irene's has which Claudette doesn't).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "landfall" in the lead should be wikilinked.--ppm 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I've gone over the article with a fine comb and made sure there weren't any glaring errors. AndyZ: You may want to read the bold text near the top of WP:WPTC... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice, I'm going to change my vote to object just to stop you! (no just kidding) AndyZ t 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More Comments Well written article, but I have more comments before supporting:
    • "There, residents remained calm during the evacuation, and peacefully taped up window" -- the reference provided suggested that they did NOT tape up windows. The sentence is somewhat POV sounding, anyway.
    • "to an area of flower growth" in the section on Aftermath. Is flower growth a technical term, or merely growth of flowers?
    • "Also, the storm was indirectly responsible for a death when a tree fell on a person in the cleanup of the storm" -- I actually could not find this info from the reference provided. It talks about one direct death due to tree falling, though.
    • In general, a light copyedit might be useful. I am not sure, but phrases like "By 2 months later, over 15,000 " (in aftermath) sound a bit suspect style wise.

--ppm 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • I fixed that. Can someone else copyedit it? I need an outside eye. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I did some copyediting, and fixed a few things. I'm confused at the inclusion of "This report would suggest the storm was a low-end Category 2 hurricane", when in fact a 95.5mph wind (even if it was sustained) is not a true Cat 2 (which begins at 96mph). Add to that that the report was unofficial and I fail to see the purpose of the sentence. I'll keep looking for wording problems, but this is looking really good. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, that's supposed to be 96.6 mph in Seadrift. Now it shows the possibility for Cat. 2. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- nice article. I would just request the editors to go through the references once, as some inconsistencies surfaced earlier.--ppm 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel[edit]

Peer Review

Salute to All - I request your vote to make this a featured article. It has undergone an intensive process of expansion, formatting, copyediting and improvement through peer review. I know that the length is 68kb, but there are notable FAs which reach such a length. I welcome all objective advice and criticism to further improve this article. Rama's Arrow 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 46KB of prose as of 23 May 2006
  • Comments:
  • No, years alone (like 1952) should not be linked, but with a date they should be. Dates alone (like January 6) should be linked however. AndyZ t 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't think fair use is justified for the TIME cover or the movie poster since they both do very little to add to the article.--Peta 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Image:Sardartime.jpg "specifically describes the issue in question or its cover" - I believe this is properly justified for use in this article, as the pic is used in an article describing Patel's life and work at the time of the subject of the article in TIME, which discusses Patel's life and background at the time when he is taking charge of India's government with Nehru. Image:Sardar(film).jpg depicts the film representation of Patel, but I can understand why its not "FU" so I'll take it out. Rama's Arrow 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. — Ravikiran 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Having read the article few times, I can give it my strong support. It is very polished and nicely referenced. My only comment is regarding the section name "Cabinet mission and Partition." Would something like "Role during partition" work better? --Blacksun 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written article. Deserves to be featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A Fine article, however, could the references be neatened up a bit? .... 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It went through a good peer review. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Followed the article from peer review. Excellent.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for the moment. There's much to admire in the article, but there's an awkwardness in some of the writing that falls short of the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose. In the lead, for example, "accomplish the integration of India" is unidiomatic; "turmoiled regions" is incorrect; "His leadership obtained the swift unification", again, is not quite right, and there's a clash of mood later in that sentence ("Patel would lead initiatives"); and in: "he is also remembered as the "patron saint" of India's civil servants for his defence of them against political attack", whose political attack? Remove or explain. The rest of the text needs a thoughtful copy-edit along these lines. Tony 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony - I've copyedited the lead as per your suggestions. I'd like to know if the changes are ok - [1] - and what other stuff needs copyediting. Please respond on the FAC page. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is largely a case of different writing styles. I kindav noticed what you are talking about too but I am not sure if different writing style means it is not brilliant prose. --Blacksun 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've further addressed your points Rama's Arrow 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't think it's just the fair use images that are a problem here. Many of the ones listed as public domain give no rationale for this listing. I think this needs to be cleared up. gren グレン 06:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but the rationale is exactly the one given in the PD-India description, as per Indian copyright law. Rama's Arrow 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The images have fake copyright tags. I have notified the uploader. Warmongering attitude of Patel is not even touched. Substandard work. Anwar 08:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. {{PD-India}} holds in the case of at least two of the three photographs cited by Anwar as these photographs could have been taken only before 1947 as Patel died in 1950 at the age of 75. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that even the third one is in public domain as it is taken in 1928 and 60 years have passed since it was taken. Anwar, can you elaborate what "Warmongering attitude of Patel" you are talking about. Referenced would be helpful. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criticism of Sardar Patel in regards to his use of force is present in the article. However, you will not find terms like "warmongering" as they can be hardly considered encyclopedic. Here's to hoping that in the future you will read the article before calling it substandard :). Furthermore, it is rather curious of you to demand exact dates of pictures that could have only been taken before 1947 and hence as Sundar stated qualify for {{PD-India}}. Whats next? do we need to prove that Tagore's pictures qualify for {{PD-India}} even though he died before then? Toodles. --Blacksun 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note User:Anwar saadat has been opposing all Indian RFAs, FACs, FPCs etc. Most if not all of these objections have been unreasonable. Thus I suggest that his vote be disregarded until he finds a better reason to oppose. The term warmongering can hardly be used in Wikipedia. There are no copyright infringements involved. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • His comments pretty much discredit themselves. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply all the images in question are justified under PD-India. Criticism of Patel for allegedly compromising the rights of princely states and perceived anti-Muslim bias are in the "Legacy" sections as well as in relevant paras. Rama's Arrow 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very nice article. Has gone through a good peer review, and covers all aspects of Patel's life in a very nice manner. Is a very good read even at it's size. I fully support it becoming an FA. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Very well written article that has evolved into a spectacular work over the course of the last many months. AreJay 02:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very good article. Is informative and that's what articles are meant to be. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well done again Nirav.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, very well researched. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this well-written article. Saravask 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Great work Rama's Arrow. I'm back! deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good article. thoroughly researched and discussed... Lost 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Smolensk (1943)[edit]

Self-nom. An article about an epic WWII battle, hiding in the shade of Kursk salient :) Good length, pictures, formatting and inline citations. Has been peer reviewed by MILHIST project.

Oh, and that is the first FAC I nominate, so don't bite the newcomer please :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent work - interesting and very readable. Some minor problems need fixing before I can support this nomination; I've done a little bit of work myself but things I haven't done include
    • Overlinking, e.g. road network - be careful only to link to relevant subjects. In this case, neither link leads the reader to anything relevant to the article. There are other examples. Also, some words are linked several times - it's only necessary to link the first appearance of a word. - Adressed to a reasonable extent. I know i'm overlinking, but in this case, multi-links to places and rivers and so on... seem necessary, because people are usually not familiar with Russian geography. But I removed any non-relevant ilinks... :)
    • Linking style as well - you have, for example, After a rain, quite common during the Russian summer, most of them were covered with mud - it would be much better to link transparently to the word Rasputitsa, explainin what it is at the same time. -- Corrected, the only example remaining is anti-aircraft warfare, which I think is quite OK to link as anti-aircraft defense. Correct me if I'm wrong :)
      • Yeah, that's fine - it's just using a piped link with text that doesn't look at all like the article title you're linking to that's not very desirable. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Language issues - I have rectified a lot of minor grammatical problems and spelling mistakes, but more might remain, so I'd recommend a thorough read through. -- I reread the article, but that's where my English hits the wall... :( Your help is welcome...
      • I've been through it more thoroughly, and fixed up all the nitpicking minor things I could find. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As ordered by the Stavka - Stavka is not previously explained. -- Done.
    • as general M.M Popov wrote in one of his articles - this wording appears to endorse a viewpoint. Also, it's not explained who M.M. Popov is, or why his articles are relevant. It would be better here to write what he said in your own words, then cite him as a reference. -- Done.
    • What was General Kurt von Tippelskirch's involvement with the battle? This needs to be explained. -- Explained.
    • 'Aftermath' says the total advance was 200-250km; immediately above, it says it was 100 to 180 km. -- Clarified: 100-180 is advance during 3rd stage, 200-250 is overall advance.
    • It's a little bit weak at the end. A brief mention with a couple of links about what happened after this battle would be really good.I added a last paragraph about what happened next in the northern part of the Soviet-German front (Leningrad counteroffensive and Operation Bagration in 1944). If you feel more details would be necessary about a particular subject, please say so :)
  • Otherwise, excellent work - hope to see many more such articles from you! Worldtraveller 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brilliant stuff - I enthusiastically support this now. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article but some above concerns by Worldtraveller need to be adressed. - Tutmosis 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but I have some problems with part of the prose. These sentences caught my eye:
"By 30 September, the Soviet offensive was tired and depleted, and became bogged down near Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev, which were still held by the Wehrmacht, and on 2nd October, the Smolensk operation was over." - Seems like a run on. -- Sentence changed by Worldtraveller just before :) What would you suggest?

I would write...."By 30 September, the Soviet offensive was tired, depleted, and became bogged down near Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev-still held by the Wehrmacht-before the Smolensk operation ended on October 2nd."UberCryxic 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for messing that up when I was trying to fix it :) Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Subsequent attacks by Armored and Cavalry forces of the 6th Guards Cavalry Corps had no further effect and resulted in important casualties because of heavy German defenses, leading to a stalemate." - People realize what you're saying here, but I suggest replacing the word "important" with something else, like "heavy" or "significant." -- Corrected.
"Thus, both operations were a part of the same offensive." - "Thus" isn't needed. Just say "Both..." and get on with it. Same thing with.... -- Corrected.
"Finally, the forward edge of the battle area was protected by three lines of barbed wire and a solid wall of minefields." - "Finally" not needed. -- Corrected.
Otherwise, it was a very good article. Worthy of FA.UberCryxic 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- All issues raised above were corrected or at least attempted to be corrected. My remarks are in red above. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple minor issues: Make sure & nbsp; precedes abbreviated units (I think I've done most of them) to prevent line breaking, and format repeated inline references so that the actual text of the reference only appears the first time, and future identical references carry the number first used (saves space in your notes section). Also, check for agreement—I noticed that the Geography section switches between past and present tense. Other than these minor issues, however, very nice work. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRT tenses in Geography section: corrected. :)
IRT references: I did not know it was possible... Sorry I'm just a dumb newcomer and don't know wiki scripting very well... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. But actually, let me suggest referencing like I used on shielded metal arc welding—have a references section where you list the books, and then a notes section where you list just the author or title keyword and the page number. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll be sure to consider it. However, I don't think it is an obstacle to FA (or am I mistaken?). I think than more important style matters should be dealt with first... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References changed to short form (with 1st occurrence in full) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should "second" or "battle" or both or neither (of Second battle of Smolensk) be capitalized? In Second Battle of Bull Run, both are capitalized. AndyZ t 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was capitalized in the infobox, so I did so in the lead as well. Maybe it will be changed but at least it is logical for the moment :) ... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nicely written but needs a touch more work.
#Needs another round of proofreading and copyediting for grammar and spelling. I think it's about done by a lot of people (kudos to them all :)
  1. Some vernacular, e.g. This direction, which was the Stavka's biggest headache since 1941, was finally secured. I'm sorry I don't get it...
  • "Biggest headache" is something you would use in a conversation but it's too informal for an encyclopedia. There are a few other places where I felt the tone was like that (again, a proofread would help). - Emt147 Burninate! 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Corrected, and I assume proofread is quite OK by now... :)[reply]
  1. I would like to see a mention of notable equipment (guns, tanks, aircraft, etc.) used, if any.
#The lead needs to provide a better summary of the article. Lead Expanded
#The two commanders (?) in the lead should have ranks preceding their names. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Done[reply]
Good points, I'll see what I can do. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support, as this is a very good article on an important subject that thus far has seen little treatment in the relevant literature in the west. A few minor points that I think should be addressed:
  • Exact time of the attack, attack procedure (e.g. preliminary bombardment, etc.) for the first stage Added
  • German reserves shifted up from the Orel region – a bit more detail? Added
  • Soviet Fronts (Front should always be capitalised and they should be wiki-linked). In general I think capitalisation needs to be checked. Checked I think...
  • I think a generic map of the region with all the placenames would be most helpful. Andreas 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Added a general plan to help with the text.[reply]
  • Support as the criticism seems to have been addressed. We need more military FAs on subjects other than Polish military history. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment - the picture used in the infobox looks to me as if it is from the occupation of Smolensk in 1941, not the liberation. The tank is a T26, a model which was not in service anymore - on its turret a direction indicator for a German tank formation is drawn. The truck also looks distinctly German. Together I should think this means the picture is from 1941. Andreas

Remember that they did not clean the streets after the 1941 mess (that's why the tank has signposts on it). And the city was captured in one night too, so they had no time to evacuate. As for the signposts, sure they were there before they were removed (look at the photo at Battle of Budapest.
In short, I'm not sure. But what we could do is swap this one with one of the two pics in the aftermath section... What do you think??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if they left the tank wreck in situ for two years, but stranger things have happened. More importantly though, the soldier on the truck looks more like wearing a German uniform to me. None of this is conclusive by any means, but I'd change it for one of the later pictures. Andreas 11:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pick the one you would like :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for the one with the civilians, which is currently the last one. Just switch them and caption the other one 'Smolensk during the war', or sumfink. Andreas 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support with quibble: Some identical refs could be combined, also, repeating the entire reference each time instead of just the shortened form gets tedious very quickly. Circeus 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By shortened form, do you mean like here??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly. Though I don't mind if the first note uses a full text instead of having to refer to the references. Circeus 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References changed, please remove your quibble :))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support now following all the changes, and a big pat on the back for Alexandre for making all this effort and making the changes so quickly. Andreas 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I usually feel comfortable if articles exceed 32kb. Please see if you can add more material. Rama's Arrow 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, because of heavy German resistance the overall advance was quite modest and slow, and the operation was therefore accomplished in three stages (7-20 August, 21 August-6 September, and 7 September-2 October) with intervening stalemates. This sentence in the lead makes it sound like there were "intervening stalemates" of 0 days :) Haukur 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't me, but I removed this mention. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A very good article for the technical details of the battle, and an in depth description of unit movements, etc. However I felt that the terrible destruction of the battle needed to be brought out more. What would it be like if you were actually there, a Russian or a German soldier caught up in this horrendous battle? Nowhere in the text is the human cost of the battle mentioned, and nowhere is the immense human suffering of battle mentioned. What about an account from a soldier who was actually there, instead of a general talking about the numbers and titles of 'units' involved? Where is the human element in this article? It talks about units being able to continue the advance because they were 'reinforced'. Think what that word means - it means that hundreds and thousands of men met their deaths in horrible wretched circumstances amid the blaze of gunfire and artillery explosions. We shouldn't forget that an entire generation of Russians and Germans bled to death on the eastern front in WW2. The last thing I want to come across as is bloodthirsty, so I apologise if anyone has misunderstood my post. All I am trying to say is that war is hell. There should be at least some reflection of that in this article. Otherwise, it is easy to read it in the same was as an account of a football match, and forget the terrible cost of the battle. Bigdaddy1204 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institutes of Technology[edit]

First FAC | Peer review

A self-nom. This is an article about the group of seven elite educational institutes in India. The article has improved a lot since its first FAC, when it was nominated by an anonymous IP. It has also gone through an extensive peer review and the suggestions given there have been adequately addressed. With the help of a number of enthusiastic editors, in my opinion it fulfils all criteria to become a Featured Article and hence I am nominating it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the table? I thought it was kind of useful. Raul654 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. It was suggested by an editor in the Peer Review that the table is unnecessary for the article. Further, since all the IITs don't have a motto, incomplete table looked bad. The table took too much space and except for the the shields and motto of the institutes (the details of which might be unwarrented in summary style), everything is still included in paragraph format. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine article. Rlevse 11:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yet another fine addition to Wikipedia's coverage of Indian topics. My only small issue is that the "IIT Family" and "Establishment and development" sections could probably use a little more inline citation, but it's fine as it is. Finding that Dilbert cartoon and finding the correct place for it in the article is hilarious, IMO. Staxringold 14:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I have added more inline citations to the "IIT Family" section. Almost all of the first half of "Establisment" section uses single source (IIT Kharagpur History) and I have indicated it by the end. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support a lot of hard work by Ambuj. Rama's Arrow 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work in making this article FA quality by the editors. --Blacksun 15:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Excellent article. Followed it from peer review. Well done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I only have one small issue- isn't it a bit ostentatious to have the large blue quotes insted of normal quotes? I don't really care if they're in the article, I just think they're strange. RyanGerbil10 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I used the quotes because I have seen other Featured Articles use it. However, things wouldn't look much different if we just use the normal quotes. If you insist, I can very well change that. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, those large quotes seem to be becoming quite popular on newer FA's for some reason... I prefer the Template:" myself, but even Raul has reverted me there - LOL. Oh yeah, Support for a good article. RN 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good! One small criticism - the caption for the Dilbert comic just reiterates what's written in the comic. I couldn't think of a good way to rephrase it, though... User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I have changed the caption. Hope this one is better. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; I'm feeling like a broken record. Here's another high-quality article that fails to cite sources in key sections like "Undergraduate education", "Postgraduate and doctoral education", and "Culture and student life". The first part of the Education section could use some more citations as well (it's unclear where 90% of the information there came from). Also, writing quality is rather poor—I found and fixed a "went" attempting to pass as a past participle, and noted excessive use of "a lot" in the Alumni section. Also, "the total government funding to most of the good quality engineering colleges". "Good" is almost always a completely wasted word. Another useless word, "very", appears four times. Tighten the language, please. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Spangineer, could you please give some other examples of language errors that need rectifying? Rama's Arrow 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I have added references wherever applicable. However grant me one freedom. I have used the B.Tech ordinance from IIT Madras. I am not sure if I would be willing to copy same info from every IIT and place 7 trailing references everytime after the article mentions "All IITs..". The reference added by me gives an overview of the whole B.Tech program and mentions things like students having common subject and having to take "breadth" subjects. For more clarity, I can even source the official first year time-table from IIT Kharagpur where it can be clearly seen that there is a common curriculum for all first years, but unfortunately the PDF document is on internal notice board which will require hosting on a free web-server (like geocities) before it can be referenced. I can do that; but only if extremely essential. Regarding the use of "good", I can't possibly think of an alternative to write as the fundings vary with size of college as well as reputation. If you can suggest some neutral adjective, I will be grateful. I have replaced "A lot" with "Many" as it sounds more nuetral. I prefer using it as I don't want to mention each and every alumni who has achieved notability, which in itself is very vague. I have removed all but one instance of "very", where I found it useful. If there are any more actionable concerns, please let me know. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Update. I have replaced the word "good", and have possibly addressed all your concerns. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this link to check the updates Rama's Arrow 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples of ambiguities/things to fix:
      • "The IIT-JEE is well known for changing the pattern of paper quite often in order to discourage study by rote." Pattern of paper?
      • "The age limit for appearing in IIT-JEE" That is, maximum age for entrance?
      • Might just be me, but "have been offering reservation for Backward Classes" doesn't sound right. Should "reservation" in that paragraph be "reserved spots"?
      • Relatively constant sentence structure throughout, especially section "The IIT family". Combine some of those short sentences. One example of many: "The campus is located in a wooded land of about 2.5 km² (620 acres). It has 15 academic departments and nearly 100 laboratories. The campus has 13 hostels."
      • "Most of the IITs have been consistently ranked over other engineering colleges in India in almost every engineering education survey." Most, consistently, almost every... numerous and conflicting qualifiers.
      • "All the IITs provide residential facilities to their students, research scholars and faculty inside their campus." Are the facilities inside or the people?
      • Spelling inconsistency: both organized (6 times) and organised (1 time) are used, and I recall seeing another instance of british spelling somewhere. Needs a thorough copyedit.
      • Many other things I've fixed related to word choice and style that should be applied more generally—unnecessary prepositions ("opened up" to "opened", "finalized upon" to "selected"), use of "etc." (entirely useless; something is either worth mentioning or it isn't), and numerous other things that can be seen in my recent edits and should be eliminated throughout the article. I've also added a few {{fact}} tags.
    • Hope this helps. Please look for these problems throughout the article and don't just fix these examples. If I only wanted the examples fixed, I would have done it myself. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exaclty in say "Post-graduate and doctoral education" section requires an inline citation? Everything in it is pretty standard for a research university system. Is their really a point to cluttering an article with citations? Obviously, the information probably came from the material in "further reading" section. Lets not go overboard with inline citations. They should be used only for information that requires them - not every standard sentence. I dont need a citation to know that a university which offers PHD has teaching assistantship positions for its doctorate students. That is just stupid. --Blacksun 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are saying but I have to still disagree. External links to the schools websites are provided in the external link section. What is the point of linking it in that section? I mean the information in it is REALLY standard. It is pretty much the norm across the world for a research university. If someone wants to verify they can just visit the website from external link section. Since, all the schools in the IIT system have different websites it would be fairly irrelevant information to link in the section itself. Again, that is just my opinion. However, yes a citation should be provided for the statement that says Govt. employs geologists in the system on contractual basis. Everything else is too standard to merit a citation. --Blacksun 20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's typical for websites used as references to appear in the references section, and for websites that supply supplementary information to appear in the external links section. I see what you're saying, but if something was used as a reference, it should be noted as such. Besides, some of that information there isn't really "obvious": "The reason for starting this program was" (says who?) "The benefit of saving a year coupled with scholarships made this an attractive choice." (according to who? Not everyone does it I assume) (overly picky, sorry) "the doctorate program of IITs is considered average" (according to which surveys?). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whew...looks like a lot of debate enraged this page when I was busy fixing the article. To Spangineer: I have addressed all raised doubts (by editing at suitable places), but I don't think that I am able enough to ponder over the language issues (use of "organized" vs "organised") as all I could ponder over has been fixed in the last one month or so. In summary, I have changed "pattern of paper" to "pattern of question paper". The age limit sentence appears perfectly fine. It may be due to difference in way people speak english. This sentence structure is very common in India. The reservation is a complicated issue. I suggest you go through the articles detailing them before suggesting changes. Often people mistake "reserved seat" for "quota". "reserved spots" has a totally different meaning which is wrong in this context. I have merged sentences wherever possible. Regarding residential facilities, is there really two ways of understanding the sentence? Anyways, I have copyedited to make it clearer. "Etc" has been eradicated. I will address concerns when raised. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In short, this is what I did. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. You apparently want to use American spelling, which is fine (it's the only right way =), but then should terms like football be changed to soccer? Just wondering. I don't understand "pattern of paper" or "pattern of question paper". What is question paper? Are they modifying the test questions or is there some sort of pattern on the paper like stripes or spots or something? Thanks for combining sentences; it's common in the US too but good writing employs a variety of sentence complexities to keep the reader engaged. Re residential facilities, I take it to mean that the university has residential facilities on campus for everyone, but I'm surprised that professors live on campus. Never heard of such a thing, nor is their there further mention of the type of housing they have. As a result, I begin to wonder if it's just a subpar usage of the preposition "inside" and that the university supplies housing for everyone, some of which is on-campus and some of which is off-campus (which fits in better with what I'm familiar with). It's probably true that much of what I am brining up is regional differences in English, but terms which are only understood by one group of English speakers should be avoided, because we have a global audience. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question paper = exam - the questions you get during the exam. It is a common way to refer to exams in many countries in English. But ya, it should probably be changed to exam. --Blacksun 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Spangineer. Sorry, didn't notice you left more comments. Now, coming back to the comments. Nobody in India calls football as soccer (at least most people), while almost everywhere I see people use "organize" instead of "organise". Given a choice, I will change "organize" instead of "football". If you think this is essential, I can do it rightaway. Looks like there need to be some changes incorporated for global audiences. "Pattern of question paper" means the pattern that fits a given examination. For example, everyone is aware that GRE has a fixed pattern of question. Although the questions are different, they fall into some category (like verbal, quantitative, etc) and whenever you see the question paper, although you have never seen that question before, there is no element of surprize. However in IIT-JEE, they will always try to catch you off-guard so that candidates don't cram up questions of a type and succeed. Suddenly in one year they will have negative marking for questions. In other year, they will invent a new definition of distance and ask students to use that to do all the calculations. One time they will stress on proofs of theorems, and on the other they will ask many numericals. The questions will be from syllabus, but not the usual type that you solve in classrooms. In simple words, you can't guess which way the question paper will go. To me the meaning is very clear that there is no fixed pattern. Based on my description above, if you can suggest some other way of putting it for global audience, I will be glad to change it. Yes, the Professors too live inside the campus. I thought it to be no-brainer so didn't mention it. Although its not mandatory for them, most of them do stay inside the campus. I can tell about IIT Kharagpur (things will be similar in other IITs, I believe). The professors live in bunglows (independent houses) given by IITs. The bachelor professors live in flats (again owned by IIT). All the students have to compulsarily live in student hostels and only in rare cases are they allowed to live outside the campus. Please note that for students who's actual home is in IIT premises (like being children of professors/officers/workers), they can live in their own home. Anyway, thanks for letting us know that these things that we take for granted might not be so common elsewhere. Is there anything in the above paragraph that needs mention in the main article? Let me know. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Spangineer! Ambuj, perhaps you can mark up additional references using {{inotes}}? I agree though, it still needs a copyedit, preferably by a non-Indian editor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Spangineer and Nichalp. I have added 16 inotes to the article wherever I felt the need. Hope this is sufficient. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Have followed the article from first FAC to PR to this, though haven't contributed to the article much. Nice work. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As per Spangineer. Plus, some assertions are unreferenced like the most widely sought degree of IITs has been the B.Tech. degree. Is the Dilbert strip cartoon really necessary? The alumni list is haphazard, not chronological. The IIT stub at the bottom includes duplicate links to other sections of the article. It would be better if it restricts to the 7 IITs only for clarity. Also, it seems too much attention is given to criticism and reservation. Both sections could be merged with the main article on Reservation Policy in IITs. Anycase, the pie-chart should certainly go as it is duplicated. I agree with Spangineer about imprudent use of American and Anglo vocabulary which may put off both sections of audience.
But I am more concerned about absolute lack of information as to how/why IITs are considered superior to other educational institutions and varsitites with reference to syllabuses, pedagogical techniques, placements, associated stats, etc. Education section has a lot of scope for expansion by trimming section on culture. Give illustrations on IIT pedagogy. Entrance Competition subsection should probably be moved to Admission section. Anwar 22:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprise surprise. 1) Yes, Dilbert cartoon is a great addition for this article. It allows people not familiar with IIT to relate to its status. 2) Why does pie chart need to go? It looks fine to me. *then again why am I asking you to explain your reasoning as you have a tendency to never follow up*. 3) Isn't the article mostly restricted to the 7 IITs already? 4) Considering that one of the biggest current issue is regarding reservation in IIT, I think the amount spent on it is appropriate. 5) I find the criticism section nicely organized and presented. 6) Their is plenty of information in the article regarding why IITs are considered top notch amongst Indian universities - enterance exam, facilities, etc. What you have attempted to object in the second paragraph is very generalized criticism hiding behind big words. --Blacksun 22:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Anwar. As you might have seen, the Dilbert's cartoon has been removed. The alumni list is not part of the article so problems from it is not admissible here unless it contradicts something stated in the article. Still, I will try to fix it as soon as possible. The "See also" below is a template used over many pages relating to IITs. They have been discussed summarily in the article with relevant link provided. However, the template below clubs them and presents an overall related topics. This is very common and University of Michigan as well as Michigan State University (both FA in education category) use it. Attention is given to Criticism and Reservation as they are important. Don't worry; I have given them only as much attention as is desired in summary style. Most parts of "Reservation" exists as a separate article (Reservation policy in IITs). The pie chart is used to visually depict the contrast and help the reader understand its magnitude quickly. If you think its taking too much space, I can try to reduce its size as long as its clarity is maintained. The article has been copyedited a lot after your comments. Please have a look again and see if vocabulary problem still exists. Now coming to your second paragraph. The IITs aren't very notable in terms of syllabus. I remember sometime back a college tried to replicate IITs success by following its syllabus. It didn't reach anywhere 'coz it failed to realize that the success of IITs are largely due to students from IIT-JEE and infrastructure (both of which have been adequately discussed). Again for pedagogy, IITs are not considered superior. Even if they are, it hasn't been established yet and hence can't be included as of now. The education section is already over-flowing. If you can point specific details missing, I will add them. However, I am not going to do mindless addition of information as it will be a turn off for the reader. Entrance competition is discussed under "Criticisms" which I believe is the correct place to discuss it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I have adjusted the parts of the article I was concerned about and now have no significant problems with the article. The Dilbert image was inappropriate for this article because it contradicted the guidelines of Wikipedia:Fair use. Cedars 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Thanks for fixing up the article. Is there anything that you request that will get this article your support vote. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From my talk page - If the Dilbert image is added to "Criticism" section where media is criticied (and the strip being taken as example), will it qualify as fair use? Also, for it, I will need to add the sentence about hindsight bias that you deleted as "confusing". I feel its important to highlight the bias people have about IITians. There might be a need to copyedit it to make it clearer, but it is essential. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The short answer is, no it will not qualify as fair use, by the policy Wikipedia has chosen to adopt. Note counterexample four on the Wikipedia:Fair use page that states, "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war." The Dilbert comic is not iconic and it is not being used in a Dilbert-related article therefore it does not qualify for fair use. As for the hindsight bias comment, I am happy for it to be added back provided it is expressed in a clearer fashion. Cedars 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have standardised the use of English in the article. Now the language is consistantly British English as per the guidelines. I feel that other criticism have also been addressed, as noted in the replies above. The issue of insufficient citations is also resolved with extensive use of {{inote}}. Since use of "pattern" led to confusion, I rewrote the sentence without using it. The issue of residential facilities is also clarified. The doubtful use of fair use image has been resolved. The template also no longer contains internal article section links. Sections have been given weightage as per their importance. The article does not contain original research (reg. superiority in syllabus/pedagogy). This looks exhaustive. If you still find something missing, please check out the article in edit mode, as there are inotes at a lot of places. Now, I am also giving Nominator Support to this article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've gone through and copyedited to remove the last of the non native english usage and some of the unecessary folksy wording, and now I feel I can support this excellent article. - Taxman Talk 14:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. Fulfils all the criterion for being an FA. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great job Ambuj. And after the hard work by User:Spangineer, it's becoming even more awesome! deeptrivia (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just found more problems that slipped through Taxman's fine-toothed comb, and I'm sure there are more to be found by a real copyeditor like Tony, but I'm pretty pleased. Great article. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after Taxman's copyedit. --Nichalp (logged out) 13:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Image:Main Building IIT Roorkee.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons because it has a spurious license claim. Image:Nehru laying foundation stone of IITKGP.jpg needs a proper fair use rationale. Image:Iitmconvo.jpg has no source. Image:IIT Bombay Classroom.JPG violates our fair use policy. Template:Indian Institute Of Technology is using an unfree image outside of article space. Jkelly 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Saravask 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Parthi 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Forster[edit]

Very well written, comprehensive, well-sourced article about the "inventor" of travel guides and fairly controversial historic figure (see talk:Georg Forster). That said, and although it went through peer review, it would be great for a biography specialist(s) to volunteer provide suggestions and help eliminate what short-comings there still may be. --Mmounties (Talk) 06:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - good work.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:LEAD is too short, it should summarize the entire article. There are also too few in-line citations, and having a list of sources that the dewiki authors used isn't much use here. Dewiki and enwiki have very different standards when it comes to citing sources. Angr (t • c) 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will re-verify the article using the English-language sources available (mostly Sain's biography, the only English-language biography that I am aware of) over the weekend. Perhaps we can then get rid of some of the lengthy German source list, and keep only what is necessary for the article. Would a lead section approximately twice as long as now be okay? Kusma (討論) 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, quality is obviously more important than quantity, but I think to do the article justice the lead would have to be between twice and thrice as long as it is now. Angr (t • c) 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have worked a bit in this direction, but probably need to expand the lead more. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; Angr is right; this needs more inline citations and a longer lead. External links would be great too. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take another look when you get the chance. I believe all of your concerns have now been addressed. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per Angr and Spangineer. Also, I found the prose to be a bit choppy, with perhaps too many one and two sentence paragraphs. Overall though, the article is very informative and well-written. RyanGerbil10 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the German references and re-sourced most of the article. I'll work on the remaining {{fact}}s later today. If I find sources for these facts, will the number of inline citations be sufficient? Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do the section titles have to be "Forster's heritage"; can't they be just "Heritage", etc. The reader knows this is about Forster so no need to mention his name again and again in the titles. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't; if you have a good section title for "Forster and nations", please edit the article and insert it. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from one of the article's main authors; of course I support "featured" status for this article, but I guess my voice doesn't really count here). Since the nomination, the number of inline citations has tripled, the length of the lead section more than doubled. Most of the remaining statements that have a [citation needed] could be removed without much harm. Have I adressed the objections above and are there further suggestions how to improve this article? Kusma (討論) 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit, Michigan[edit]

Another production of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan, this article has gone through some very extensive work, including a comprehensive peer review. Project members will address any comments or concerns. Jtmichcock 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've looked over this article, and found it to be reasonably comprehensive to my inexpert eye, well written, supported with appropriately licsenced images, without pressing issues, and in general, featured quality. Fieari 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. Those guys at Wikiproject Michigan really know what they are doing, between U Michigan, Michigan State, History of Michigan State, Gerald Ford, and that's just from what I happen to have run across.. Staxringold 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, it looks pretty good, but I oppose for the quote in a box there. Aside from being physically squished in quite a distance from where the quote is discussed in the article, it's inherently POV to set aside one person's opinion in a special box. Also it's not clear at all why this particular quote is so important -- surely lots of people expressed anti-crime opinions, so why single this one out? Tuf-Kat 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because it's a quote about crime in Detroit in a section about crime in Detroit (which is quite a notable issue), by a man who was mayor of Detroit for 20 years and tried (though, it seems, at least in the '80s failed) to fight crime in Detroit? Staxringold 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how does the quotebox inform the reader of any of those things? Did the dope dealers take his advice and leave via Eight Mile Road? You already have lots of good information right there about crime in Detroit. This particular quote is not particularly important. He is already described, crime in Detroit is already described, and his feelings on crime in Detroit are already described. The quotebox goes beyond describing a notable opinion - it presents a notable opinion as though Wikipedia is endorsing it, and thus violates WP:NPOV. Tuf-Kat 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If the quotebox is removed, will you support? Jtmichcock 02:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know, and that's immaterial. Tuf-Kat 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then I basically support, but
    • The see also links should be worked into the article or removed. (or at least black culture of Detroit and Nain Rouge are either important enough to be in the article, or not important enough to be mentioned).
      • I fixed this.
    • I'm really hesitant to actually support based on the references. It appears that all the information comes from various webarticles. For some subjects, that might be okay, but this is a major city with lots of stuff written about it (lots of seemingly good resources in Further reading).
      • Many of the publications listed are out of print, and are largely from around the turn of the last century and are out of print. Most current material consists of either photo journals or polemics (see the "Devil's Night" book). The Detroit News series is highly respected and references the earlier works with updated information. Fortunately, the series contains unbiased, contemporary accounts missing from the bookshelves (check out the literacy entry to get some idea of the problem). Jtmichcock 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • External links seem bloated
  • Tuf-Kat 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, weak support. I'd still like to see the external links trimmed and better referencing. If the stuff in Further reading is out of print, why put it there? Why not list books that people can find? I'll grant that Detroit News is a good source, but that's still only one -- for a topic like this, there should be a number of good sources like that. Tuf-Kat 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another nice job by Wikiproject Michigan! PDXblazers 00:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Really some excellent work done on this article. I'm sure they've more than once thought I was a pain in the rear in my comments pointing out needed changes. I'd always like to see more high quality books used as sources because of the greater level of editorial oversight they can get, but the volume of research done for this article helps make up for that. - Taxman Talk 14:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some images down the bottom could become less cluttered. Other than that, excellent article. michael talk 10:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved some pics and lowered the size on another to address the clutter. Jtmichcock 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[edit]

Peer Review | good article

I've spent the best part of the last month to expand the article on the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. With enormous help from several Wikipedians (Renata3, Mozzerati, Andreasegde, Mikkalai...) we've created an article that fits the scheme of what an encyclopaedia article should be: it answers the most important questions regarding the concentration camp complex and refers the readers to specific publications for more info. While it is still not ready and there is plenty of room for further improvement, I believe it is as close to Featured Article status as it gets. I also believe that the article has reached a stage of development, where we could either correct minor questions ad nauseam, or simply nominate it to FAC. Which article in Wikipedia is ready anyway? :)

When it comes to specific points listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?:

  1. I believe the article is comprehensive, as it covers all notable aspects of the camp system's operation. It is also factually accurate, as I've done my best to source as many statements as possible and includes almost 100 different sources, some of them used more than once in the text. As the person to write most of it I can't tell whether it is truly neutral, but I believe so. And surely it is stable, as there's been little changes to it recently, except for some minor corrections (I expect that the current process would lead to more corrections though).
  2. The article complies with Wikipedia's standards, it has a decent lead section explaining the basic concept, a series of headings and sub-headings, and could even easily be divided onto separate sub-articles should this be the wish of the community
  3. It has lots of images, some of them unique and made specifically for Wikipedia. It also has a lot of red links that were filled with useful content, ranging from mere stubs to entire articles.

Now, my fellow Wikipedians, the ball is on your court :) . //Halibutt 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A really amazing and deep article. On a random note, Image:Austria Mauthausen sub-camps.png is quite informative for a single map. The only thing I might maybe consider changing is splitting off the list of notable inmates, but I have a tendancy towards splitting off related lists. Staxringold 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object. This article is really deep and imporatnt, and so it pains me to object on such small grounds. The article in its current format has too many lists. These need to be converted into prose. Granted, this is not possible for all lists, but I feel that some lists here could be converted. Other than that, excellent work, and I hope to support soon. RyanGerbil10 04:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now this puzzles me as most of them were converted from prose for easier reading, following the suggestions during the peer review... //Halibutt 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. Staxringold removed some of the lists, and the lists which remain are acceptable and informative. Like I said in my objection, not all of the lists were bad. I now feel enough lists are gone, and remaining lists are good enough, that I will Support. RyanGerbil10 15:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I think the lists are appropriate to the article and do not think there are too many. This is an excellent article. 11:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportWeak object. This article is more than worthy of FA, however RyanG is right, these lists break everything. While converting them back to prose is not the best solution, perhaps they can be converted tables or better yet, charts??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be constructive then: how could one convert a simple list of companies or the list of methods of extermination into charts? By the length of their name? Tables might be good, but they would contain no additional information, so I doubt such a conversion would change much except for the article's length. Also, Wikipedia:List#Tables specifically states that usage of tables for lists is discouraged. //Halibutt 13:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm.. I was not at all thinking about those Halibutt... rather about the list of number of inmates and survivors. I think a bar graph with descending sorting would be nice.
    Oh yes, and there is a {{fact}} in one place which should be either sourced or the corresponding paragraph reworked. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
    It has been heavily disputed at the talk page and is now removed from the article. //Halibutt 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I split-off the List of notable inmates, removing one of the lists these two weak objections are over. I'm going to try and make the short list of survivors by ethnic background into a small table. Staxringold 14:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tabled one more list, just for good measure. Staxringold 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I went a step further and converted the list of survivors of Gusen into a colourful chart. It looked weird as a table, and especially as such a wide one. //Halibutt 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A phrase like although most estimates place it between 122,766 and 320,000 is kinda weird, as 122,766 does not look like an estimate. Maybe change it to between 122,000 and 320,000 or something in that tune? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No reason to give up precise data if it comes from a source. Maybe, "most sources place it between"? Staxringold 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that maybe. I'm not pushing this particular edit, it's just a bit weird to read as it is. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the lower number is that it's also an estimate. It is the body count of all the available death records, but it is also known that it's absolutely incomplete and based on German WWII data, which was commonly forged by the Germans themselves. But let's stick to Staxringold's proposal, it's less specific, but less eye-catching. //Halibutt 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object Image:Mauthausen-survivors.jpg is unsourced. Jkelly 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... it was totally unsourced when I addded that objection. You then removed the unsourced template and added that it was from NARA. I have since found what seems to be the actual source, so it doesn't matter, but note that image sources need at least some modicum of verifiability for their licensing. Jkelly 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 99% sure it was taken from NARA, but as I already pointed out at your talk page their web page is currently down and I can't check it. //Halibutt 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. very good article. For some reason, in the "Death toll" section the table and the text are not appearing properly, please attend. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Outstanding work Halibutt et al! I'm impressed not only with the article itself, but that you found the courage and strength to write about this subject in such depth. In dealing with warfare, I write about humanity's inhumanity all the time, yet cannot bring myself to deal with such mega attrocities in any great detail without feeling a pain in my very soul. See Molobo, this is how war attrocities should be delt with here on Wikipedia. Again, great job my friends! NEVER FORGET.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psittacosaurus[edit]

Very nice, well-researched and sourced article. Not a self-nom, in the sense that everything I originally wrote has been replaced with better text.--Firsfron 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Neutral. The lead section is not long enough, and the article needs to have in-line citations, as well as fewer lists. RyanGerbil10 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has only one brief list. How can it have "fewer lists"?!--Firsfron 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will work on lengthening the lead. However, aren't there numerous in-line citations throughout the article? They are in Harvard style, which is acceptable in Wikipedia, is it not? (WP:CITE). I am also a little confused about the list comment, to be honest. Thank you for your input. Sheep81 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Harvard inline citations should be alright; just try to make sure every little bit of content has a citation (i.e., at least every paragraph, besides the lead section). --BRIAN0918 15:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree that the WP:FOOT and Cite templates look better, and I also must admit I *hate* Harvard in-line citations. I still think the list could be more fleshed out, perhaps explaining the differences between the species, or why so many species could have existed. However, the article is better so I'll strike my objection. RyanGerbil10 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you. I am currently working on an update which should improve the article further. I fleshed out the list a bit, although most of the detail is still listed on the separate Species of Psittacosaurus page due to its length. I also added a little something about why there are so many known species. Sheep81 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object per above. The lead needs to summarize the article, not just introduce it. Yes, inline Harvard is technically okay but WP:FOOT and Cite templates give a neater and more consistent look.Emt147 Burninate! 06:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Very nicely written and interesting. Good job! - Emt147 Burninate! 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We will work a little more on the lead to create more of a summary and look into converting to footnotes (I have never done it before). Sheep81 07:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy to do. For a very short, simple example, see Brail. When you're editing, all the source info is added inline, rather than stuck at the end, but when it's rendered, it shows up at the end. So, for example: It existed during the Cretaceous period. <ref name="smith">Smith, John. Book o' Dinosaurs. 2004.</ref>
Then, if you want to stick in another citation from that same source, you just use that name again: There are at least seven species of this dinosaur. <ref name="smith"/>
If you have a new source, use a different value for name. Then, at the end, under the References section, all you put is: <references/>
--BRIAN0918 15:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can use the Harvard system, but if doing so you should link all of the inline citations- consider using Template:Harvard citation (see usage on Template talk:Harvard citation). However, I also prefer the cite.php <ref> system. AndyZ t 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Besides adding another paragraph to the lead section, you should also consider the following:
    1. Tense problems: In some paragraphs, the tense switches from present to past. You should try to keep the same tense throughout a section, or throughout an article, if possible. Under the Description section, if you use present tense, you should make it clear that you're referring to the current fossil evidence. If you want to use past tense, you would refer to how they would have looked back then, i.e. "They stood 2 meters high, and weighed over 20 kilograms."
    2. Description problems: You mention the powerful beak in the lead section, but don't give any more detail in the Description section. Specific information is given for the largest species, but how much larger are they than the average-sized species? How small is the smallest species? What fraction of the 150 known specimens are of each species? Were these fossils found scattered throughout Asia, or in a few large "graveyards"? These are just some random questions that come to mind, though the information may not be public.
    3. General style problems: Some of the paragraphs are very short (only 1-2 sentences). Also, new paragraphs shouldn't start with But, or However, and the subject should be reintroduced with each new paragraph (ie, in an article about John Smith, each paragraph would start by mentioning his name, rather than simply saying "He...")
    4. Size: when you say smaller/larger, this has to be with respect to something; and when you say small/large, specific dimensions should be given, so that the reader will know exactly how small/large. ("What do you mean? Small like a rat, or small like a dog?") --BRIAN0918 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is very helpful, thank you. Unfortunately documentation is very light for most of these species aside from P. mongoliensis, which is by far the most common and well described, so most of the information is based on that species (you see the same tendency in professional works, unfortunately, which just compounds the problem). I will do what I can to find more specific information for all of the species. I will also work on tense and your general style concerns, as well as tidying up the citations. Question though: if two paragraphs are derived from the same source material, would it be better to cite each paragraph separately? For instance, most of the description section is based on one source. I really appreciate all of the suggestions we have received on this article, thank you! Sheep81 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) PS - There is no way to wrap the text around the TOC, correct?[reply]
      • If you can't find the information in the journal articles, you could probably email the author and ask him specific questions. I've done this on several occassions. I would cite each paragraph separately. With the <ref> system, it won't look as bad as with the Harvard system. You could probably wrap around the TOC block if you wanted to, but I don't think it's preferred. --BRIAN0918 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. Stay tuned to this station. I just went through the article with a fine-toothed comb to coordinate all the tenses to past tense. I also added a new section on Predation which I had forgotten to originally include, and expanded the lead to three solid paragraphs. Sheep81 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Tenses fixed, Predation section added and updated, lead expanded to three paragraphs, further copyediting performed, and now... article is completely footnoted! Look forward to any further comments! Thank you all. Sheep81 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It looks good now. Some other improvements would be to: go into more detail in the diet and predation sections, if possible; add a few more useful external links; find a freely-licensed image for the article, or create your own... if you aren't good at drawing, you could ask User:Rfl, who drew this skull, to try drawing one of the heads/skulls of the dinosaur. (note: I've asked him to make a drawing of the skull) --BRIAN0918 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that would be terrific if he would do it. We are also asking an outside artist for permission to use some images. The one in the taxobox is pretty but would look better in the body of the article. Sheep81 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thought the article was good before all the improvements.--Firsfron 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a great article! Only problem I could find: reference tags should be placed after punctuations marks, like this.[1] And not like this[2]. Other than that, definite FA material! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

Over the past couple months a lot of work has been done on the Canada article to improve it. Specifically, sections were shorted to bring it into summary style, subheadings were removed. First references were found, and then to be more specific inline footnotes have been added. At this point I think the page is ready to be nominated. The only concern that people may bring up which I want to address beforehand is that the general references (which are like further reading, and back up the uncontroversial statements in the text) are included in a subpage. The reason for this is two-fold. One is that there is a large amount of references, which in combination with the footnotes would make the bottom of the text very long. Secondly, the references are divided up into the sections they back up, so that the interested reader can find what they are looking for easily. This would however, make the table of contents on the first page overly long and complicated, so the decision was to place it in a subpage. I hope that even with this slight aberation from the manual of style, the page will still be looked at in a meaningful way. -- Jeff3000 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 35KB of prose as of 20 May 2006

  • Support - The subpage for references doesn't bother me at all - in fact, I almost prefer that method. Accessible if people are interested, but not overwhelming. One minor criticism - is there any way to make the font on the table listing the provinces/territories any larger? It's a bit hard to read at its current size. (Just so I won't be accused of hidden biases: Yes, I am a Canadian citizen. I haven't let that colour my judgement. (Note the Canadian spelling of "colour.")) The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per The Disco King. Ardenn 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I don't really like the references as a subpage; perhaps another way to solve it would be to put it in a show/hide section (I agree that it would make the article unwieldy if all these references were to be put directly into the article). Jon Harald Søby 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is some sort of error in the infobox when viewed in Opera 8.5. --Maitch 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just fixed this. I don't normally use Opera, but I do have it installed, and I think the formatting problem is gone. -- Jeff3000 23:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, however some things I noticed:
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.


  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "International rankings". (I'm not too sure what I was originally thinking about...)
  • Footnote #6 is messed up
  • AndyZ, I'm a little confused the page already has extensive footnotes, specifically 38 of them. Also which lists are you referring to, the only list was the Canadian provinces, which has just been removed after much discussion. I'll fix the categories and interwiki links. -- Jeff3000 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch... what am I doing? Those were erronous comments. AndyZ t 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad again, I just realized what I originally meant. AndyZ t 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok I've fixed the categories and the interwiki links, added a fair use rationale for the only fair use image, converted the International rankings in a table (like South Africa, which is the only featured article with International rankings), fixed footnote #6. The article already uses footnotes extensively with cite.php, and uses the cite book, cite web, and cite journal for all of those inline references to have them formatted correctly. -- Jeff3000 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The lead is divided into too many paragraphs. Perhaps 3 paragraphs will suffice. Single sentences should not be divided into paragraphs. The name section needs to be retitled and needs to be expanded. Also, the holiday section needs to be expanded. As mentioned above, I also don't like the idea of the references being on another page. They should be added into the main article. I'll add more comments later. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The lead paragraphs have been merged. The name section has been expanded and retitled. The holiday section has been expanded. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abstain for now. My initial concerns have been dealt with, but I have not yet read through the entire article yet to support. Pepsidrinka 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional vote Great read and very good use of Wikipedia:Summary style. However, the non-standard use of a "subpage" for references is a violation of the MOS and thus also counter to WP:WIAFA. Consider my vote to be a Support if that "subpage" is not used by this article and the references are kept where they should be (in the ==References== section) and consider this an Oppose if that "subpage" is used by this article. --mav 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has made a LOT of improvement recently. Though, as a Canada enthusiast, I find it a little too simple in places, and I feel that the economy section may be slightly too, this would still make a good featured article. The Halo (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The references issue has been fixed and it all looks good to go. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 01:58 UTC
  • Support Two caveats. The history section HAS TO include the admission of the western provinces ... Alberta and Sskchwn just "show up" in the text as if they were always there. Also, the military section is way overlinked. As important as they are, KFOR, Haiti, and the Second Boer War among others are not relevant to Canada per se. It bugs me much when armchair Wiki-critics say "change this" and "change that", but I made many edits myself en route to supporting this nice article, so I feel justified in asking for a couple more. Sfahey 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've just added how Manitoba, Alberta and Sasketewan came into confederation, and simplified the Military section as suggested. -- Jeff3000 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hooray for Canada! Your capital city is as boring as hell, but other than that, I have no complaints Bwithh 04:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Some aspects of the article are fine, but the prose of the whole article needs a good run-through before Criterion 2a is satisfied. Let's look at the lead, for example, in which nearly every sentence needs surgery.
    • "Canada is a country occupying most of the northern portion of North America, and is the world's second largest country in total area." The opening sentence should be perfect; it's not. "Country" appears twice; "occupying" is just a little awkward (sounds temporary); just what is the northern portion of North America of which Canada occupies most? This is an unhelpful concept here. "Total" is redundant. You may consider this instead: "Canada is the world's second largest country in area, and occupies the larger part of North America."
    • "Originally inhabited exclusively by aboriginal peoples". Originally, no one inhabited it. Reword.
    • "Canada peacefully obtained sovereignty from its last colonial possessor, Britain, in a process beginning in 1867 with its formation". I'm unsure that the move towards sovereignty was always actively at Canada's behest, as implied by the first four words. "Colonial possessor" is clumsy. The referent of the second "its" is not immediately clear. "Beginning" and "began" are OK in the lead, but are overused in subsequent sections.
    • "Canada is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Its head of state is its monarch, who is represented in Canada by the Governor General." Again, "its" is fuzzy, so make it "The". Why are we being coy about the identity of the monarch here? (Only later is this clarified.)
    • Canada defines itself as a bilingual and multicultural nation." "is" would be better than "defines itself as".
    • "Canada began to adopt policies based on the concepts of cultural diversity and multiculturalism."

You finish the lead by telling us that Canada is "technologically advanced", but detract from this in the rest of the paragraph ("a net exporter of energy because of its large fossil fuel deposits", "an abundance of natural resources").

I have other qualms about constitutional, legal and economic matters that I'll return to at a later stage in this process. Tony 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've interpolated my further responses in brown. Tony 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've interpolated my new comments in blue after Tony's comments inbrown -- Jeff3000 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with most of what Tony has commented on. The wording is for the most part is not awkward and portrays some finer points that are discussed in the rest of the article. Rewording the setences would take away from their wider meaning. For example, the sentence "Canada defines itself as a bilingual and multicultural nation." could be replaced by "is", but that's not the point; the point of the sentence is that not only "is" Canada bilingual and multicultural, but it's citizens see the bilingilism and multiculturalism as a very strong point. That distinction is a little too subtle without further explanation on the spot; is the distinction worth making right at the top? I was suggesting a plainer, stronger statement (one that you might enlarge on later). Please get "its" correct in your writing here. (and BTW this is referenced). The fact that it's "referenced" means nothing in deciding on this point. -- Jeff3000 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC) That this is subtle is your opinion. It is verifiable and correct.[reply]
  • Comment - I've looked into this further, and I really could just fix two of Tony's comments (the one related to "the concepts" of diversity ..., and the lead sentence). I'm going to address the other comments here:
  • I've used your suggested sentence as the structure as the new lead sentence, but your suggested sentence is also not correct. Canada would not occupy the larger part of North America. Greenland and the US would be larger than Canada. Given that Canada is seen as the land of the north, the "northern portion" is just fine, and is described later in the article. I'd never thought of Greenland (which, as a Danish territory, is part of the EU) as being part of North America; however, your revised opening sentence is much better. Greenland as a landmass is geographically part of North America, political subdivisions have nothing to do with.
  • An original inhabitant means the first to inhabit a region (and not if it was inhabited from day one). The First Nations people (aboriginals) where the first to inhabit the region of current-day Canada. Yes, quite right, but that's not what you say: "Originally inhabited" means something quite different from "original inhabitants", of course. Reword. fixed
  • Regardless if sovereignty was "actively" pursued or not (which I can argue it was) the statement is correct. You mean "regardless of whether", do you? Did Canada actively lobby for the development of the Statute of Westminster? And furthermore, was the Manitoba Act (and the British Columbia Incorporation Act of 1867, which you fail to mention) the result of New World lobbying? British Columbia and Manitoba have nothing to do with it, they were brought into confederation later. The process towards to complete Canadian sovereignty started in 1867 with three provinces (colonies) meeting at three conferences and asking for more soveignty. The fact that these conferences were held is active participation. Furthermore Canada, through Pierre Trudeau's goverment, actively pursued the Canada act to remove any remaining influence by the British Parliament.
  • The reason why the monarch is not mentioned in the lead is because the specific monarch is temporal. While right now it's Queen Elizabeth II, the specific monarch does not define the political system of Canada (and has no real power), and should not be mentioned in the lead. Yet you name the current prime minister, who's been in office for only a few months, as opposed to half a century. If the Queen has no real power, why is it that the article on the Governor General of Canada says that "The Queen does retain all executive power and her Royal Prerogative", and that, for example, she has the explicit power to change the number of seats in the Canadian Senate? The fact that "she very rarely personally intervenes in Canadian politics" is irrelevant - she retains that power. Many Australians got a rude shock when their GG used what were supposed to be "reserve powers" to dismiss the federal government in 1975; the principal is the same. Believe me, the Queen can exercise real power in Canada, even if she doesn't typically do so, and you should not assert that she can't.You are jumping in a conflict without knowing. There are monarchist and anti-monarchist editors on the Canada article. Naming the monarchy in the lead, but not the current head was an agreement that was made.
  • Using the word "Canada" to replace the first "its" would be using two many "Canadas". Yes, of course it would; this is why I suggested "The". fixed
  • I've commented on this one above. Canada both "is" and "defines" itself as bilingual and ...
  • I've fixed this one.
  • Being technologically advanced does not mean that one can not be a source of primary material. These are not opposites, and both are true in Canada's case. In fact Canada is one of the few developed nations that is a net exporter of energy. No, the problem here is that it's jumbled; if you assert that Canada is technologically advanced at the start of the paragraph, we expect a little enlargement on this first. Then you can make the point that it's a major exporter of .... At the moment, the technological statement is superficial. The lead is already too long. Any explanation of technologically advanced can not be made in a single sentence, but its removal would not be appropriate either.
-- Jeff3000 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A note on "actively" pursuing sovereignty: The Statute of Westminster was a law that affirmed the Balfour Declaration's earlier statement of the equality of the Dominions and the UK within the Commonwealth. The Balfour Declaration was introduced by Canada's Prime Minister. The original British North America Act was almost entirely conceived, negotiated, and written by Canadians. --thirty-seven 18:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Second largest country in the world, very interesting geography and culture, very well presented article. What more do you want? Kingfisherswift 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose why is langauge a separate section from demgraphics when language is a demographic measure? Demographics should have a measure of average educational achievement. I would prefer to see international ranking worked into the text, rather than have them in a box at the end. Comment most recently featured countires don't have the holiday section, do people think this adds much to an article?--Peta 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The holidays section is included since it is a recommendation of the countries wikiproject. As for the language, as already mentioned by Matt Deres, language is a very important feature in Canada, given it's history, and it's current makeup. Just as Australia has some sections which are not in the wikiproject that are important for it (like Fauna), language in Canada is important enough for the Canada article to have it's own section. -- Jeff3000 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language section is not particularly concise and would be better merged into the demographics, being officially bilinual isn't a feature exclusive to Canada. The demographic section is rather brief without it. Recently featured country articles without holidays and rankings include Bangladesh, Nauru, and Pakistan.--Peta 06:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment I think the article as it stands now easily meets the FAC criteria. With regards to Peta's comment above, the language issue is a complicated one in Canada and that portion of the article does deserve its own heading. Perhaps a small expansion that touched on some of the sore spots many anglophones (and francophones) have for one another. Consider, for example, the bilingualism controversy in the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario article. Matt Deres 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I agree that this article has received a lot of attention over the past couple months, and that it has indeed improved, but I do not think it has reached a stage where it satisfies the criteria. I agree with Tony's points about the introduction. In my opinion it flows poorly (too many short sentences) and does not summarise Canada adequetely (lacks broad perspective, and delves un-necessarily into particular areas best left to the article proper - especially multiculturalism). The history section is far too excessive for an article supposedly written in summary. In the foreign relations and military section, I think some statements should be directly sourced: who cites the Suez Crisis as an example of Canadian multilateralism? who suggests that public debate will spur a greater peacekeeping role? While I agree with Peta that language is a measure of demographics, and I would prefer it to be subsumed into that section, I am also fine with it remaining separate. However, there is no mention of education in demographics, and there should be. Finally, the holidays section should be cut, if for no other reason than because the article is rather large. The sections I haven't mentioned are good. --cj | talk 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You state that it lacks broad perspective, and give no specific examples, how are we to improve it. You state that multiculturalism should not be stated, but it is a defining part of Canadian culture, and needs to be in the intro. The history section is just 18% than the Australia history section. I've fixed the remaining objections by finding a citation for the Lester Pearson statement, removing the statement on public debate (I don't know when that got it), removing the holidays section. I'm working on finding the education statistics. -- Jeff3000 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - A paragraph on education has been added. -- Jeff3000 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for remedying those concerns. However, I still feel that the introduction is lacking and that the history section is too long. Firstly on the introduction: I feel the best examples that the Canada article should follow are Australia and Pakistan. In the introductions to those articles, there are three elements I think make for good introductions. The first paragraph of the introduction provides locational context - what its geography is, who its neighbours are. The second paragraph gives an historical overview - this is essentially what the initial paragraph of the Canada intro does. And finally, the third paragraph is left for societal details - what its political system is (without the detail of the present intro), what its social characteristics are (bilingualism/multiculturalism and perhaps even primary production). With the history section, it needs a going over by someone knowledgeable in Canadian history and narrowed/refocused on only vital events and trimed elsewhere.--cj | talk 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentThanks for the guidance. I've changed the intro to follow the style you indicated. In regards to the history, I've tried to keep it short, stating summary style (see Talk:Canada#Recent_history), but many editors feel there are significant events that need to be there, thus giving it's current length. -- Jeff3000 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The introduction is much better. I'll consider supporting now.--cj | talk 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well referenced, well written. Phoenix2 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ditto the above. --HappyCamper 18:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I already voted "Support". Most of the several items I observed that needed work ... I fixed. I don't agree with most of Tony's objections, or expectations. Also, he writes "'You' finish the lead by ..." as if one person wrote the dang thing. This is supposed to be a team effort, right? Sfahey 02:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sfahey, did you know that 'you' is singular and plural in English?
With respect to your monarchist/antimonarchist trizzing: no one could be more anti-monarchist than I am. It's an insult to intelligent people to retain a symbol for inherited wealth and power in the 21st century, and the fact that it's a foreign head is pure embarrassment. However, that's not the point here. If the head of state is mentioned in the lead at all, it should be clearly referred to and should not beg questions in the reader's mind. Whatever deal you've struck among yourselves about coyly tipping your hats to the existence of a monarch, but refusing to identify her, is a half-baked and quite unsatisfactory solution. If you're still bickering about it, don't mention the head of state at all in the lead: just in the section on government. For heaven's sake, there's lots about the structure of governance that you don't mention in the lead. Tony 07:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, and I think the way it is currently is just perfect. It shows the political system, but doesn't go into too much detail with the current physical person. It was decided upon, and your input will not change consensus. I will not be changing it. Keep your vote oppose. -- Jeff3000 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry, I won't be changing my oppose. And I haven't critiqued the rest of the text, yet. See you soon. Tony 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and crtique, but I would also take Sfahey's lead and also spend time improving the article. Notice how he actually went into the article, and made grammatical changes to make it better. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to allow; I would gather that you would spend more time writing out your critiques on this page with fancy colours than it would take to actually fix the supposed grammatical problems you have with the text. -- Jeff3000
Yeah, it does waste a lot of time when I have to engage in squabbles in this room. No, I won't edit the article (certainly not after experiencing your recalcitrant attitude), but I'll assist by critiqueing in the hope that you can raise the text to the required standard. Then I'll be quite prepared to support the nomination. Tony 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I haven't agreed with all your recommendations, doesn't make me recalcitrant. Indeed, out of your six suggestions, I have implemented four of them (66%). I rather think that you are a little stubborn in thinking that all your suggestions have to implemented, and that your understanding of Canadian politics is the understanding. Again, I invite you to spend your time changing and improving the article. -- Jeff3000 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to note, that I have implemented every other actionable change suggested by everyone on this page, except for merging the demographics and language section. They include:
  • Name section expanded, and renamed
  • Holiday section, first expanded, and then removed
  • A paragraph on education added
  • Noted how Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatechewan entered into confederation
  • Fixed categories, interwiki, fair use images
  • Fixed style of International Rankings
  • Included the references in the page, rather than a subpage
  • Shortening of Military section, and less linking
  • Provided a reference for the Suez canal statement, and removed another statement that couldn't be referenced regarding peacekeeping
  • 4 of 6 suggestions by Tony.
I don't think that this is a stubborn attitude. --
  • Calling reviewers "stubborn" because they defend their critiques of your text is not going to get you anywhere. If you were not defensive in your attitude to the review process, and set out to learn a few things about preparing a text such as this, it would be much more productive. Tony 07:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note among other things recalcitrant means stubborn, and you called me that first (yes this is a little childish, but I won't stand for you misrepresenting me); you are the one that is judging my attitude by stating that I am recalcitrant and have a defensive attitude. In fact the discussions show that I am not recalcitrant or defensive; particularly, I've agreed to virtually every change by every editor (almost always immediatly), so where is the defensive and stubborn attitude. I have just disagreed with some of your statements regarding the "active" process towards sovereignty and that the name of the monarch has to appear in the lead (because of consensus made in the talk page) and I stand my those non-changes, as indicated by another Canadian editor who has commented on this page. -- Jeff3000 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text has been improved significantly over the past few days. However, more editing is required, including the following matters. In particular, there's a lot of redundant wording.
I've started fixing the issues, and comments regarding if it's fixed or not is in blue-- Jeff3000 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third sentence now says: "Canada shares land borders with the contiguous United States to the south and with Alaska to the northwest." Isn't Alaska contiguous with Canada (whereas Hawaii is not)? If "contiguous" is a standard term that excludes Alaska, this won't be clear to many readers; a more widely understood wording would be preferable.Continuous US is a US term meaning the 48 states that are continugous. If someone doesn't know what that means, the wikilink is there.
    • "at the Treaty of Paris"—query the preposition. I don't know what this means
    • "brought along European diseases"—Can "along" be removed?fixed
    • "including building a sense of unity and nationalism"—to avoid ing ing, possibly "including the building of"; are both epithets required (unity and nationalism)? If so, unity of whom? fixed
    • Since the War of 1812 is not explained, the "long-term peace between Canada and the United States" comes as a surprise. Readers should not have to visit the link to explain the term in retrospect. fixed
    • The link to "Conscription" should not have an upper-case C. It should be piped so that conscription is the only blue word (doesn't make sense at the moment). fixed
    • Spell out CCF.fixed
    • "the two countries continue to share the same Monarch"—Why upper-case M? Why not just "both countries share a monarch"?fixed
    • "Economic integration with the United States increased after 1940, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 a defining moment." These two statements are awkward jammed into the one sentence, even though they are connected.fixed
    • There's talk of the House of Commons in passing before we're appraised of the basic structure of the parliament (Queen, Senate, HOC). I think it needs to be there to explain who the Prime Minister is
    • A constitutional lawyer would advise removing "always" from "the Governor General always, by convention, respects the Prime Minister's choices".fixed
    • "The Cabinet is traditionally drawn from members of the Prime Minister's party in both legislative houses, though mostly from the Commons." Here, "though" should not be used, because it doesn't contradict the previous statement.fixed
    • "Executive power is exercised"—ex ex better avoided in "compelling, even brilliant" prose, as required.couldn't find a better synonym, it's the best word
    • "The Prime Minister exercises a great deal of individual political power, especially ..."—Is "individual" necessary here?fixed
    • When we do get to the houses, "the elected House of Commons and the appointed Senate" should be "an" ... "an" (see the Constitution). Likewise, "a "riding" or electoral district", not "one". fixed
    • "none have"—ungrammatical: "has".fixed
    • "selected and appointed by the Governor General"—You're kidding me? Remove "selected and".fixed, was a recent addition yesterday
    • "federal cabinet also appoints"—redundant "also".fixed
    • "Over the last 60 years"—what, before the end of the world? You mean "past". Likewise, "For the last decade" and "the last century".fixed
    • "Coastal British Columbia is an exception and it enjoys"—pick the redundant word.fixed
    • "as resources centred in Alberta, but also present in neighbouring British Columbia"—"but" must contradict the previous statement; it doesn't here.fixed
    • "sectory"?fixed
    • "has maintained the best overall economic performance in the G8"—needs a "since [year]". it's there, since 2001
    • "Each of the 13 education systems, while similar, reflect"—ungrammatical.fixed
    • "Postsecondary education is also the responsibility of the provincial and territorial governments who provide most of their funding"—Remove "also"; "who" is a problem.fixed
    • "had some post-secondary education"—Remove "some".fixed
    • "commensurate"—Why not just "equal"?I believe that's the official wording
    • "Non-official languages are also important in Canada"—Are you really telling us that, oh, by the way, the official languages are important? Get rid of "also".fixed
    • Pic of mounted policeman is a dud; he's ignoring us .... can't you find a better one?Long searches have already been made, no good mounty picture that is GFDL, see Archive 8 of the Canada talk page.
    • A few more commas required in the "Culture" section, for precision and ease of reading.fixed
    • Comment -- The Mountie image also allows us to mention Expo 1967 in its caption. It's a shame that you dislike the composition. Jkelly 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'tis a little odd. Tony 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween III: Season of the Witch[edit]

Nomination: This article is about the sequel to the film Halloween which was promoted to featured status last month. The primary author, Dmoon1 is also the primary author of the Halloween and Halloween II (also an FA) articles. I am nominating this page because I believe it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. It is comprehensive, well-referenced, and supporting images are properly tagged with fair use rationales. In my opinion, it exemplifies a high-quality article. --Myles Long 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent work! - Tutmosis 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article is much better than the movie. RyanGerbil10 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does anyone else think the actors in brakets should be removed from the intro? It kind of disrupts the flow for me. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed up the lead paragraph in the intro. Dmoon1 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. There's a few other things that caught my eye: (1) From "Plot", "After Challis is captured...." a passive sentence. Captured by who? (2) "When the Silver Shamrock television commercial airs on Halloween night, the chip will activate, causing wearers' heads to dissolve and spew forth insects and snakes, killing them." This sentence is weird. Heads will dissolve, but is it the heads or the masks or the chip that will spew forth insects and snakes? Killing who? The children or the insects or the snakes? (3) From "Production", "(the film, however, does contain a brief nod to its predecessors by including a few short scenes from Halloween in a television commercial that advertises the airing of the film for that upcoming holiday)." Maybe lose the brackets, and move the sentence down to the other section that lists references to the earlier films, as it is later established this isn't the only reference. And maybe make it clear the commercial mentioned is a story within a story? (4) From Writing, ""The main story had to do with deception, psychological shocks rather than physical ones."" This quote stands on its own as a sentence in the article, which I don't think you can do. Context? I think I heard in university, a sentence should stand on its own. (5) "While much of the plot remained the same, the alterations displeased him"- Kneale or De Laurentiis? (6) Definition of a pod movie? (7) From the intro, "movie-goers were unhappy about the absence of Myers"- reference? This is also something that appears in the intro only and is not expanded upon in the main text. (8) From "Reception", "The tagline of the film (The Night No One Comes Home) referenced the original Halloween's tagline, The Night HE Came Home!." It's not immediately clear to me why this is in Reception and what it has to do with the rest of the paragraph, which is about the poster. Other than these things, it's another nice-looking, comprehensive article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these issues. Dmoon1 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote: While it is a good article, it simply isn't a notable movie. It only has a mere 3.5/10 on imdb. Aside from which, do we really need more than two Halloween movies to become featured articles? If this keeps up, we'll have to waste 8 featured article slots on the series. --SeizureDog 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not valid, actionable objections. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exploding whale and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xenu, where it is clearly established it is the article content, not the topics or their notability, that is being examined here. Even if you feel too many Halloween articles would be featured, there's nothing the authors of this article can do to fix this article accordingly. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, you do not have much of a precedent of highly similar articles, such as sequels, getting featured multiple times. If it was just the notability I would be fine with it, but there are plenty of groups with many high quality articles that should not get featured over and over. I assume that you seem to plan on making each of the Halloween movie articles up to the same quality, but can you really argue that all eight movies should get featured status? Even if they are excellent, featured articles are meant to showcase the best there is to offer, but it also is meant to inform. And having virtually the same thing over and over isn't informative. --SeizureDog 03:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we argure all eight movies should get featured status? In the ideal fantasy Wikipedia, all articles would be featured quality! Why should we have limits saying a number of articles must remain at stub level or stay in a cleanup category? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CanadianCaesar is right on the ball here. If the article is notable enough for Wikipedia, it can be a featured article. End of discussion.--Sean Black (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry everyone, I think I've been confused. I thought featured articles were articles that made the front page, as in, the articles of the day. I didn't know they could also just be stored away in that little list without making it to the front. The whole term "featured" is really misleading. I retract my vote and all comments.--SeizureDog 03:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hate horror movies but this is quite a good article. Everyking 10:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good article Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Cultural and film historians, on the other hand, have read significance into the film's plot" - when don't these people read significance into film plots? Bwithh 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't the rest of the sentence, "...linking it to critiques of large corporations and American consumerism," give the sentence some purpose beyond what you suggest it does? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the rest of the sentence also highlights the redundancy of saying the historians have "on the other hand, read significance into the film's plot". There's nothing special about reading significance into something in this context. I was criticizing that meaning of that particular part of the sentence, which is why I focussed on that first part only. Bwithh 16:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. If the article were to ignore these people's criticisms or observations, it would not be comprehensive. Dmoon1 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I give my support to this article, and feel the fact the first two films in the series are featured articles has no relevance. Information given is different on each, concentrating on the production, casting and so on of the film in each individual article. Put in more references and I think it should be featured. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very impressed by these Halloween articles. Great work. Cvene64 01:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. What a load of tripe this film appears to be; fortunately, it fails 2a. Sorry to be rude below, but this is not "compelling, even brilliant" prose.
    • "Additionally, the majority of critics gave the film negative reviews."—What's "additionally" doing here? Every sentence is additional to the previous text. Get rid of it and it will be stronger. "the majority of"—is that code for "most"? Why use one word when three will do. There's another instance of this further down that is not just flabby, as here, but ungrammatical.
    • "who also produced the first two films"—again, every sentence is an "also". Weed out that word unless it's really necessary; it weakens your text.
    • "imbedded"—what's that?
    • "killing the wearers' and causing their heads to dissolve and spew forth insects and snakes"—why the apostrophe? Wearers' what? Given that this text is on the informal end of the encyclopedic register (which is quite OK), the word "forth" is little out of kilter.
    • "and rescues someone whom he believes to be Ellie." Believe it or not, this is ungrammatical—"who" is correct, or better still, remove it altogether.
    • "get involved"—"become" would be nicer.

I won't look any further until it's properly copy-edited, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Don't just fix these examples, which I took at random to demonstrate the kind of editing that is required. Let us know when that has been done. Tony 03:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While your opinion of the film is of little interest, thanks for your suggestions. These examples have been corrected, plus others like them throughout that I caught. I, however, have seen too much of this text and it's all starting to look the same. Most of the above cited examples were the result of poor editing on my part. If anyone else cares to further pick minor nits, please do so and they will be addressed immediately if possible. Dmoon1 07:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you need to actively recruit a few WPs to do it; that's what the community is there for. A few hours' work is required. Tony 07:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I printed a copy of the article and marked it up since errors and mistakes seem more obvious on paper than on screen for some reason and made several more minor changes along the same lines as your examples listed above. This article has already been copy-edited by at least three other people prior to being listed here, so I really don't know who else to ask since all of these people have copy-edited or produced featured articles themselves. Your comment about the article lacking "compelling, even brilliant" prose is very unhelpful since this is such a subjective statement. I looked at some of the articles on the FAC list that you support as sort of a guide, but I saw nothing particularly "compelling" or "even brilliant" about the writing in these articles. Nauru, for instance, is full of passive voice and the word also appears four times . . . twice in one paragraph. Minor errors and typos in the Halloween III article have now been weeded out considerably since you posted your first comment, and I offer my thanks with the utmost sincerity for this, but your objection is now unactionable without you giving more specific examples besides. Dmoon1 09:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still actionable, of course. I'll provide more examples if you wish, but they only serve to show that the article, thus far, fails Criterion 2a; i.e., they're not a compendium or how-to-fix-it prescription (otherwise I may as well edit the whole thing myself, which reviewers are under no obligation to do). I can only suggest that you cast your net more widely on WP among those who you can see are good editors (or reviewers here) and those who have contributed to similar articles. You'd do everyone a favour by networking with the right people, so that future FACs in this field can benefit. Otherwise, it will be hard to satisfy the requirements. There are a few techniques that might help: reading each sentence aloud is often helpful, particularly regarding commas; leave it for a few days, then print out again and scrutinise; go through every word asking whether it can be removed without damaging the meaning; and try editing the sentences in reverse order. Tony 12:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, article uses seven copyrighted images, far more than the "limited number" needed for identification. Two are particularly problematic: Image:Carpenter Howarth.jpg is tagged {{Promotional}}, but there's no evidence it's actually a promo photo, and given the informal nature of the photograph, it seems unlikely; and Image:HalloweenIII Fangoria.jpg is tagged {{magazinecover}}, making it fair use in an article about the magazine, but not in an article about a movie. Angr (t • c) 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object should probably have gone to peer review first, but anyway... i did some copyediting before, but there were some bits i couldnt fix:
this sentence is confusing: " Other guests of the hotel included shop owners, Marge Guttman (Garn Stephens), and the Kupfer family: Buddy (Ralph Strait), Betty (Jadeen Barbor) and their son "Little" Buddy (Bradley Schacter). " who are the shop owners? "
killing the wearers and causing their heads to dissolve" - so the heads dissolving doesnt kill them?
incorrect fact: "pod" does NOT mean "point of divergence". just means "pod" as in people grown in pods. so dont link to "point of divergence".
pgraphs 3,4,5 of "reception" are nothing to do with reception - should go in their own "merchandising" section.
left-shift the first kupfer family picture.
regarding the content, there should be expanded info in the following areas: (a) more on the nigel kneale dispute situation, with quotes from all parties involved. how did the finished product differ from the original screenplay? did kneale in fact sue? what were carpenter's feelings on the changes? hill? wallace? akkad? yablans? any more from kneale? (b) more on this "anthology" idea. more quotes about what their intended plans were for the series, and why they felt myers was a dead duck. and a little about why they brought him back for H4, and why carpenter & hill left the series after this one. (c) go into a bit more detail on the critiques of large corporations and American consumerism. (d) the role of Dean Cundey is vital here - he was DP on H1 and H2 so provides a visual style to match the previous entries, but nothing about him and no quotes from him? he's as important as carpenter/hill to the first 3 films, and was singled out for praise by time out. Zzzzz 13:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to address your first 5 points. I've clarified the two sentences, I think. I delinked "point of divergence" (should this link to Pod People or Invasion of the Body Snatchers instead?). I created a "merchandising" section, as per your suggestion. Also, I left-shifted the image you mentioned. As I'm not familiar with the majority of sources used, I don't feel that I can address your other concerns adequately, but perhaps Dmoon1 would be willing to do so when/if he returns from his wikibreak. Regardless, I still feel that this is a fine article, worthy of recognition. --Myles Long 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An excess of unfree illustrations and a complete lack of free illustrations. As the world's largest free content encyclopedia, we can do better. --Gmaxwell 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I doubt your "complete lack of free illustrations" reason is a valid objection. As long as this film is protected by copyright, there will be no adequate free images for this article.--Fallout boy 05:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and comprehensive, with images where appropriate (images are not a prerequisite for attaining featured status). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another excellent Halloween film article. Can't wait until you bring every one in the series to this level. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2[edit]

Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/Archive 1

Self-nomination and renomination. I have picked up where User:Thunderbrand has left off. The article itself has been further cleaned up, including the following:

1.) A more concise lead intro
2.) A lot more references
3.) Stabilization of past and present tense
4.) Addition of a reception section
5.) Fixed nit-picky complaints in last FA attempt

As far as why it should be featured, the article itself is beautifully written. It's easy to read, it's informative, and it's pretty exhaustive. It's one of the best games out there, and it's been hailed as one of the most influential games of all time. I think that's something that we should give credence to. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has less than 30KB of prose as of 23 May 2006
This article has 33KB of prose as of 22 May 2006. I make it 44.4... Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, some of those images we're claiming "fair use" on are really high-res. Jkelly 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which? If you're referring to the game images, the rationale given seems to be fine:
      • Valve Software has not released any screenshots to the public domain
      • The image is used to show the game's distinctive graphical style
      • The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game
      • The image does not limit Valve's ability to sell the game
    • So... I suppose one could lessen the size, but it should be fine.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images have the potential to reduce the commercial value of the screenshots; if Valve wants to, say, make posters or T-shirts, someone could compete with them by taking the images from Wikipedia and using them. We're probably better off safer than sorry and replacing the images with lower-resolution versions; how much harm could this do to the article if the article is using low-res images anyway? Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright then. I'll reduce the size of the images later today. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. The image sizes have been reduced to more acceptable levels. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. They're still rather large, though - is that really necessary for a reason I'm not getting? For example, I don't think we need such a large screenshot of a simple interface. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For later computer and video games featuring anti-aliasing, screenshots should be large enough to illustrate any details that the game's graphic engine creates, especially those including complex scenes with a large number of elements (bump mapping, level of detail in textures, draw distance, etc.) The 800x640 resolution limit is reasonable enough by my book, and is also comparable to the size of the depicted scene when viewed from a standard computer or television screen. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
        • Well, yes, but the image I linked to isn't a complicated one by any means. The fair use template used also inaccurately describes the images as "web-resolution" (more like wallpaper res), but it's a minor detail. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My previous post referred specifically to game screenshots, but I do agree with you on the image you pointed to - applications in windowed environments should be depicted under a lower resolution if its general content is minimal. In addition, 800x600 pixel images contain 72 pixels per inch, exactly the (1998?-2000?) standard of a web image resolution. [2] ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Comment. Could you replace the map of the world icon with International. The icon is not very clear and rarely used. CG 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Linuxbeak has done an incredible job fixing this up for an FAC run. I think it is definately worthy. Thunderbrand 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A large section from the middle appears to be from direct observation of the game. A very-strict reading of WP:RS#Some_definitions would disallow that. Can this material (descriptions of the levels and scenes, etc.) be sourced instead from reviews or strategy guides instead? Preferably print ones, to avoid further issues about reliability of sources. I'd also like to see Category:Killer games taken off. brenneman{L} 15:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the category as you requested. I'll work on trying to get more sources for this section, but I don't think that it's entirely critical. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've got a ton of references for you now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support I also approve of the re-adding of the soundtrack, by the way. We may be stretching the number of screen shots that are "fair use" here, but that's more an observation than a complaint as there is no denying they look great. Well done all around, I'd say. - brenneman{L} 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I can't see anything significantly wrong with this article – Gurch 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nicely written, interesting article. Lots of references and overall good compliance with WP:MOS. - Matveims 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-Well referenced, well written article. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and more comprehensive than previous FAC versions, along with having better reference use. Worthy of FA status. Nufy8 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - the article is not, in my opinion, an appropriate length. 55kb of text is something that only a tiny proportion of readers are likely to want to wade through, and I fear the effort that has gone into making this article so large will not result in it actually being read very much. Exceeding 32kb is seldom justified, and you could hugely increase the appeal of the article by writing much more concisely. The plot section alone is the size of Silverpit crater, a featured article - I don't see how that can realistically be justified. The verbosity is overwhelming, and the article could probably say everything it says now in about half the space, if the writing was better. This is my fundamental problem with the article, but others include
    • "Rise and shine, Mr. Freeman. Rise and shine..." --The G-Man - why is this quote present, just underneath a section heading? What's the relevance? Same for the longer quote at the end of that section, quote at the beginning of 'narration'
    • Why have a box listing the chapter sequence? What does this actually tell me about the game?
    • Why have a list of official maps? This is not synthesising and summarising, as encyclopaedia articles are supposed to.
    • The description of the journey in 'Cuts...' is a bullet-pointed list - why not prose?
    • Why list all the tracks on the soundtrack? Worldtraveller 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, this article has, by my estimate, 33KB of prose. Length of prose is the only thing that Wikipedia:Summary style is worried about. Granted, 30KB is the starting point of getting too long, depending on the topic (some topics need more space). That said, I do agree that some parts of this article could be trimmed (an article on a video game need not be so long). --mav 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, well when I stripped out all the formatting and tables just now there was still 44kb of actual prose... Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to show you a couple of examples of other featured articles that are beyond 32kbs...
      • So, this article would be right smack in the middle. There's nothing terribly wrong with that. As far "if the writing was better", please, tell me how I could improve it.
        • I just did some analysis of FA lengths - 87% of them are shorter than this. I can see loads of ways in which the writing could be made more concise - far too many to list. It's flabby writing that makes the article too long, not breadth of subject or quantity of information. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would like to know how you arrived with this number. "87%" indicates a very precise figure, and seeing that there are nearly one thousand featured articles, I find it difficult to believe that you went through each and every one to determine their actual size. In terms of "loads of ways in which the writing could be made more concise", I'm only asking for a few examples. The purpose of going through FAC is to figure out how to make the article better so that it may be promoted. I can't help you/the article if you don't help me out first. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wrote a script to get all the lengths. It needs polishing but I may put it online somewhere - the only way to get sizes at the moment is to use the search button for every article you want to know the size of.
            • As for flabby text, well fundamentally the plot section seems way over-detailed to me. Bits like ...which Kleiner has been upgraded from a Mark IV version to a Mark V... are confusing to anyone who hasn't played the game and don't really add anything to the description. According to my script your plot section alone is longer than featured articles on Franklin B. Gowen, Warren County Canal and the First Battle of the Stronghold. I don't see how you can justify describing the plot at such length. Summary and synthesis of information to make it accessible to as wide a body of readers as possible is the aim of an encyclopaedia, and I don't think this fulfils that aim. Also, the plot section entirely lacks references. Where is all this information coming from?
            • Beyond 'plot', things get better in terms of the space allocated to each section, but there's still enormous verbosity. For example:
              • The usage of Steam has not gone without controversy. Users have had numerous problems with Steam, sometimes being serious enough to prevent a reviewer from recommending a given title available on the service. In other cases, review scores have been lowered - you could say all that as The Steam game engine has proved unpopular with some players and game reviewers., cutting out two thirds of the text.
              • A 1 gigabyte portion of Half-Life 2 became available for pre-load through Steam on August 26, 2004. This meant that customers could begin to download encrypted game files to their computer before the game was released. When the game's release date arrived, customers were able to pay for the game through Steam, unlock the files on their hard drives and play the game immediately, without having to wait for the whole game to download. The pre-load period lasted for several weeks, with several subsequent portions of the game being made available, to ensure all customers had a chance to download the content before the game was released. - how about For several weeks before Half life 2 was officially released, customers could download game files, which were then activated when the game was subsequently purchased. With a skillful wielding of an editorial scalpel you could easily say everything that's said in about half the space. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The potential problem I see with that is a sacrifice of detail. The article as it is is very rich in detail, as this presents information in a more complete manner. I have tried to cut down a little but frankly I'm not an amateur when it comes to writing. If I do more in terms of compression, I'm going to end up cutting off parts that I'd rather not let go. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In the two examples I gave, I do not see that any detail has been sacrificed by cutting the amount of text by two thirds. My whole point is that you can say everything that needs to be said in half the space, by writing more concisely. This will increase the appeal of the article considerably. Worldtraveller 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In your first modified example, I find "The Steam game engine has proved unpopular with some players and game reviewers" to be overly general. First, although this is purely me being picky, Steam isn't a game engine. It's a content delivery system. The revised example doesn't mention that Steam itself led to what would have been higher review ratings. The second example doesn't describe how the Steam pre-load works, nor does it mention the benefits to which one would want to do such a pre-load. That's the problem I have with your examples here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In the first one, I think it would be implicitly obvious that if Steam was unpopular with reviewers it would have led to lower ratings. And in the second, it is also implicitly obvious that you'd download early to save time. Even if my trimmed versions are not perfect, I think they still show that making the article much more concise is very possible. Worldtraveller 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The quotes are a colorful addition. What's wrong with them? They don't detract from the article in any way.
          • Yes, they do - they are not relevant to the text and they don't explain anything about the game. They make it look like a piece of journalism or fan writing rather than an encyclopaedia article. They are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seeing that there has been significant speculation from several sources on what the G-Man means or actually is, the quotes add a touch of color and taste to the article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be dry, and a game article doesn't need to be as academicly uniform as, say, an article on astrophysics. It's not fan writing; it's a quote from the game, and a rather significant one at that. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • At the moment, the quote tells me nothing at all about the game - it doesn't enlighten me in any way. It just looks like a fan's unnecessary addition. If you want to use it to explain something, it needs to be done in the text. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • What I did with those quotes is a writing technique called a epigraph. I'm afraid that in this case, it's wholly a matter of taste, as there is no rule allowing or forbiding them in Wikipedia. I like them as they add taste, but they're not critical. I will remove them for now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, it's a technique that's fine for novels, but not really fine for an encyclopaedia article. Worldtraveller 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, THAT list. I removed it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The list of maps that you're referring to (I think) is not a list of maps. It's the story line, and it's akin to a table of contents for the game.
          • Looks like you removed the list I was referring to originally. There is still the chapter box, which I think you are referring to here. This doesn't tell the reader anything about the game - it adds no value to the article. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not a bullet-pointed list?
          • Bullet points are for lists, not for separating paragraphs. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I ask that you read that section out loud. You will see that there are parts that would just not jive inside of a paragraph. There's nothing wrong with a list format here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the soundtrack; that could be put into another article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how anyone can write a featured article without (if not exceeding) treading dangerously close to the 32kb limit. In the first place, it was there for technical reasons. The issue should be whether or not the length makes the article hard to read. Johnleemk | Talk 05:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, 378 current FAs are less than 30K long, and 147 are less than 20kb. I think one of the real skills of writing an FA is to say all that needs to be said in the fewest words possible. Beyond a certain limit, the longer an encyclopaedia article on a given topic, the fewer people will actually read it, and while many people would want to read 55Kb about the second world war, or the Inca empire, or Einstein, far fewer people are likely to want to read 55Kb about a computer game. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there anything wrong with a longer article? I would rather have more information than less. As I mentioned above, I would like to see how you came up with these figures. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, it's flabby writing that's leading to size here. If you can say all that you need to say in 20kb of text, you shouldn't use 55kb of text to say it. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eloquence and conciseness are very important qualities for an article. However, I do not share your criticism that this article has "flabby writing". There is a lot to be said about this influential video game and there should not be an arbitrary technical restriction on how large an article should be. There are plenty of featured articles that exceed the 32KB restriction (Antarctic krill, Robert Lawson (architect), El Lissitzky, AIDS, Albatross, Aquarium, Asperger syndrome, Asthma, the list goes on..) If you have any concrete criticism of the language being used in the article, then that would be constructive criticism. As it stands your main caveat seems to be with the length of the article, and your vague accusations on the writing do little but confirm this. jaco♫plane 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave two examples above of pieces of writing which could be cut by a third without losing any information. Worldtraveller 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a hard look at the article (especially the plot) and I have talked to others who have been watching the article and FAC in length. At this point, I am going to disagree with your stance. The examples that you did give cut out details that I would much prefer to have left there. I also am against your summarization of my writing as "flabby". That's way too vague for me to make any constructive changes to, and others disagree with your statement that this article can be significantly tightened up. The fact of the matter is that Half-Life 2 is a very in-depth game with a great amount of detail involved, and that detail deserves to be conveyed. You stated on your talk page that you think that the article could be roughly halfed in terms of size. I am not going to cut down the article to half the size it is now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it's very disingenuous to claim that my objection to flabby writing is too vague, when I gave two very specific examples. Who disagrees, by the way? I looked through your contributions and couldn't find any discussion you've had about this issue with other editors. I'm sure the game is very detailed, but the skill of writing an encyclopaedia article is to give an account of the detail in as few words as possible, thus maximising the article's potential audience. As it is, quite frankly, I find this article overwhelmingly dull - much too long to enjoy. Sad to see, I feel the effort put into writing an article this large is somewhat wasted, because not nearly as many people will feel like reading it as they would if it was much shorter. My contention is that you can halve the article without sacrificing any detail, and you seem to be saying it has to be verbose. All I can do, then, is reiterate that I oppose this nomination. Worldtraveller 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples you gave are not examples of "flabby writing". I already stated that the examples that you gave eliminated detail that I did not want to eliminate. As far as who disagrees, there are multiple people, including but not limited to jacoplane, gurch, and Greentryst. We talk on IRC, so that's why you haven't seen in-wiki conversations regarding it. You may find it dull, but is there a chance that you just may not be interested in the subject matter? I'm going to risk a fallacy of appealing to the masses, but as of right now you're the only opposer out of fourteen supporters. I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who reads this will be intrigued. I have addressed most of your concerns, but I'm afraid that this one objection is one that I do not see as practical or actionable. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in the subject matter? An easy accusation to make at someone who is objecting to your article, but not accurate in this case. FAC is not a vote, and numbers of supporters is irrelevant if actionable objections are raised. Ignore my objection if you want but you shouldn't try to dismiss it as unactionable - it is completely actionable, you're just choosing not to take any action on it. Greentryst says he likes yams - not sure I see how that makes my objections untenable. Rather than claiming that people are backing you up on IRC, why not get them to discuss here? Quite honestly, if I can write an article about an entire planet in 35kb, I think you can write an article about a computer game in the same or less. 55kb is massively indulgent. I'd like there to be an article about Half-life 2 that would appeal to a large number of potential readers, and I'm afraid this isn't it. Worldtraveller 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of anything, Worldtraveller. I was asking if it was possible and if it had some affect on your position. I know better to not make ad-hominem circumstantial fallacies. I do not think it's actionable, because I've reviewed the article three times over since you last posted and my writing is tight. Half-Life 2 is a long game (it can easily take 70 hours or more to finish), and it's chock-full of detail. You're asking me to shave off more than 20 kb worth of text, which is something that I simply am unable to do without affecting the quality of the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be able to do it, but it can be done. Like I say, if I can summarise all that's known about Mercury into a 35kb article, I am sure you can do better still with a computer game. You might think your writing is tight, but perhaps mine is a less partial view, and I disagree. In the two examples above, apart from my calling Steam something it's not, your text does not actually tell the reader anything more than my text does. Honestly - from reading yours I come away with not a bit more knowledge than from reading mine. You've just used a lot more words to say exactly the same thing. Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been chatting to LinuxBeak on IRC, and I think that the plot summary should be cut to oe or two paragraphs max. Other than that, i'm pretty happy with how this has turned out, it might be verbose in parts but overll I'm happy with what I read. Check 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a very positive step. I really don't see the need to describe the plot in such excessive detail - I just looked through seven or eight film and book FAs, and none had a plot section longer than 5 paragraphs. Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider doing what the peeps over at the Starcraft FA did and create another sub article. - Hahnchen 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Worldtraveller, Perfect Dark, which was recently on the main page, has a box listing the missions. Thunderbrand 15:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice job. The only minor caveat I have with this article is that besides the track listing and the name of the composer, the article doesn't actually say what kind of music is included with the game. I haven't played the game, so I have no idea whether the score is headthumping techno or classical music. jaco♫plane 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Neutral, I see the entire section on the soundtrack has now been removed. I think the article needs to mention the musical score before it can be a FA. jaco♫plane 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It is definitely ready by most technical standards, but I would really like to see some serious improvements, and see it a little more concise, meeting the size limit, before it hits the front page. I have been paying too much attention to the sub articles, perhaps I should shift my efforts.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Half-Life 2 article would be a good choice for FA. Its well written, organized, and as far as I can see there are no errors. SarcasticPirate 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's a very good article. However, I would personally prefer the plot and deleted scenes sections to be reduced. Yet I thought that the list of DM maps were not of detriment to the article. I'd rather have more comment on things that are in the game than things that are not. - Hahnchen 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Actually, I've changed my mind about this. It is a good article, but I think the cuts are being made to the wrong places. The cut of the DM maps as well as the soundtrack, I think, were not good "additions" to the article. I think the soundtrack track listing was encyclopedic, as it was released on a separate CD. Personally, I would shorten the "cuts from the game" section and possibly move it onto a subpage, although I don't think the length was a problem in the first place (contrary to others). And a further question, are the cuts from the game derived purely from "Raising the Bar"? Or does it include scenes from the source code leak, or would that be OR territory? And I would also like to see expansion to the Reception section, could we have some reasons to why the press loved the game? And how about a comment on some of the awards it has won? [3]- Hahnchen 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll restore the soundtrack and maps later tonight, if that's the case. I can work on what you listed as well. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, this is what I've done:
          • I've readded the soundtrack information.
          • I've shortened the cuts section and I made a seperate sister article out of it. All of the cuts information was from Raising the Bar.
          • I expanded the reception section as well as added a tidbit about the awards. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Support Major issues fixed. - Hahnchen 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Now that the epigraph has been removed, I pledge my full support for the Half-Life 2 article as a Featured Article. The length may be questionable, but Linuxbeak cut the article up nicely and removed what was unnecessary. --Tristam 00:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ^^^ who doesn't?? (oh yeah, the article is nice too...) -Mysekurity [m!] 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done! ~ Vic Vipr 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A damn good FAC. Sasquatch t|c 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Check 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good page (though I think that Perfect Dark, with half the size, is better) igordebraga ≠ 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thought of holding my vote for a while, but the hell with that. Article length and minor little mistakes (fixed, btw) withstanding, everything seems to be in order. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Support. Yep, Linuxbeak poked me on IRC, I read the article, and it's great! WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a good read to be sure, however, I must say that although I support the article in its current form for FAC status that I am worried that its plot section may be a bit too extensive. A better summary could perhaps be made by removing some of the more inconsequential parts of the story. Perhaps a story/"timeline"-like article could be made to lighten this section. K1Bond007 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As mentioned above, the plot section is far too long. We only need enough to tell the reader what the game is about, not a blow-by-blow account. There are still a lot of problems with the writing: "Gordon is provided an air boat, allowing him greater expediency"; "The fate of many of the major characters... go unexplained"; "the majority of the game is spent", etc. The Narration section consists almost entirely of speculation. HenryFlower 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have created a sister article called Half-Life 2 plot and have moved the plot there. The plot in Half-Life 2 has been substantially reduced in size. The narration section has been trimmed and another source has been added. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin D. Roosevelt[edit]

I like this article. It is a good article about a president. I didn't know much about FDR till I read this article. I haven't ever seen a better one.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 50KB of prose as of 24 May 2006
  • Strong Support- A very comprehensive and well written article. No doubt, it can be improved, but even in its present form, in my opinion, it deserves to a featured article.Jordy 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object. This is an incredible article- the only problem is that is needs reform of its references section. There are no inline citations, and the references section is not proerly formatted. Other than this technicality, the article is excellent. RyanGerbil10 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If other people don't have a problem with the references, I won't make it a big issue. RyanGerbil10 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'll make a huge deal about it; see below =). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 16 inline citations already but there are a lot of main/whole article references which I don't have a problem with as long as they are used in the article's sections. It needs a more beefear lead though, and it could use a bit more encyclopedic structure. However, it is so goood right now... so, for now, Weak support. It is as it always was T | @ | C 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, good references. --Danaman5 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Two things, both of which are quite fixable, but this is definetly FA quality. First, the economics section needs some reformatting as those long lists of text coupled with the large graphs really distort the section on some resolutions. I'd say the graphs can be thumbed, as that way they won't disrupt a casual reader but someone can get the details if he or she wants em'. Second, as above, more inline citation with those refs is always a good thing. Staxringold 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done - incorporated in earlier economic section (New Deal). Sam 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Dont want to oppose yet. However, the article is too long and tedious (Remember it needs summaries). Also, has an overwhelming TOC. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree with Oran Orane :-). It is so hard to read these 100KB articles: about half that size is manageable, using the Summary Style. Sandy 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've tried to fix this by consolidating sections and reorganizing some discussions (to put together his background, his family, and his paralysis, and to move sections dealing with economic legacy and impact of the New Deal together, and to consolidated the early political life sectsions). What is there now is under 15 major headings (instead of 23), and produces a total table of contents, with subheadings, about on par with Lincoln. I've also cut here and there, and incorporated a whole section devoted to other references in the body of the text, where they belong. Sam 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually its Orane ('e' included). Don't worry, I forgive you :) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 00:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support- Well written. Has lots of information.--Sabertiger 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - "Economic record" is poorly written and poorly formatted with virtually no text. A collection of charts and tables does not sufficiently describe Roosevelt's economic record. —CuiviénenT|C, Thursday, 18 May 2006 @ 03:54 UTC
    • Comment I've incorporated this into the New Deal section earlier and rewritten it; someone else made the graphs much simpler and more direct. Sam 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still not entirely convinced that this article shouldn't be shorter, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. Weak Support. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 22:49 UTC
  • ObjectThere appears to be a lot of original research in the article. And, the section with the graphs appears POV (and possibly original research) because there are no graphs showing the negative side. The GDP graph from 1933 to 1945 is ridiculous --you don't see the bigger picture since the years around that time frame are excluded. There was a depression, but from the graph, it looks like the economy was booming. And, to be NPOV there should be graphs showing the unemployment rate --which was dismal through his term. And, the rising tax rate, and the decreasing number of hours worked, etc. I don't trust the numbers in the tables, either. RJII 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment Also, there are huge sections of text with absolutely no sources attached. There is a list of books and papers at the end of the article but they don't link to anything in the text with footnotes. How do we know this the article not full of made-up things? I don't trust the information in the article at all. Some of us have just started creating footnotes, so there are a few in the article, but nowhere near enough. The article is nowhere near ready for being a featured artiicle. RJII 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The Economic record section is a disgrace. The Legacy section says nothing about his legacy except the classic line "Roosevelt's greatest legacy was the sense of hope that it gave people mired in what seemed like endless economic despair." This is touching, but not encyclopedic. The rest of the section just says where he ranks in lists of presidents. What was/is his legacy? HenryFlower 11:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is flawless. There's no need to say more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs)
  • Support An excellent article. Comprehensively written, very interesting, well organized and formulated, fine images. I agree with the previous two "Objects" - though these issues can be corrected very quickly indeed. Overall the article is of great value, and reflects the person it regards. --D-Katana 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support As per nom. Hezzy 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor comment some section titles are too kitcshy like "the path to war", subsectioning should reflect which terms certain events occured in. Otherwise, great. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My biggest problem with this was the headers, which I fixed. I like it now.--HereToHelp 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Henry James' can also be improved.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object—Many major concerns. This is unbelievably long (please see WP:SUMMARY), and the TOC is frightening. Worse, the are no inline citations in the level 2 sections "Early life", "Personal life" (now there's one), "Early political career", "Governor of New York, 1928-1932", "Foreign policy, 1933-1941", "Third term and the path to war, 1940-41", and "Fourth term and death, 1945" and "Third term, 1941-1945". Several others (including "Second term, 1937-1941" "World War Two, 1941-1945"!) have only one. Many sections contain uncited quotes as well. I know of 5 kilobyte articles that are better referenced than this. If you want an example of a Head of State article that actually attempts to do a decent job of referencing, see Hugo Chavez. That one manages to include nearly 100 citations and scores of unique references and yet remain more than 15kb smaller in total article size. Furthermore, basic formatting rules are not followed (dates, dashes, etc.). And what is "All surveys of scholars have ranked him among the top three greatest presidents" doing in the lead, or for that matter, anywhere? All surveys? Have you checked? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI didn't like All surveys either. I changed it to most because that is true. And do you have to make a stink about everything, Spangineer?-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny-(19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • I've tried to address a bunch of these issues, doing some fairly heavy consolidation and reorganization. If you've got additional ideas, I'll try to execute on some. It's a worthy page, with a lot to recommend it.Sam 23:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, this is still extremely lacking in terms of referencing. The length is better, but still high. The lead fails to adequately summarize the article (3 weighty paragraphs please). And formatting has not improved—there is still bold text outside the first sentence, dates not linked, and unconventional dash use (the double hyphen instead of mdash, for example). I remain strongly opposed. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good points all; I see four or five folks have been working to improve it, including you and I. I have the lead on my to do list; anyone who can add citations (especially good academic ones - using Google Scholar or Google Books if you must do the research on line rather than popular articles), I think it would help. I've deleted a bunch of unsupported material. Sam 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Striking some of previous concerns, but more citations are still needed. Good work shortening this, however. Also, no need to link every single year that appears alone, just link full dates and day/month combos. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, I think its getting there, and agree that more citations are needed. Note that there is also a lot of support via internal links to other Wikipedia pages (some of which are well cited, some of which aren't). I'll add citations as I have time, but expect to have less time in the coming days that in the last few, so please, everyone, feel free to chip in. I agree that all the dates are a bit excessive, but it was in response to the peer review and we might as well leave them. If others wouldn't, please feel free to change. All the quotes should now be cited (or deleted); that was a peer review comment that I responded to. If anyone can identify any quotes that aren't cited, I'll commit to track them down or delete or replace them if I can't (Roosevelt's speeches, including the Fireside chats, are readily available, and most of them are even on Google Books - Hoover was harder). Spangineer, how do you like the intro now? I thought your comments were useful there before. Sam 13:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The lead is better, but could still be longer. Normally the longer the article, the longer the lead, and this is still a pretty long article. As for quotes, it looks like you got most of them, but some short ones are still hanging around: "all aid short of war", "quarantined" (from the Quarantine speech), "Arsenal of Democracy", "his absolute discretion", "beating Hitler first". --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks - I think those are in the Dover great speeches collection; I'll either catch them at home tonight or see if I can grab them from Google during the day. I'll think about additions to the lead. Sam 14:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, with reservations Yes, it's long, but FDR served twice as long as any other President, during a term that covers two defining eras of American History. So, the length is necessary. Yes, more citations are definitely needed, particularly in the Early Life and Personal Life sections, areas where there are two or three facts I'm just not sure about (e.g., the "deal" with Eleanor). BUT, this article gets very high scores for comprehensiveness and NPOV, and on a difficult subject to avoid POV. It is well written and very readible. (FYI, click the link on the "all surveys" question). Remember, the perfect article doesn't exist. So, it should be improved with additional citations, and that is my "with reservations", if these are cleaned up, delete "with reservations" and insert "strong" in front of support. (Gangsta-Easter-Bunny, you can address these things as people raise them) Sam 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article is comprehensive and well-sourced. It could use some more pictures, however. - GilliamJF 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Poor use of Wikipedia:Summary style (75K of prose). This article abuses use of 'Main article' links ; just link inline unless the 'Main article' is a real daughter of this article instead of an article in its own right (such as World War II). For example, an article on an individual battle (such as the Attack on Pearl Harbor) would not be a daughter article of the FDR article (and thus not merit a main article link ; let alone a whole section devoted to it) while an article on one of his terms in office would. A much more high-level treatment is needed here ; detail can be in true daughter articles (such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's role in World War II). Granted, this topic necessarily will be one of the largest we have and thus need to be close to if not a bit over the normal max size of 50KB of prose, but I think we can do a much better job of summarizing this topic so it is at a much more comfortable reading length. Detial is fine, but not all in one place; readers should have a choice as to the amount of detail they are exposed to. Also needs a great many more inline cites. --mav 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI made some changes to address this comment, deleting several 'Main Article' links but also creating one "daughter article" by breaking off the "Criticism of FDR" section and summarizing it separately, deleting unnecessary words and phrases and making sentances more concise in several places, and also deleting the discussion of Eleanor and Franklin's marital "deal", which I didn't see support for and which seemed like more detail than was needed. If people see other candidates for daughter articles or for a more radical cutting of length, I'm happy to take a crack. However, I think the strength of this article is in part its flow and tone, and worry about losing some of the shape of a beautiful tree by pruning too heavily. I've done some other consolidating, described in response to other users above. Sam 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More summarizing is needed. The article is still pushing 70KB of prose, which is unconfortably long. I would suggest the creation of two articles: Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Depression and the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II. Then this article can have good-sized summaries of those articles. Also, the TOC is way too long and the lead WAY too short for such an important article. --mav 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I admit it, I shortened the lead. But I took out fluff. I'll try to add back something better. My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea of splitting off the Depression and the New Deal; they are too integral to the key themes of FDR's presidency. I think it may be possible to make it more concise elsewhere - for example, the civil rights section might work as a "daughter" article. Time to sleep on it, but thanks for coming back to revisit, I'll try to work on some issues later tomorrow. Thoughts from others?
          • Looks better. 50KB of prose now. Objection withdrawn on this point. --mav
  • Comment. Can anyone fix the second table of the Economy section, and add the black border around the Cabinet table?--HereToHelp 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou guys got to remember that he served 12 years, not 4 or 8, like all the others.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier National Park (US)[edit]

This article has been around for three years, however, over the last six weeks, major changes have brought this article to a higher standard. The references have been greatly expanded and information has been updated and enhanced significantly from where the article stood in mid April 2006, [4]. The article has been at peer review for a week and excellent comments there helped to make further improvements. Myself and Elkman created over thirty subarticles to eliminate virtually all the redlined links as shown at Category:Glacier National Park (US). Let me know what you think, and what the article needs to be a featured article.--MONGO 07:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support -- per copyedit and reduction of gallery size.Comments
  1. The image sizes should be reduced. On lower resolutions, it takes up more than half of the width of the page. 240-270px should be sufficient,
  2. Avoid starting a new section with a left-aligned image. It's easier to read text when it appears on the top left portion.
  3. What is is value of 1.5 m USD in today's $ terms?
  4. Convert the map to png
  5. The glacier gallery creates an unwanted horizontal scrollbar in lower resolutions. Consider vertical arrangement instead.
  6. Do mention what the record temperature drop was, intead of going to an external site. Some figures should be mentioned too. Highest, lowest, average, extreme etc.
  7. 700 miles -- metric equiv?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the issues you mention. I've reduced the image sizes, converted 1895 dollars to equal value in 2003, converted and reuploaded the map to PNG, expanded the climate section adding detail about when the record temperature drop happened and expanded more on temperatures, though I was unable to find records of the highest and lowest ever recorded and will look more later. I haven't decided what to do about the repeat images on Grinnell Glacier...I think it is crucial they line up side by side for clarity, but maybe I can reduce them in size, albeit, not too much. I also converted the 700 miles to km...really appreciate the imput you provided.--MONGO 12:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you remove the 1998 pic from the gallery then. My personal view would be that it would be easier to observe & compare the shrinking glacier if placed vertically. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have lost the ability to compare them as it means scrolling up and down, plus we have have lost the entire aspect of the conversation on repeat photography by elimating one image, now orphaned....I'll leave it as it is for a few hours and maybe also try it the way I had it with reduced images...what size resolution are you running? I have mine set at 1024 by 700something for IE.--MONGO 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nichalp...have a look at this version and see if it elimaintes the horizontal scroll bar for you...[5]--MONGO 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the above version eliminates the scrollbar. I test at 800x600, the standard web resolution. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Needs a good copy-edit; then it will be a great article (great topic, great pics). I noticed lots of redundant alsos. Please use 'in' rather than 'within', 'on' rather than 'upon', and 'among' rather than 'amongst'. Here's one of the many sentences that need surgery:
    • "All the campgrounds in the park that are vehicle access are usually open by mid June and remain so until mid September". Try:—
    • "All campgrounds with vehicle access are usually open from mid-June to mid-September". Tony 08:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I,ve been trying to get someone to help me copyedit, with not much luck...I'll be back online late tonight to see if I can fix some of the sentence structure. Appreciate your time on this matter.--MONGO 12:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see if I can get around to copyediting the article, either this afternoon or tomorrow sometime. --Elkman - (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Agree that it needs a serious copy edit. The lead paragraph seems to get into a level of detail that doesn't belong in the lead. The lead should entice readers to continue, which it didn't do for this reader, a Glacier lover. Notwithstanding the comment above that image sizes should be reduced, I slightly increased one picture size as my browser showed text trapped in the space between the two pictures. Mongo, I will try to help as I have time (which I don't for a few days). Sandy 12:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support After copyediting, the article looks great. Sandy 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I think it is an excellent article. hike395 13:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I gave it a copyedit, and it looks ok to me on that front now, but I still have one issue--the creation of the actual national park is never discussed outside the lead. That needs at least a mention, and preferably a bit of discussion and background, in the history section. --RobthTalk 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a minor expansion citing that U.S. President Taft signed the bill which created the park. IMO, the history of the park is interesting only as a sidepoint...the parks resources are the reason it's a park so that is where the emphasis needs to be.--MONGO 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the many recent and rapid edits make this a fine article. Rlevse 00:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Robth Nope, still needs more work, but thanks all the same. First thing I laid eyes on was "The vast majority of this money" (ungrammatical). Just above is acres with a sq. km equivalent (should be acres and hectares, or sq. miles and sq. km). Then above that is " The park headquarters is located in West Glacier, Montana." (Has someone gone through the article to remove the dozens of redundant words—"located" here)? Let's dig a little deeper, though:
"The vast majority of this money is used to maintain the park at current operational levels, to provide a minimal number of staff, of which more than 60% are seasonal employees who are only employed for a few months per year, and to make minor improvements to structures and roadways that are in immediate need of restoration." There's a category problem in this list of three items: maintaining the park at current operational levels (the first item) encompasses the second two items, surely. The second item has a subsidiary clause (the 60% one) that is a little messy using commas as well—parentheses might be clearer and easier to read. "which" should be "whom", unless the staff are machines. "employees who are only employed" is an undesirable repetition, isn't it? All of these problems in one sentence. Who will help? Tony 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's standard in protected areas articles to list acreage and then square kilometers...my understanding is that in the U.S., few people understand how big a square mile is as compared to something tangible, whereby they do understand (at least better) what an acre is. For those in countries that use the metric system (most of the rest of the world!) I understand that square kilometers is more commonly used than hectares...hectares is only used for parks and protected areas that are much smaller in area, since some don't even equal more than a few square kilometers.--MONGO 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK Tony 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, actually; I was too cautious when I went through. I'll take another swing at it tomorrow if no one else gets there first, and see how that turns out. --RobthTalk 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did several copyedits this evening, but don't let my "getting there first" stop you -- we could always use another pair of eyes reviewing this. --Elkman - (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would love to support this article, but the copyediting needs are just too great right now. I went through and got rid of excess wiki links and converted the plants and animals that I saw to non-capitalized forms where appropriate. InvictaHOG 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see and I thank you for your contributions. However, bolding the subjects in the image captions is a personal style that has nothing to do with MOS, so I debolded them.--MONGO 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is personal style. Just trying to help, sorry - InvictaHOG 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, don't misunderstand me...I do appreciate your contributions...just letting you know I debolded them. We need help with the copyediting...I have a lot of edits to the page so I simply overlook mistakes and poorly worded sentences....this is common in larger articles if one looks at it too much...they have a tendency to miss some of the issues that need fine tuning. Thanks again, as I had completely messed up all those wikilinked dates...they were redundant.--MONGO 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a good, comprehensive article, and the work it's received while here on FAC has cleaned up the language to my satisfaction. --RobthTalk 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great aticle, recent copyediting has improved the text markedly.--Peta 06:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support This looks a great article that meets the FA criteria. I would however prefer that numeric values have the same precision in US-system and in metric system. See for instance this example:
After the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, the glaciers in the park retreated an average of less than 23 feet (7 m) per year. Between 1917 and 1926, the retreat rate rose to over 130 feet (40 m) per year and in the period from 1926 to 1932, this rate of retreat exceeded 328 feet (100 m) annually.
The source of these values is in meters i.e. "retreat >100 m". This should not be translated to "> 328 feet (100 m)" but to ">300 feet (100 m)", or even better to "> 100 m (300 feet)".

--Donar Reiskoffer 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for precision of measurements overall...I always have standard measures before metric ones in American articles and vice versa otherwise...for example, in Shoshone National Forest, the same standard before metric conversion is shown, whereby in Retreat of glaciers since 1850, metric is shown before the nometric values. I can see your point about not needing to write 328 feet and simply rounding it to 300 feet, but I have had others that have demanded that I stick with the most accurate conversions in terms of distances and areas values.--MONGO 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Support --Donar Reiskoffer 07:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta (film)[edit]

Well-written article, in particular its bevity and excellent prose. It has undergone two peer reviews, and I believe that it deserves featured status. Those who have contributed to the article should give themselves a pat for the effort put into it. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Surely the film itself should be cited as a reference? Or was the plot synopsis cobble together from the reviews? — BrianSmithson 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Clarification: Based on the current FA film articles November (film), Casablanca (film), Halloween (film), Ran (film), Tenebrae (film), the plot is usually not referenced, as it is implied that the plot is based on the film. (The film's reference is typically seen as the IMDB, and possibly a script if one happens to be available.) The IMDB reference itself is typically listed under external links or in the infobox of the film, and not as a footnote. WikiProject Films supports this policy as well. Have your concerns been addressed? Feel free to ask additional questions if your concerns have not been adddressed. --P-Chan 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those articles and how my own article below is being received. I would say that the plot synopsis does not need to be sourced, since the information is widely available. A good example would be if the sentence "George Bush's middle inital is W." appeared in an article, this would not have to be sourced since it is known by everyone. Now the plot of a film is not that well known but it is still relatively easy to access. And don't call him, Shirley. The Filmaker 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Points for the Airplane reference. I don't see what it would hurt to add the film itself to the sources, though. If it is being used as a source, it's strikes me as academically dishonest not to list it. — BrianSmithson 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of disagree with this. It just seems odd to add such a reference. Where would it be added anyway? It would be a shame to start a general references section just for the film reference, as citations would definantly not be appropriate. No other film uses it, the closest I have seen such references, is like, DVD commentry. A reference to film, in the article about the film just seems redundant to me. There are a wealth of references and external links on the page. Referncing the film wold just be akward and not offer much in my opinon. Cvene64 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary. Raul654 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This opens a huge and ugly can of worms. What about a page like Darth Vader that meshes the plotline from thirty different movies and books into one whole? How is anyone supposed to know where the information came from? It's simple in this case (it's one film), but I don't see how adding the film to the list of references would hurt anything. We should be setting a good example for all those Darth Vaders and Pikachus. — BrianSmithson 19:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (Darth Vader), it is no longer implicitely obvious and a reference should be provided. However, for an article about a movie, clearly there is no need to cite the movie as a source. Raul654 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I investigated a bit on Google Books and found this type of thing done both ways. If the article had separate Notes and References sections, I'd argue a bit more for its inclusion in the References, but as it is written, I can let it go. — BrianSmithson 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, your imput is totally welcomed. (Thanks for not trying to smush us.)  :) --P-Chan 05:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article that is now ready to be featured. Cvene64 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a.
    • 'as well as' is a marked version of 'and'. Why does it appear twice in the lead, in contexts where you're just listing items that don't appear to deserve marking (i.e., their inclusion is not unexpected or suprising or otherwise notable)? <--The excessive use of 'as well' has been addressed based on this suggestion.--P-Chan 03:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'wide variety' should not be hyphenated. But why not remove the final five words—they're so vague that they're unnecessary ("V for Vendetta has been the target of both criticism and praise from a wide-variety of groups.") <-- The vague "wide-variety of groups", has been changed to "various political groups", based on the above suggestion. --P-Chan 03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "set in the near future, where Britain is ..."—when, not where? <--'"where" was replaced by "when", based on the this suggestion.--P-Chan 03:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ends up helping V escape"—nicer as "helps V to escape" <-- "ends up helping V escape" changed to "helps V to escape, based on this suggestion. --P-Chan 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Evey is eventually told"—in this type of account, words such as "eventually" clag up the text, and are unnecessary unless you need to mark a duration, which I don't think you do here
    • "raid Gordon's home shortly thereafter"—the final word is now over-formal and convoluted in this register; OK in a national constitution <-- Addressed by changing "shortly thereafter" to "shortly after"--P-Chan 04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "released" italicised? It's not contrastive .... - fixed. Cvene64 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Then a bioterrorism attack occurred killing approximately 100,000 and spread even more fear and panic across the country." A few more commas would ease the reader's task. "about" preferred to "approximately", because it's plainer and shorter. "100,000 people, spreading ..." would be better. - Changed to "...a bioterrorism attack occurred, killing about 100,000, spreading more fear and panic across the country".Cvene64 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible POV problems (2c/d)

    • The film tones down the anarchist themes that were present in the original story and revised the story to better reflect current issues." Or is it just too vague? <-- It was vague and is now fixed.--P-Chan 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a careful copy-edit throughout, not just a fixing of these examples. Tony 03:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has our current copyediting efforts allowed the article to step closer to a FA level? Additional feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.--P-Chan 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm happy with this article as it is (but hope some good objections are raised). Sarge Baldy 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Uses six copyrighted images, far more than necessary for identification of the film. One of them, Image:Vendetta8comiccover.jpg, really isn't fair use in this article, because its tag says it may be used "to illustrate: the issue of the comic book in question; the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question", not to illustrate an article about a movie based on the comic book. Angr (t • c) 00:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The fair-use images have been reduced to four. Cvene64 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've never actually seen a policy or guideline that speaks to what the maximum amount of copyrighted pictures can be in an article and still qualify for fair use. I was wondering if you could share with me some of the documents you use to help you decide this. This is something that I'm really interested in, just because I plan on contributing to additional feature articles in the future. So far, this is the only guideline I've used [6]. Because of all the various policies, rules and wikiprojects, I find the whole FAC process quite interesting and painful at the same time. :) Cheers. --P-Chan 03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most fair-use tags simply say "a limited number" without being specific as to what that means. The policy at Wikipedia:Fair use says "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." In the case of V for Vendetta (film), my own opinion is that using the poster and the one image of the two main characters sitting together (plus the free image of Natalie Portman at the press conference, of course), should be sufficient. Angr (t • c) 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the key policy that we have to work with, then there seems to be room for interpretation. Looking over the other FA articles, from Blade Runner to November (film) to Ran (film), the number of copyrighted images seems to vary a lot. The Fair-use descriptions, however, are very different. I have no idea if the Fair-use descriptions are used in judging the number of FA allowed or not, but I think they would be a very important factor. Otherwise this would be a totally subjective process and would involve a lot of guessing. I'd love to speak with you about this further and hope we can keep an open dialogue on this. It's important to have a picture depicting the graphic novel in the article. It is a major line of discussion about this film and can be justified based on past FA articles. Starship Troopers for example, is a recent FA that shows a poter of the film, etc. Thanks. --P-Chan 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (BTW, I know we can create a great fair-use justificiation, that I believe should be able to satisfy your standards).[reply]
Unfortunately, we can't allow precedent to take precedence here, if you'll pardon the pun. The earlier FA's should not have used so many copyrighted images either, but no one thought of it at the time. Angr (t • c) 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am uncertain as to how we should proceed. Every other FA film article on Wikipedia contains more than 2 copyrighted images. (The current record for the lowest is Casablanca (film), with 3 images). Setting the limit of copyrighted images on this article to 2 will create a precedent in of itself. It would be most appreciated if you could elaborate what the particulars of this article are that warrent a limit of 2 copyrighted images. It would really go a long way in helping to clarify things. Much appreciated.--P-Chan 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't comparing it to other FA's on movies, because I think in the past we've been too lenient on using fair-use images in FA's. I just don't see that the article crucially needs more than two fair-use images, which are supposed to be used only when they're absolutely essential to understanding the text or identifying the topic of discussion, not for decoration. The poster identifies the movie, the image of the two main characters sitting together identifies them; the other images are just decoration. Angr (t • c) 15:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, quotes should not be in italics, see the MoS.--Peta 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User is quoting policy WP:MOS#Quotations. Result: The italics on the quotes in the article have been removed. Thank's for pointing that out. (It's really appreciated). --P-Chan 06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I don't object at all and I would support this, but I don't feel I have been nearly active enough to deserve that. The Wachowskis' article says "It should also be mentioned that many critics have accused the brothers of being overly pretentious, giving their works just enough of the appearance of being philosophical to be seen as deep, while in fact being shallow metaphors. This criticism was especially pronounced in the comments of fans of the brothers' adaptation of Alan Moore's V for Vendetta (along with Moore's own scathing remarks)..." I don't see that in the Reception section. That also isn't sourced, but if you have a chance and can find a source for such criticisms add it. The lack of this information, if it exists, certainly doesn't make it not FA worthy, but it would be a useful addition. Atropos 04:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are mountains of comments (from IMDB, critics, commentators, blogs, forums, etc) that all have their various angles on the film. I've never come across those comments myself, but I'm sure they exist. Cheers.--P-Chan 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. It is much better than it was, but have you seriously gone through it to remove redundancies? Quick quizz: which word is useless in this sentence—"The film was made by many of the same filmmakers involved in the making of the Matrix films." <-- redundencies have been removed based on your suggestion.--P-Chan 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like "continuing an ongoing dispute"—an ongoing dispute is continued. Reword. <-- reworded.--P-Chan 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "V for Vendetta is also the final film shot by ..."—Again, get rid of "also" unless is adds meaning, which it certainly doesn't, here. Consider "was" rather than "is" <-- This has been addressed. --P-Chan 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike my objection, but encourage you to make further improvements now. Tony 06:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. We will remain vigilant, and make changes anywhere we can to improve the quality.--P-Chan 18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is a Featured Article as of 22:25, 23 May 2006 and listed as such by The Filmaker. Congrats to everyone! -- UKPhoenix79

Crab Nebula[edit]

The spectacular result of a colossal explosion, and one of the most intensely studied of all nebulae. Its article had a cleanup tag on it two weeks ago - I hope it now does the nebula justice, and I offer it here for your consideration. Worldtraveller 14:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent article... especially considering the versions 2 weeks ago. I have a few minor concerns from a non-science-person's perspective, but like I say they're minor and I have no real qualms about supporting this article.
    • Could use a bit more context for total non-science people, who would be reading an FA. Insufficently explained terms and phrases like "progenitor star", "Doppler shift of spectral lines in its optical spectrum", etc. can just be a bit daunting to someone interested in the topic, but without a science background.
    • "the nebula's brightness can be used to create maps of X-ray emission" The paragraph makes this sound important but it doesn't really go on to explain why it is. Just kind of left me curious. --W.marsh 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, W. - I added an explanation of progenitor, and clarified the doppler shift bit (hopefully). How does it look? Any more terms need explaining? I am pondering how best to address your second comment - will do so shortly. Worldtraveller 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks better, just to make it formal, Support. --W.marsh 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just added a sentence to hopefully make clear what occultation mapping has been important for. Worldtraveller 22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for the moment: 2a. Needs a clean-up. Support.

Here are examples from the top.

    • "Recent analyses of the available historical records"—can you analyse unavailable records?
    • Simple year-link? See WP's policy.
    • ly should be spelt out on first occurrence, even if it is linked. Why is it linked again, and why is it spelt out further down? Disorganised.
    • "The Sun's corona was mapped in the 1950s and 1960s from observations of the Crab's radio waves as they pass through it"—tense problem: "passed"?
    • "blocked out X-rays"—remove "out"?
    • Provide metric equivalent for inches.
    • Chinese and Arab astronomers in 1054 become Chinese and Japanese in the next section.
    • "Tracing the expansion back revealed that the nebula must have been expanding"—repetition; can it be avoided here?

Plus lots more throughout. It's a good article, lavishly illustrated with images. It should be fixed now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

Well, I was copyediting while Tony wrote that. Some were fixed anyway; others I have dealt with, but "lots more throughout" is not helpful. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Tony, and thanks very much, ALoan, for a thorough copyedit which addressed most of them before I'd even read them. I've addressed the rest now, except for two. Year linking is not something which need be avoided at all costs, and I think linking to a year like the year in which the supernova was first seen is valuable - it's interesting to read what else was happening in the world at the time. Also, Recent analyses of the available historical records to me conveys the sense that there are not a large number of historical records available. Omitting 'available' makes it sound like there are lots of historical records.
You say there are lots more throughout - any chance you could list them? I've been reading this article daily for about two weeks and could probably not even spot a major spelling error now. Worldtraveller 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well done. I have copyedited a little. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good article. RyanGerbil10 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very very nice. Also nice to see an astronomical article with some new pics to me (rather than just the few commonly seen Hubble images, a wide range of stuff). Staxringold 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good. It is as it always was T | @ | C 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image:Filaments in the Crab Nebula.jpg has no source. Jkelly 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to give the URL when I uploaded it. It's there now. Worldtraveller 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection removed—Thanks for your editing, ALoan; I've further copy-edited it, although reviewers are not obliged to do so, as you know. Your comment that '"lots more throughout" is not helpful' implies that to assert in this room that Criterion 2a is not satisfied requires every instance of poor prose throughout the article to be cited; if that were the case, reviewers wouldn't bother critiqueing prose, and poorly written FACs would pass through unchallenged. Providing examples should, don't you think, be the standard for prompting the original contributors to improve their whole text, and by providing further examples (at random, as it were) to ultimately assert failure to meet 2a, if that is the case?
To take up Wordtraveller's point about 'the available historical records', well, no, it doesn't imply what you intend it to. What about 'the few historical records that are available', or 'the few records from that period'? After reading your point about 1054, I'll go back and relink it.
One more query: "Titan's X-ray 'shadow' was larger than its solid surface, due to its atmosphere"—Can you explicated the mechanism; the cause is currently unclear (was it because light bounced off/was absorbed by Titan's atmosphere?)
Well done, Worldtraveller—it is a lovely article.
Tony
    • Thanks for your editing and comments, Tony. I thought probably a rephrase would be best for the historical records bit - I'll do that now, and will clarify the Titan thing, which I've got sounding unnecessarily complicated. Worldtraveller 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Tony; perhaps I was shorter than I needed to be. I appreciate that a FAC reviewer is under no obligation to contribute: on the other hand, styles and tastes vary; and having read and copyedited an article once, it is easy to fix specifics, but a bit difficult to know what to do when someone says that there are "lots more" to be fixed. But at least we got there in the end. (Does "lovely article" count as support, btw? ;)-- ALoan (Talk) 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: too short, not comprehensive. Everyking 05:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's missing? Worldtraveller 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to be too critical, but see below. Our page is much nicer, in terms of prose, than SEDS, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A nice article, well-balanced with images. Missing inf. are years and data on major observations and discoveries (like e.g. here), and I am very disappointed with that. But as other similar featured precedents exist, like Cat's Eye Nebula, I consider that to be my personal preference and don't object to this article's possible featured status. BTW, since 1970 until Chandra's discoveries one part in the north of the nebula (see also [7]) was a big mystery. There is even its photo in O III in the Soviet 1990 5-vol. "Physical Encyclopedia". I should suggest (not require!) to mention that mystery somehow in the article. Cmapm 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! The SEDS page is great - can we have just a little bit more detail, please? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do already have years of some observations (Bevis, Messier, Rosse) but I've added some more to give a sense of the history of Crab studies. I'll look into the mysterious jet and see what I can add. Thanks for the comments! Worldtraveller 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Double plus support - excellent stuff. I saw a Compton gamma ray image on Commons - worth adding that the Crab is one of the brightest gamma ray sources in the sky? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Managed to squeeze in a reference to gamma rays. Worldtraveller 23:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Nice article, although the history section is not quite as developed as in the SEDS article. To be consistent, the text and the table should show the same distance and dimension. For example, in one place it is listed (accurately) as 6,300 ly, while the table and introduction show 6,500 ly. Also there is no margin of error listed. It would have been nice to have a paragraph on telescope observation of the nebula for amateur observers. Otherwise it looks good. — RJH 22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted! I've made all the distances consistent now. I'm not sure about the margin of error - I'm not sure if a meaningful value exists. The Trimble paper cited for the distance gives ±110pc, but that's purely a statistical value from 12 numbers. The 12 numbers themselve each have their own margins of error, not taken into account in calculating the final value. I tried to write something about observing it with small telescopes but it didn't sound very good - I'll try to work up something decent tomorrow. Worldtraveller 23:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great article. Support. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While the SEDS page is very detailed, the detail can be excessive; I believe the article has reached an appropriate compromise between comprehensiveness and trivial details, by listing only the most historically-significant observations. Everything else in the article clears out, and it certainly meets the criteria. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 09:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a great many readers would like access to those "trivial details" that are being willfully omitted. Notice how he plays the old game of "well, what's missing?" in response to my objection, as if I know anything about the Crab Nebula to be able to meaningfully respond to him. This article shouldn't be featured until someone else with a good knowledge of the subject can vouch that it is thoroughly comprehensive—featuring the article without this kind of review would be admitting a very low standard for a FAC, and if it was a more accessible subject I think that would be glaringly obvious to everyone. Everyking 10:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you know nothing about the Crab, why on earth would you say with such certainty that this article is not comprehensive? Wouldn't you first do some basic research to see what else might need to be included, so you can tell the authors what more to put in? Worldtraveller 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right, so you're telling me this says everything there is to be said about the Crab Nebula that is even remotely notable (by my definition)? What about these "Crab studies" you referred to? It sounds to me like there's a rich and extensive body of research on this nebula which can't possibly be represented by this short article. Anything studied extensively enough to have a "study" associated with it should be quite long and have a number of subarticles as well. Everyking 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • By studies, we mean scientific papers. What subarticles should there be? You're really not helping by not telling me what you think is missing. Worldtraveller 12:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks really good. Seems to have appropriate level of detail without becoming too technical or too long. —CuiviénenT|C, Saturday, 20 May 2006 @ 22:52 UTC
  • Comment. Worldtraveller has done a nice job with this article, but have a minor suggestion. In the "External links" section there are a couple red links. If SEDS should have an article, I suggest one be created. Otherwise, remove the wikilinks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 12:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment - I'll do SEDS a stub article now as I think they do warrant an article. Worldtraveller 12:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The KLF[edit]

article about early-90s british electronica band. certainly one of the best musical group articles on wikipedia. its comprehensive, thoroughly cited, somewhat long (but most of the extra size comes from the long citations and inline invisible comments) and maintains a neutral tone (no gushing). i did some trims and copyedits and put it on peer review (all comments addressed) but bulk of article was well-written enough i didnt need to touch it. any other comments to bring it to FA status welcome.

  • Support per nom Zzzzz 11:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well done. RyanGerbil10 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment kingboyk and myself have also put a lot of thought into making this article worthy of being 'featured', with a lot of care given to meeting the guidelines. I believe that it cuts it now. --Vinoir 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Softened "support" to a comment - it should pass or fail on the strength of other people's opinions and not that of me as an author of the article. --Vinoir 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems very well done, but could you please do something with the "Personnel" section. I don't like sections consisting of one link. You can either move the link to somewhere else or write a summary as described in WP:SS. --Maitch 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor me. When I went to bed yesterday it was within the article, but (perhaps rightly) it's been forked out to cut down on the article length. Would you recommend adding a summary paragraph, or renaming it "See also"? --kingboyk 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i went ahead and added the link to the klf template at the bottom, and removed the no-longer required section. hope its ok now. Zzzzz 13:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the solution. --Maitch 11:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in lieu of support as one of the primary authors I do of course support the proposal. However, I won't formalise that support as I'm not impartial. Furthermore, although we've already completed a Peer Review I do very much welcome any constructive criticism. --kingboyk 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The footnotes are extremely complicated in structure and, like in so many other recent candidates, seem to be in a state of unnecessary overusage. The multiple-linked "abc"-notes are especially confusing and hardly make the article easier to reference except for those who already know the subject (and preferably) the sources themselves quite intimately. And why are only four of the sources used listed under "References"? Why are the rest considered irrelevant to the list? / Peter Isotalo 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because they are general references: discographies (you wouldn't want us to put a footnote in place for every mention of a recording) and a "general" reference for the Library of Mu online site from where we get most of our sources. If you and others feel that the article doesn't need them, and that the footnotes are sufficient I'm more than happy to remove that section (and had been leaning that way anyway). With regards to the complexity of the footnotes, I'm not sure of your objection? We referenced our article thoroughly - I'm certain not too thoroughly - and I'm not sure how we can "fix it" without losing valuable information. I'm open to further comments of course, perhaps I'm missing something. --kingboyk 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the general "References" section, which I think was overkill and more meaningful in The KLF discography, and renamed the "Notes" section "Notes & references". --kingboyk 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to be of a high quality. Cvene64 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Image issues:
Image:The KLF.jpg has no indication at the source of who owns the copyright to the image. We don't know that this is a promotional image. It needs a Fair use rationale if we are going to use it.
Image:The JAMS - 1987 (What The Fuck Is Going On?) .jpg needs a proper fair use rationale, as does Image:The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu- All You Need Is Love.jpg, Image:The JAMS- Who Killed The JAMS? (rear).jpg, Image:Bill Drummond at the 1992 Brits Awards.jpg, Image:The Timelords- Doctorin' The Tardis (UK CDV).jpg, Image:The KLF - What Time Is Love video (Cornfields Version).jpg and Image:PBlaster.JPG
Image:The KLF-The White Room (album cover).jpg needs a fair use rationale
Image:2K - Wheelchair.gif is in danger of deletion, as is Image:KLF - J&A ice cream ad.jpg. Jkelly 16:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can fix all those apart from - at the present time - Image:2K - Wheelchair.gif and (gulp) Image:The KLF.jpg. The former I will need to do some research on to verify my claim that it's a promotional image, or remove it. The latter was uploaded before I became a Wikipedian. Fortunately I see the uploading editor has been active within the last couple of days so I'll drop him a note. It's extremely difficult to get better than fair use images of this band, because their public appearances were very rare, but I'll see what I can do :) Thanks for bringing the issue up. --kingboyk 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on the 2 problematic images I have mentioned. If we don't get an answer and 2K is deleted I think the article can stand that. The lead image is admittedly a problem. Anyway, my reason for writing is that I think (hope) we have satisfactory fair use rationales for the others you listed now. If they're still not up scratch some assistance would be most welcome. Although I'm an admin I'm not a lawyer nor am I American :) --kingboyk 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The ownership and fair use status of Image:The KLF.jpg has been investigated, and we have decided it's probably not fair to use it. The image has been nominated for deletion and replaced with Image:The KLF - Why Sheep?.jpg. We're still actively working on the 2K picture. --kingboyk 10:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "Instrumentation" could use some prose. 12.107.19.23 02:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you might be right. The question is whether we abandon the list all together and replace it entirely with prose. We'll see what we can do, thanks for your feedback. --kingboyk 08:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Instrumentation" is now rewritten as prose. This is beneficial because it allows the instruments to be contextualised according to how useful they were, and when. Thanks for the comment. --Vinoir 20:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not there yet. It's a pity that the opening paragraph is kind of ... crowded. Can you reduce the amount of detail and aim for more impact—a helicopter view?
    • More commas (and occasionally fewer) required throughout, for ease of reading. For example: "Perhaps their most famous performance, however, was at the 1992 Brit awards where they fired a machine gun into the audience, and dumped a dead sheep at the aftershow party." Easier as: "Perhaps their most famous performance, however, was at the 1992 Brit Awards, where they fired a machine gun into the audience and dumped a dead sheep at the aftershow party." Get rid of "however", since it doesn't contradict the previous text. I don't really like "Perhaps"—why not: "One of their most ..."?
    • "internationally-selling"—No hyphens after '-ly' words, please.
    • "weird" might be POV. Use more neutral wording.
    • "advert"—spell out in this register.
    • Why is "1987: in italics?
    • It's quite densely linked, so consider delinking low-value and repeated links, such as the names of countries, and dictionary words such as "submarine" and "chaos"—we do speak English, you know; "UK Singles Chart" is linked at least three times. You do want your high-value links to be more prominent, don't you, and you don't want your page to be spattered with blue, do you? Tony 02:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the detailed feedback.
        • OK, I'll take a look at the punctuation. "Perhaps" was to reduce the POV; we do have citations later on saying the performance in question was one of the top 5 rock and roll moments by any band, however. We'll have a think about how to reword that sentence and see if we can trim the intro a little.
        • OK.
        • Ditto.
        • Because it's an album; if it's an occurence of the year and not the album it's a mistake. Will investigate.
        • Links: I'll give it another run in AWB and remove some of the more obvious/over-repeated links.
      • --kingboyk 08:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony, those are very helpful comments. I've trimmed the introduction and, in so doing, hopefully added a bit more punch. "Perhaps" is gone, because this was without question the most famous of their few performances. I checked the italics of 1987, which are appropriate throughout (italics in reference to the album, upright for reference to the year). Next I shall re-proofread the entire article for flow, commas and punctuation. --Vinoir 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links cleaned, hopefully to your satisfaction[8]. Let me know if there are any remaining you disagree with (or feel free to change them yourself, of course). --kingboyk 10:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. It's much better, but please note the following issues.
    • The untidiness of the lead is not improved by scattering it with bold; consider removing the bolds after the opening statement.
    • This use of hyphens is unsatisfactory:

" Although Drummond and Cauty remained true to their word of May 1992 - the KLF Communications catalogue remains deleted - they have released a small number of new tracks since then, as the K Foundation, The One World Orchestra and - most recently, in 1997 - as 2K." Why not use m dashes without spaces (so much tidier); and more than one pair of dashes in a sentence will confuse the readers: " Although Drummond and Cauty remained true to their word, as of May 1992 (the KLF Communications catalogue remains deleted) they have released a small number of new tracks since then, as the K Foundation, The One World Orchestra and—most recently, in 1997—as 2K." There are quite a lot of space-hyphen-space instances throughout the article.

    • "top ten"—hyphenate (unless quoted, of course).
    • "Scott Piering's"—Use a piped link so it's all blue.
    • You often use upper-case T in The—e.g., The JAMS, The One World Orchestra. This is undesirable, unless part of a title or unless T.. really is use in a standard name.
    • Ellisions within quotations: space before the three dots, unless ending a sentence as well, in which case no space and four dots plus space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 19 May 2006.
      • Thanks again Tony. Let's see:
        • The appearances of bold in the lead are for alternative monikers of the band which (example) redirect to The KLF. I'll have to check the MoS to see if we should lose that formatting or not.
        • Hyphenation, piped links, ellisions (a new word for me!) - We'll fix those
        • "The KLF", "The JAMs" - "The" is part of the name so in my opinion should be title case. I might be wrong, and you're the expert (but note that there's been quite ferocious debate about capitalisation of "The" at the Beatles WikiProject, and there seems to be some internationalisation issues, with British editors being most vociferously in favour of title case).
      • --kingboyk 09:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then at WikiProject Beatles the British editors should get their way, since The Beatles were a British band. Bill Drummond himself capitalises "The" in such cases throughout his book 45. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the capitalisation is correct. --Vinoir
Well, yes, that was the end result at the WikiProject, but with some exceptions depending on context. I think it would be best if Tony changed any uses he disagreed with in terms of context, with the proviso that we assert that the proper form when referring to the band's title is The KLF/The JAMs/etc. --kingboyk 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, latest diff: [9]. All issues covered hopefully, except for the bolding in intro. I'll check the MoS later and remove it if incorrect. --kingboyk 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun house[edit]

Archived peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Shotgun house/archive1

I've been working on this article for a while. This was a bit of a tough topic to research, shotgun houses are kind of seen and not heard, even though the are really common in the American south, not a lot has been written about them that doesn't just repeat urban legends and so on. I think the article now does a good job of summarizing everything encyclopedic about them, and seems to be a good resource for learning about the houses. But I want this article to be really great, so I'm bringing it to FAC. Please fix or let me know any problems you find with the article, and I will try to address them. --W.marsh 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good work so far. There are a few stubby "paragraphs", and the last two sections are sort of stubby as well. Perhaps consider a slight section re-layout. Also, consider turning the list into prose (there really isn't a whole lot of prose for the lead length). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the stubby-ness, it was the result of a perhaps too hasty integration of some trivia that had piled up. I've moved some things around to try to make it less disconnected.
The list though already is basically prose, a paragraph per item, it's just bulletted because each deals with a specific variation. I think sometimes lists can have a place in an article, and are more clear to the reader than several flowing paragraphs. I just see the section being less accessable if changed it to paragraphs, but if people disagree I would hardly object to changing it. --W.marsh 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some copyediting remains to be done, but this is already a remarkably good article. Jkelly 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would really like to see the floor plan to a typical shotgun house. I think it would greatly enhance the article, as so far, lengthy prose is used to sketchingly describe this where a picture would illustrate it perfectly. Fieari 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just haven't found a free one. The ones here would be great but they seem to be under copyright. I've added a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Graphics, I am pretty inempt at drawing anything but I will give it a try if no one else does soon. --W.marsh 17:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made and inserted a diagram based on some sample dimensions... hopefully a better one will emerge, illustration is not my forte. --W.marsh 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A bit better then when I last commented and the real offenders have been taken care of. Still not sure about that list though, but it is minor. It is as it always was T | @ | C 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DVD+ R/W 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. Cvene64 17:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow. Incredible. Lorty 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene (2005)[edit]

Self-nom, as this is yet another article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. However, this article is slightly different from the rest: the hurricane did not make landfall. In spite of that fact, the article is comprehensive on everything else, and we believe it meets featured article criteria, so we're giving it a shot, to also know how to prepare non-landfalling storms in the future. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe combine the "Impact" and "Records and Naming" sections? They're quite stubby. Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - it's only just over 8kb in length, and I don't believe such a short article can really represent the 'very best of Wikipedia'. It's a fine short article - listed at Wikipedia:Good articles and exactly the sort of thing that should be listed there - but I don't think it's substantial enough to be featurable. Worldtraveller 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I checked, article size was not a requirement for featured article status; WP:WIAFA states that the article has to be "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," and that is what the article does. As several editors commented on Wikipedia talk:Good articles, an article's size or scope was not a disqualifying condition for FAC, but rather its quality. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no fixed length that an FA has to exceed, but I really just don't think something so short, on an unremarkable storm, can be said to exemplify 'our very best work' as required by FA criterion 1. Worldtraveller 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can, as our very best work is better than no work, which is what happens with other encyclopedias and gives Wikipedia an edge over them. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to elaborate on my objection to such short articles becoming featured. I've said already they don't meet criterion #1, as far as I am concerned, and if you compare this article to most other already-featured articles, they're in another league. I just randomly picked out Matthew Brettingham, Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, Irish poetry, and each of these is just miles better than this article - more interesting, more enjoyable to read, a more engrossing read.
    I don't think the article can be said to meet criterion 2b either, by virtue of its length, and its subject matter. It's been said that subject matter is no bar to featured status, but I think the criteria themselves implicitly discriminate against minor subjects. Well written is defined in WP:WIAFA as compelling, even brilliant prose - something pretty much impossible to achieve in an article on an unremarkable storm. Simply, when writing about something notable and significant, like say Hurricane Mitch or something like that, one can write brilliant, compelling prose, but when one is writing about something unremarkable which happens many times each year, the prose is necessarily more pedestrian. Well written in the normal sense, but not compelling or brilliant, as required of an FA.
    I think it would be harmful to featured articles generally if this one passes, as it seems to me to lower the bar quite substantially. I think I'd ask myself why I've bothered to write articles 20-30kb in length to nominate for featured status, if something just 8kb long is considered representative of the very best of wikipedia. I think it would damage FA's credibility as the 'very best' of Wikipedia if something is listed but not considered suitable for the front page because it's such a short article.
    I do not by any means think this is a bad article. I think it's very good, as good as it can be for what it is about. But I don't think it's an example of the very best Wikipedia can produce. I think the numerous comments saying it shouldn't appear on the main page also support that. Worldtraveller 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, risking sounding like a broken record, I completely disagree with this viewpoint. I may be too dense, but I cannot see how being short makes the prose immediately unremarkable, or pedestrian, as you called it. The variety of sentence structures, the choice of words and literary devices in a sonnet don't make it less compelling to read than a novel, and the same is true for encyclopedia articles. Additionally, every featured article is measured on its own merits, and precluding inclusion of narrower topics for the highest quality distinction removes any sort of incentive to clean small articles to featured standard.
          You also mention that it lowers the bar. Where is that bar currently, I might ask? There's none. There are several features that FAs are required to have, such as inline citations, proper layout/format, and decent illustrations, to name a few, and if an article passes that bar, then it might be given the chance to stand on its own as a FA. Also, Raul has mentioned that any article that is able to survive AFD is eligible for FAC; if you so insist, try nominating Tropical Storm Lee (2005) for deletion, and let's see where the consensus falls.
          Finally, you insist that having this as an FA would make editors not write longer articles, yet I haven't seen any other editor indicate the same attitude. Perhaps it might be that getting an article to pass the most rigorous quality test on Wikipedia is enough motivation for other editors to write comprehensive articles, as long as they may need to be. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much the shortness but the relative insignificance that makes the prose pretty much impossible to raise beyond pedestrian. If you've had a routine day, much the same as any other day, you're unlikely to overflow with rhetorical flourish when describing it, but if you've done someting significant and interesting, you can work up a compelling description of it. As for incentives, I created WP:GA for exactly that purpose, because I believed that FA was rightly not going to identify two-section articles as the very best that Wikipedia can produce. GA has drifted from its original mission; I was going to create Wikipedia:Excellent short articles but if 8kb is now fine for an FA there's really not much point.
  • There is of course supposed to be a bar, above which articles are considered the 'very best'. If a very short article on an unremarkable storm has been designated as the very best, I think that has considerably lowered the bar. If FAs are to be divided into 'FAs good enough for the front page' and 'FAs not good enough for the front page', as this discussion has implied, then a two-tier system has been created, with one tier no longer representing the very best.
  • As for motivation, all I can say is that having many times spent a couple of weeks researching and writing thorough articles on significant subjects, working with other editors to hone and polish them, and then having the pleasure of seeing those identified as the very best that Wikipedia can produce, now I see this article which I could probably have written in a couple of hours identified as the very best I feel thoroughly demotivated. Describing FA as the very best now seems less meaningful - it seems more to define the qualities that all articles should meet, rather than identifying the few which stand out from the rest as exceptional quality. Worldtraveller 23:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I do want to stress that I don't think this article is deficient or in any way below the standards it should be - just that I thought FA was about identifying the select few articles that stand out from the crowd rather than just identifying articles that meet the standards all articles should meet. Worldtraveller 23:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. In my opinion, the sources this article is based upon are insufficient for this to be an FA. The NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report is the single significant source used by the article; the others are four brief NHC bulletins and one small news article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC) I've had second thought about this particular objection. See below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could use news stories for the sourcing for the storm history; but they would only be based on NHC data and it would be inaccurate as a result (the TCR is different from the at-the-time data).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above are valid points, and could potentially stop this from becoming an FA. I'll go point by point on the Featured Article Criteria. 1) It's hard to exemplify the best work when it is this short, so I'll ignore this for now. 2) It's well written, comprehensive for such a storm, referenced, neutral, and is very stable. 3) Styling is fine. 4) There's three images, possibly too few, but images aren't a requirement. 5) It's tightly focused on the storm, and, obviously, not too long. Currently, I'm neutral. The main reason why this FAC is important is how to better all TC articles. Recently, all storms in 2005 were given articles, including non-landfalling storms like Irene. Comments would be greatly appreciated on this type of storm so we know what to do for the other articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article is a fine short article. The only thing I don't like, and it's something I don't like about all the hurricane articles I've seen recently, is the link to the portal. I've seen links to portals from the article about the portal's theme, but never so many from articles that fall within a portal's scope. It seems to me like such widespread self-referencing should be avoided. Worldtraveller 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only actionable thing I can think of is to get permission to use a picture of the surf (see the external link). I don't see why a short article, as long as it is complete, cannot exemplify Wikipedia's best work; IMO some of the best articles in paper encyclopedias are short.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Support. The requirements are met, but the article still seems to be lacking something. RyanGerbil10 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. My objection above -- this article has basically one source -- was a namby-pamby attempt to dance around my real issue with this article becoming an FA. It hinted at it though: the reason there is only one source regarding this hurricane is that this hurricane is not notable. I know: notability isn't an FA criteria. There is an unwritten policy, though -- I believe Raul654 will back me up on this -- that any article that can survive AfD can in theory become an FA. Here's where I'm going to make people mad: I do not believe that this article should survive a (hypothetical) AfD. It describes a weather system that had essentially no impact whatsoever. It is a tree falling in the forest, heard only by forecasters at the National Hurricane Center. It should be merged to Non-landfall hurricanes of 2005 or some article like that. It should not be an FA because it should not be an article on its own. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the powder keg exploded. :) There has been so much discussion about this very issue, it's nauseating; the discussion at the article's talk page is just a snippet of the mess surrounding this issue, which occupies at least several archives worth of discussion, and which has concluded that every storm should have an article. An even less notable storm, Hurricane Cindy, had a previous AFD which had a result of keep. Therefore, the issue, as I see it, is whether there's an incentive to develop smaller articles by making them featured or not. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FA is an incentive to make longer articles truly excellent and represntative of the very best that can be produced. The still-nascent Wikipedia:Good articles was designed as an incentive for editors of short articles like this one to make sure they are referenced, illustrated, well written, structured, etc. Worldtraveller 10:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the problem with GA is that it is not accepted as a parallel replacement process for small articles; this is seen by WP:WIAGA's standards, which are relaxed when compared with Featured article standards. Many editors also see it as a "it's close, but not FA yet" system, and this ambiguity is what makes it unsuitable for WP:1.0 purposes. Anyways, that's slightly outside the scope of this page, so I'll continue writing about this at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hurricane Cindy (2005) was more notable than this storm in my opinion; higher winds != more notable. With three fatalities and some flooding, it wasn't just wind and rain falling on an empty ocean. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the least notable storm of the season, Tropical Storm Lee, had to go through quite a battle between editors who wanted it merged and not, and it was still kept separate. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure. I just happen to be one person who disagrees with that decision. I'm not sure where that leaves my objection, to be honest; I'll continue to object on the grounds that I don't feel this should be a stand-alone article at all, but the more who support this FAC, the weaker my argument becomes as consensus the other way is shown more and more clearly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—"much improved". Tony 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC) fails Criterion 1. To display this stubby piece (stubby overall and stubby subsections) as one of WP's best articles would be unfortunate. I wonder why the scope can't be broadened to include more storms of similar type or from the same period. Then we could be proud of it as an example of 'our best work'. Criterion 2a also fails. Here are examples from the bottom of the text.[reply]

"it weakened back into a tropical storm" (Awkward/redundant)

"As Hurricane Irene stayed well away from land, no coastal warnings or watches were issued for Hurricane Irene." (Repetition)

"Many beaches in New Jersey restricted swimming due to the increased risk of rip currents and lifeguards had to carry out a number of rescues" (A few well-placed commas, here and throughout, would be kinder to our readers.)

"upper level shear" (AmEng uses fewer hyphens than other varieties, but US editors would still insist on a hyphen here.)

"uncertainties on how the subtropical ridge would interact" ("on" is awkward)

Addressed all of those, except the comment at the top. The scope cannot be broadened because editors do not agree on merging the content anywhere, and the places where it could be merged, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, are already featured. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but these were only examples; the whole text needs proper editing to be 'compelling, even brilliant', as required of FAs. Can you let us know when that has been done, so it can be reviewed? Tony 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have submitted it if I hadn't thought that the text wasn't "compelling", so I don't know what to fix, unless someone points it out to me. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could make a start on the issues that I've exemplified above: sifting through for redundancies, and places where commas would assist the reader. Reading it aloud, sentence by sentence, often helps. You could ask other WPs to help, too. Only 20 minutes' work by an experienced editor would be required. Tony 05:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had done so already, but I followed your suggestion and had another user do exactly that already. How does it look now? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The sudden peril of the storm's existence", "The wave continued to organize"—apparently strange expressions. "predicting the storm's survival"—do you mean 'predicting that the storm would survive? (ambiguous). "make landfall in the United States, or at least pass close to North Carolina"—Do you see why this is awkward? Tony 06:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these specific concerns.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to think about this one a little, but I'm going to go with support. If it says everything there is to say and is notable enough for an article, then the content level should be satisfactory. I think as an FA it would serve as a nice model for writing other articles on these relatively obscure storms that don't affect land (which I do think should have articles). I would be quite happy if we get a whole bunch of fairly short but still entirely complete and well-written articles on obscure tropical storms; I can't see how that could possibly be a bad thing. But that being said, definitely expand it if possible. Everyking 10:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have done a light copyedit. This seems like almost the perfect featured article to me; comprehensive, concise, well-written, well-illustrated, well-referenced. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have been thinking about how to vote for this article for a rather long time. My decision to support is based on the fact that the article is comprehensive, compelling and presents all information presently available about the storm. That is all that a FA must achieve for me to support. I must agree that this hurricane is of less relevance than land-falling systems but that's not the point of FA. It's referenced, well-written and comprehensive. Joelito (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems quite well-done to me, and meets all the criteria. We should have an article this good on every hurricane. Tuf-Kat 01:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this meets all the criteria and is hardly so small that we should compel it to be merged. It is more than substantial enough to stand on its own. I would be nice to keep it off the main page, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For a hurricane that didn't touch land this one is good enough to be FA. Its understandable why this hurricane has little information on it. Tarret 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comment: While this is a short article, as much as can be said about this hurricane is said here, and it meets the rest of the criteria. I am inclined to agree with Christopher Parham that it would be best for this to be a non main-pageable articles so as to avoid unnecessarily restarting the debate about whether this article should exist or not. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if it's so short that people wouldn't like to see it on the main page, doesn't that argue that it does in fact fail to meet criterion 1? Worldtraveller 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it just means that there's more notable articles that can be showcased, without denying any merits to this article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't see how saying it's not notable enough to appear on the main page is consistent with it genuinely being considered an example of the very best we can produce. Worldtraveller 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's saying "Why even contemplate this article for the main page when there are many more similar articles on more notable storms?" Only way this one would see the main page is if 5+ out of the years main page FAs were tropical cyclones, and thats overkill on a relatively small subject area.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saying that the subject isn't notable isn't the same as saying the article isn't high-quality. --AySz88^-^ 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I'm ready to see a new type of featured article. Bring it on! Icelandic Hurricane #12 16:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object It is well written enough. However it is definitely notable enough to have a place on WP, I don't think it has enough notablility to be an FA. Raichu 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have say that that is inventing a new FA criteria on the fly. See the Featured Article criteria. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the same as your own objection?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; Bunchofgrapes said it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, either. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 11:49 UTC
  • The nature of the subject matter is not relevant. Under current policy, any article on Wikipedia can become an FA regardless of the perceived fitness of the subject by some users; if it is important enough to be on Wikipedia, then it is important enough to become an FA. If you want to suggest regulation on what types of articles can become featured, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles as it relates to policy and not to any specific article. If you want an example of a ridiculous subject that is a featured article, I point you to exploding whale. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 11:49 UTC
  • Support This article meets all the criteria for an FA. Doesn't matter the size, or the notability of the storm. juan andrés 00:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with there is better articles to the main page! Jonatanj 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very well written article, though it is a bit too short.Jordy

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I've been fixing this up for FA status for a few weeks now and I think it's ready. I believe I've made it comprehensive and well-written at the same time. The article has had a peer review, where I have received some excellent suggestions that I've tried to implement to the best of my ability. The Filmaker 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided, the material is thorough, but it lacks pictures of the Planet where Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kanobi fight.--Timorrison 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been very paticular about the use of images. To have too many is not only a turn-off to the voters of FACs, but generally they bunch the text together. The images are used only when they are either notable or can give an example. Hence, if you would like to specifically see pictures of Mustafar (the planet you speak of) you should be looking in the Mustafar article. Not necessarily the film's. The Filmaker 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my major concerns have been dealt with. Good article. Cvene64 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fantastic job, it has improved so much, and is now very stable, it will be be a model for all Star Wars related articles Judgesurreal777 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As stated above, this article has vastly improved since The Filmmaker began workingon it. It seems to give a concise, yet thorough explanation of all major aspects of the film. The Wookieepedian 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just so we're clear. I support it too guys! :D The Filmaker 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tobyk777 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can you trim down the Synopsis section a little, a bit unencyclopedic in my view, please see the recent Halloween movies that was made FA. Thanks 172.165.98.163 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will try in a moment, but I have to warn you that I may not be able to do much without compromising flow and comprehensibility. While trying not to sound to bias towards horror movies, but the Star Wars films, namely Episode III, are more complicated then a typical slasher movie. Not only do they have general character development, but there is a large conspiracy that is the center of the prequel trilogy. But I'm not saying that the Halloween articles are wrong or easier, Star Wars however is merely different. Something that has to be considered with all articles. They are all different. The Filmaker 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the peer reviewers, this was a request from me as well - the synopsis was trimmed, so I'm not sure how much more can be trimmed off it. Cvene64 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I tried really hard this time and cut out some things I really didn't want to, but I think I've compressed it down to what is about a third less than it was before. I don't think I'll be able to go any farther then that, I also think I should point out that both of the Halloween films are almost an hour shorter than this film. The Filmaker 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per above. One comment: "Among fans, it is commonly referred to as ROTS." Who keeps on adding all of those to every Star Wars/Star Trek movie?!? I rarely (if ever) see these "commonly referred to" acronyms.--Fallout boy 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll have to go on the offical website message boards to see that. You could probably find it on the IMDB message boards as well. The Filmaker 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production section seems like it could be cut down a bit. Example: After the earliest draft of the screenplay was submitted, the art department began designing the various ways that every element could appear on screen. Over a period of months, Lucas would approve which designs would appear in the film. He would later rewrite the script to correspond to certain designs he had chosen. None of this is, as far as I can tell, unusual and (tastes may vary) to me the paragraph is somewhat dull. I'd prefer something more specific. Haukur 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a tiny rewrite on that paragraph to make it a little more specific. I've tried to accentuate the production work as, while there are design teams on many films, the Star Wars films are heavily involved in that every single aspect must be previsualized, whereas most films simply choose a location and a few costumes. In addition, a writer wouldn't normally willingly heavily rewrite his own work to correspond to a design team. The Filmaker 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. It's nice to point out the things that are unusual as most readers probably don't have a very clear idea on how a film is normally produced :) Haukur 16:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written. I'm going to dab to touch-up Fallout boy's comment, why not just say "Among fans it is sometimes referred to as..."? Staxringold 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line has been rewritten as such. The Filmaker 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, guys. I've changed it back after it was pointed out that it lost it's value. I honestly felt it should stay this way in the first place since I have "commonly" heard it refered to as ROTS throughout various Star Wars forums. Namely the official site and IMDB. The Filmaker 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is featured, perhaps we can have it featured on May 19th? :D The Wookieepedian 14:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. I can't agree with Staxingold's take that it's "very well written"; am I from a different planet? This needs a thorough clean-up before the prose is acceptable. Here are some examples.
    • "It was the sixth and final film to be released in the Star Wars saga, but it is the third film by chronology of events. Among fans it is sometimes abbreviated as "ROTS". This sentence, exposed right at the top, should be something like:—
    • "It was the sixth and final film released in the Star Wars saga, and the third in terms of the saga's chronology. Among fans, the title is sometimes abbreviated as "ROTS".
    • Why do we get just two sentences in the lead explaining some of the background of the plot? This is too little and too much at the same time, and is out of place in the lead, at least as currently worded.
    • "The film's story was written by George Lucas, in the form of a basic plot outline, in 1973." Awkward. Try "George Lucas wrote the story in 1973, in the form of a basic plot outline." Use active voice where possible.
    • "He later professed that he knew little about the details of the story"—this is perplexing; do you mean "conceived little of" rather than "knew"?
    • "He rewrote his notes into script form"; consider instead "He transformed his notes into a script".
    • "did an uncredited rewrite and dialogue polish" is pretty raw prose, whereas this is supposed to be "compelling, even brilliant". Then we read about a "rumored" subtitle and a "guessed title" that was announced "to be true". This is amateurish writing.
    • "to determine what sets would need to be built"—try "to determine the required sets".
    • "are performed by their respective actors themselves"—remove "respective" and check that the tense shouldn't be past, as elsewhere.
    • "the speed in which it was filmed"—"at which", surely.

This article needs a lot of work before it passes 2a. Please recruit one or two good editors to sift through it in detail (don't just fix these examples). Let the reviewers here know when it's ready to inspect again. Tony 07:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookiepedian has been nice enough to rewrite the article to your suggestions, I have finished up what hasn't been done. I personally think that you at times you are nitpicking over what is the equivlent of commas and who as opposed to whom. But you have raised some relevent issues and I will address them. I will reply again when I have rewritten the article for prose again. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done another pass over the article and have corrected any problematic prose. I do not see any at the moment, if you happen to find any other objectionable sentences. Feel free to post them. The Filmaker 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article uses 11 copyrighted images, far more than necessary for identification and critical commentary. One of them, Image:ROTSteaser.jpg, does not have a source provided. Angr (t • c) 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to be bold, and reduced from 11 to 5 fair use images. If that isn't enough, or if others feel that some should be included instead of others for purposes of explaining the story (though I think what's left is good), feel free to change it. Again, let me know if that is good enough. Judgesurreal777 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reinstated one image from the cuts by Judgesurreal777. All images have a fair reason to be inside the article. Not only to provide a visual to aid the text. The theatrical poster and DVD poster obviously are notable and belong. The image of Ewan McGregor on the green screen set is for an example of the notably vague and minimalistic sets that were used on the film. Both images in the Synopsis are obviously for an example of the "look" of the film, I agree that the others should have been cut. The cast photo is to compensate for the lack of other photos of the cast, in costume, and in character. The photo inside the Cinematic/Lit section is to give an example of the similarities between the "Odessa Steps" sequence and the corresponding scene in the film. I hope that you can support the article now that we have reduced the number of images down from 11? to 7 reasonable images. The Filmaker 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.
"Among fans it is known as ROTS" - so what? not important enough to be in lead.
Yes, it was changed from "commonly" to "sometimes" after a few people have claimed they have rarely seen it abbreviated this way. But now it has lost it's relevence and I've changed it back. See above for full reason. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Taglines" section is unnecessary.
That section was added by another user in my absence and was removed quickly, but apparently not quick enough. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad english, e.g "Many subtitles for the film were rumored", "Eventually, Revenge of the Sith, in reference to a line of dialogue in The Phantom Menace, was also a guessed title that George Lucas would later announce to be true", "While the film was shot entirely on a green screen sound stages ", "This broke several box office records, beginning with midnight screenings previously held by The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, which earned $8 million from 2,100 midnight screenings. The opening day gross record previously held by Spider-Man 2 with $40.4 million. The single day gross record previously held by Shrek 2 with $44.8 million. And the Thursday gross record previously held by The Matrix Reloaded with $37.5 million", "In addition, a 15 part collection of web-documentaries".
All have been corrected. The Filmaker 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dubious assetions eg " In all films of the original trilogy, the two characters were played by at least two different people" doesnt ring true - there is no anakin in ep4 or5, so what does it mean?
The line was poorly constructed and I've removed it because it is in fact redundant in the paragraph. The Filmaker 00:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
synopsis is way too long - compare with The Illuminatus! Trilogy which condenses a much much longer and more complex plot into 4 succinct pgraphs. plot should be one third of its current length (5 pgraphs MAX, and thats being generous).
I have remorsefully rewritten the section into 5 paragraphs that are severly shortened. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this assertion has no meaning without post-premiere statistics "The global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas claimed one week before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million in lost productivity because of employees who took a day off or reported in sick", please give the actual compared to the forecasted figures.
This is the equivelent of my writing "Lucas has said he eats ham sandwiches every Tuesday" and you asking for actual compared to forecasted results. How would I know if Lucas ate a ham sandwich last Tuesday? These were predicted figures that could not be more accurately taken after the release then before the release. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whole pgraph about pirate p2p is full of bold assetions without citations. "Reaction" section is lacking in citations.
Rewritten and cited. The Filmaker 19:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "domestically" shows america-centric bias.
The word "domestic" and all it's variants have been removed. The Filmaker 19:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Cast" section is far too listy. make it into sensible prose. better still, merge it into the plot synopsis.
The "Cast" section is listy because it is a list. If you can provide a suitable reason why it should be changed, then I will do so. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dont specify hardcoded image pixel sizes.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I do, each image has a number of how many pixels big it's supposed to be in the article, I have removed them, I hope this meets this requirement. If not, let me know. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting this until you or Judgesurreal777 or somebody can give me a specific reason for why this should not be done. The Filmaker 00:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Cinematic and literay allusions" is filled with original research. Die Hard? Poseidon Adventure? these kinds of statements needs seriously reliable citations but have none.
I have removed the opening uncitable statements regarding Die Hard, Poseidon, and Tucker Torpedo. As of right now, all paragraphs in that section have been cited. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One pgraph sections are not acceptable.
Both have been rewritten. The Filmaker 00:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second pgraph of "Novelization" is again citation-free despite many bold assertions about the quality of the work.
The second paragraph has been completely rewritten and cited. The Filmaker 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, article is non-comprehensive: the only time the film made headlines was when lucas went on record comparing the goerge bush administration with some of the events of the film, yet it gets no mention here. and why discuss only the US, UK, canada DVD release? rest of the world doesnt matter? Zzzzz 12:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say that not only a Star Wars film, in addition to being the last Star Wars film, only made headlines once is ridiculous and should be disregarded. Also, Lucas never went "on record" and compared the film's events to the Bush administration, but merely made one offhand comment. At one time, long before my coming here, there was a "Political Comparision" section which was loaded with OR that could not be cited by any conceivably reliable source. It is not worth mentioning one offhand comment in one interview out of hundreds. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is improbable that I would know, or be able to find out, anything about the Bulgaria DVD release, I have added a comment and citation to fix the problem. It could be a fair assumption that since all of the DVD's in UK, US, and Canada were exactly the same. That the others would be as well. The Filmaker 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the above objections have been addressed. The Filmaker 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Hezzy 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose No free illustrations, as a free content encyclopedia we need to do better. There are a couple of easy ways this one could have a free illustration or two, that it lacks any at all is a clear demonstration that no one is even trying. --Gmaxwell 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I agree in sentiment, there is yet no requirement for free use images, and to expect this on such a difficult topic to get free use images, like Disney, should not keep this from being a featured article. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto to Judgesurreal777. To have free images is not the large purpose of Wikipedia, and it doesn't warrant a strong oppose. Wikipedia aspires is to provide information, more than photos for free use. The Filmaker 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is intended to be a free content encyclopedia, not the free except for images encyclopedia. We don't feature articles without illustrations unless they meet a very high bar... and this article does not meet a high enough bar to support featuring it without any free images. How shameful would be be if the DVD version (which will not have fair use images) of Wikipedia included many 'featured' articles without a single illustration? In any case, the above claim that free images are 'difficult' is untrue in this case. For example, the article discusses people waiting in line for the movie, yet there is no illustration for that. A moments websearch shows many. I really doubt that no one would be willing to freely license such a photo. The problem is that authors in these subject areas think they can get away with a completely failure to attempt to obtain free illustrations, and our goal of free content is suffering substantially. --Gmaxwell 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never meant to imply (and for that matter, I don't think I did) that Wikipedia was the "free except for images encyclopedia". But you are up in arms about this as if we are writing in Spanish on the English Encyclopedia. From what I understand about obtaining free images is that it is a difficult, lengthy and frustrating process, hence the reason why it is not required. In the end an encylopedia is a collection of information, some happen to have images, to paraphrase the DMV "Images are a privilege, not a right." even for featured articles. The Filmaker 04:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • One more thing to add, the simple fact lies in the rules, the requirements, the criteria. For an article to be promoted to featured article status, it does not require free illustrations. The reason for this objection appears to be a personal preference on your part, something that also does not belong on FAC voting or Wikipedia for that matter. The Filmaker 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. It is not a personal preference. It's a stated goal of the project. The article is inferior to others because it fails to meet the stated criteria of Wikipedia. Thus it is not an example of the best we have to offer. If you think this article is feature worthy without images, feel free to remove all of them, and I'll remove my objection. I would not be opposing if I thought this article was clearly feature worthy enough that it could stand without images. --Gmaxwell 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing the point, again. I'm not saying that the article could stand up without images. Although now that you mention it, it probably could, but I still will not remove them since they do aid the article. And what is this about it failing the stated criteria of Wikipedia? "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." this is from the featured article criteria and is the only mention on the subject of images. My quote from the DMV "Images are a privilege, not a right." was meant to say that you should be grateful for the fact that you have images at all. The rules and requirements of the official article on the subject say nothing about free images being mandatory, to the point that they don't even require images at all. That criteria is the stated goal of the project. The Filmaker 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Having images isn't a requirement, I fully understand this and I made as much clear in my response. However, being free content *is* a requirement. You can argue that images are not completely part of the article, and I wouldn't disagree... but they are part of the article to some extent, and as a result they make the article less than fully free content. We will tolerate this to some extent (you should note that most language wikipedias do not permit any form of fair use at all) because some fair use is sometimes needed to make a really complete article. Here we have an article where no attempt has been made to have any free illustrations instead it is filled with non-free images which compromise the completely free status of the article. I believe everyone can agree that featured articles are intended to be the best of what Wikipedia can offer... and a page slathered with unfree images when at least some free ones are possible is certainly not the best our Free Content encyclopedia can offer.--Gmaxwell 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let's say we have an 8 floor building, the 8th floor dominates the other 7. According to 8th floor rules, no employee may use the bathroom between the hours of 5:00pm and 7:00pm. At the same time another set of rules is sent down to each floor to correspond it each floor's paticular needs. The 8th floor sends a set of rules down to the 7th, saying that handicapped employees may use the bathroom at all times. Your objection is the equivlent of my being a handicapped person and wanting to go to the bathroom at 6:00pm. You stop me because the general rules say that I cannot use the bathroom at this time. My arguement is that the rules of the 7th floor state that I can. Now let's jump back to reality, the general requirements ask to for free-content (making no mention of images), while the FA requirements state that the article does not even need images at all. You are refusing to allow a perfectly good article to gain FA status simply because there isn't an image of some costumed nerds standing in front of a theater. Since I cannot find an article that discusses this at all, please provide a link to an article on obtaining free illustrations as well as the rules and regulations of them. Otherwise it cannot, and will not, be done. The Filmaker 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your analogy is just confusing things. Wikipedia exists for a clearly defined purpose. "To create a free content encyclopedia". This article is not a shining example of the work that a free content encyclopedia can create, thus it should not be featured. As I said above, I'd would not be opposing on these grounds if you were trying to pass an unillustrated article through. An unillustrated article doesn't fail to meet the goal of the project. You can learn more about obtaining images for wikipedia at Wikipedia:Images#Obtaining_images. I'd be glad to help improve your understanding of this subject, but insisting to me that free images will not be provided unless I go out of my way to educate you about a core requirement of Wikipedia... is a little rude. :-/ Still, I really would be glad to help. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I asked for the link because it is your responsiblity to provide a suitable reason for your objection, since I have been having serious trouble understanding, or agreeing, with your opinion, you have to provide suitable information on why your objection is relevent or actionable. This especially true you quote some article from somewhere in the site that apparently clearly defines Wikipedia's purpose, without providing an actual link to this article. Wheareas I have in the past with the FA criteria link. Finally, the images in the Synopsis section and the Cinematic/Lite section are screenshots from the film, created by me, which I donated to public domain. How is that not a free illustration? The Filmaker 06:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • An amateur picture of people standing in line to go watch the movie would not, I think, add significantly to the article. It would be especially silly if all the other images were removed. Haukur 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do you honestly think a picture of the crazy people standing in line for weeks for a movie wouldn't add something to the article or are you only saying that to support this articles use of copyrighted images? --Gmaxwell 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Drats! He saw through my hiddan nefarious motives." :D No, seriously, I was visualizing a boring amateurish underexposed picture of a bunch of people standing in a queue. If you've got an interesting freely licenced professional quality picture of crazy people standing in line then by all means upload it. But I think the current image use in the article is pretty good. I might lose the picture of the cast, though. Haukur 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment I have just browsed flickr, and the only CC licenses that would be allowed are just images of a rots poster on the side of a bus and not much else. No fans sleeping outside the movies unfortunantly. Anyway, I still don't fully agree with the objection. If there were such images available - they would be used. But there just is not. Cvene64 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yay. End of discussion. The Filmaker 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • And suddenly Flkr is the end of the internet? I'm glad someone made some effort at all, but 'I spend 2 minutes on Flkr looking doesn't say 'featured article' to me. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Also, Flickr is one of the main sources of free images, that is, unless a user uploads their own (which, obviously has not happened!). There are no appropriate images on Wikimedia either. Fair-use images are being used in the absence of free images - what is the problem? It would be nice to have some free images, but none are available, so I can't see the point of your objection. Cvene64 07:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actually,There is already a free image on Wikipedia related to this movie, but it seems all involved are more interested in arguing ... with claims that movie screenshots are free images.. than actually understanding what free content is, and actually putting in a little effort to find some... Shameful. --Gmaxwell 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • So now we're supposed to go scavenger hunting? You could save both of us a lot of trouble if you would just start helping (like you said you would) instead of ignoring my question as to why the screenshots are not free images. Why does it appear that you are the only user who is even half-way interested in free images? Could it possibly be because they aren't a valid reason to object to an article? The Filmaker 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The screenshots are not free images in the sense of the words used on Wikipedia (or any sense of the words I am familiar with). We do prefer free content where possible and those images are not free content. The thing is that almost any picture relevant to this article will not be free. Gmaxwell is entitled to his crusade, I just don't see a big difference between a FAC with 5 FU images and 0 free images and one with 5 FU images and 1 free image. Haukur 15:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The only free image I can find is a very blurry photo of George Lucas signing a book at the Episode III premiere in Germany. Doesn't seem particularly relevant and certainly isn't featured-quality. I hope that's not the pic Gmaxwell is referring to. Kafziel 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Superior1. The article is a lot better than before and provides lots of information.
  • Object, 2e. Comment Fails the "stable" criterion in a big way. Constant edit wars, vandalism, and changes on a nearly daily basis. Kafziel 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to disagree. We have no such "constant edit wars", if you are refering to the reverts I made to two people this morning for adding un-needed info into the Synopsis, then that's hardly a suitable arguement for "constant edit wars". Vandalism isn't a large problem, at the time that I was editing the article for FA status it was not a problem at all. It only recently began now that it is a FAC and even still is not much of a problem at all. The edits that are made on a nearly daily basis are to comply with FA voters. Common for an FAC. The Filmaker 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you quantify "stable", then? It barely had time to cool off after the peer review before it was nominated, and there have been nearly 200 edits since then. If you can't judge stability based on the period before the nomination, and you can't judge stability on the period during the nomination, when can you? After the nomination?
An article should find its level for a while before being pushed to FAC from PR. This one jumped the gun. Kafziel 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is vandalized daily, then we have a problem. If it's vandalized every three days then we have a problem. But to say that an article should "cool down" after a peer review is useless, because a peer review and an FAC are fundamentally the same thing. The only difference being the outcome. Think of the 200 edits after the peer review as an extended part of the peer review. In other words, you can judge the stability of the article before the nomination. By judging the stability before the peer review. The Filmaker 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel it's accurate to judge the quality of an article based on its state before the peer review; nine times out of ten, the article you submit for FAC is vastly different than the one you submit for a PR. It's not useless at all to let an article sit after a peer review. It shows whether the community in general is happy with the changes suggested in the peer review. In my opinion, if an article isn't stable enough to go a single day without a significant edit, then it's not stable. I don't count random, stupid vandalism in there. The best articles still attract idiots. But if, every day, someone shows up and feels the synopsis is confusing, or the content is incorrect, then it's not stable.
Of course, if Raul654 feels my standards are unreasonable, he'll ignore my objection. If this is the only remaining one, chances are it won't sink your ship. For what it's worth, I do think the article looks good. Kafziel 17:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but in final defense of the article, your original objection to the article was for constant edit wars, vandalism, and changes on a daily basis. So far you have only been able to describe grounds for one: changes on a daily basis. I have only recently finished addressing all of the FA voters problems with the article. This is the reason there are a billion edits on a daily basis. I have received wonderful support from many people in the community who are very happy with the changes. As for the Synopsis being edited every day, I don't believe it has/will be. At the moment I believe any editors that happen to try to edit the Synopsis wish to add more detail for the sake of adding more detail. Such as the fact that Grievous' death is extremely brief in the synopsis. A Star Wars fan who happens to visit Wikipedia once may see the synopsis and think "That's not all that happened!" and edit the synopsis in order to add detail that should in fact be in the General Grievous article. This is just the article being caught in the crossfire of amatuerish wikipedia writers. It cannot ever be avoided, not now, not by letting the article sit for a few months after a peer review. The Filmaker 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I understand. I work on Clone troopers, and Battlefront II all the time, and it's a constant battle against childish junk. But if that's the case here, then it would never meet the basic stability requirement and shouldn't even be nominated at FAC. That stability clause is by far the most overlooked requirement here, but it was put there for a reason. It helps avoid creating featured articles that will be vandalized and hacked at every day. If a featured article looks bad even for 5 minutes, Wikipedia looks bad, too. Kafziel 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This battle on Episode III is not a constant battle. I don't believe it would be daily. But you can't say that out of 1000 featured articles there is not ever any vandalism or some kind of frequent unneeded change. I wouldn't be surprised if I was told with that statement that Wikipedia constantly looks bad. The article is stable and edit wars are not present, vandalism is not frequent at all, and constant changes will dwindle now that all objections to the article have been addressed. The Filmaker 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a hidden warning to the top of the synopsis warning people not to add unneccesary info to the synopsis. This should stop many new users from doing so. The Filmaker 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. I may help out a bit if I can. — Deckiller 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be specific to which Objections you wish to be addressed. Both objections that feature lists of problems have been fully addressed. The Filmaker 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have failed to address my objection. :) --Gmaxwell 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps he did not directly mean your objection. Also, your objection is currently being debated. Although you haven't responded to my last reply. Hence no action has been taken to correct it, since as of right now I still don't believe that the objection is on good grounds. The Filmaker 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, changed the wording. — Deckiller 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very detailed (which compensates a "lack" of images), but some sections are lenghty (specially the "box office" one). And it's time to have our first Star Wars FA! igordebraga ≠ 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (may the Force be with you...)[reply]

Michael Woodruff[edit]

While this article is rather new, I've put a lot of work into it, including a peer review. So far as I can tell, it meets all of the criteria. Unfortunately, I have not yet managed to find a picture of Sir Michael for it. I'm working on this and should have one in a few weeks. Please don't vote no just because of the lack of picture. After all, pictures aren't technically required by the criteria. Cool3 16:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - looks good on a first pass. I'd suggest following the guideline that footnote numbers should follow punctuation, and rather than having the Refs and Notes section separately, use the cite.php function to combine them. The Sheffield Uni coat of arms need a fair use rationale. —Whouk (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggested changes pertaining to citations have been enacted. Cool3 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object. The article looks good, but the prose in the "Importance" section is a bit awkward and could be reworded. Also, is there any way the list of books Woodruff wrote could be converted comfortably into prose? It's not a big deal if converting the list doesn't work out. Other than that, the article is very good. RyanGerbil10 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworded the Importance section. It seemed difficult to change the books into prose, so I split Woodruff's publications into a separate subsection, somewhat cutting down on the interruptive effect of listing them. Cool3 20:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work! InvictaHOG 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has come on in leaps and bounds since the peer review. I'm impressed that an article of this quality has developed so quickly. Oldelpaso 13:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Tony 11:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the Sheffiled coat of arms really serves no purpose in the article. The captions on the other images could also use some work so that it is obvious how they relate to the articles text.--Peta 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the Sheffield coat of arms. It doesn't really illustrate anything. —Whouk (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coat of arms has been removed, other captions have been expanded to show relation to article. Cool3 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No pic??? --UVnet 11:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd like longer paragraphs, but this is pretty good. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article and I just added in an image of him for those who care. Staxringold 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Burnside[edit]

This article details the history of Burnside, a local government area in Adelaide, Australia. The article is well written and referenced; it has undergone both peer review and community scrutiny. It is primarily of my own work, my third featured article nomination, and hopefully my second featured article. Any objections will be dealt with reasonably and as soon as possible; if you are supporting - thank you! michael talk 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usually, articles don't begin with "This article details...". --Osbus 01:50, 28 April 2

006 (UTC)

  • Support Written well, comprehensive, a different sort of subject... got my vote. misanthrope
  • Object Struck —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Minor) The final sentence in the lead: "Today Burnside is one of Adelaide's most sought-after regions in which to live, the Council is in the progress of implementing it's Vision 2020 plan." This is a comma-splice, easily fixed by changing the coma to a semi-colon, but more importantly, this introduction of something unexplained called the "Vision 2020 plan" seems abrupt.
    • The Aboriginal culture section/paragraph, ending with a quote by James Milne Young, is sourced to [10], but the quote doesn't appear in that source. Also, it is a shame to use a tertiary web source like that for this material, rather than some of the more-reliable sources mentioned in the page.
    • Inline citations are pretty scarce, with only 10 footnotes, none of which point me to which of the listed references I would use if I wanted to verify any of the facts here.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the lead sentence.
  • The quote by James Milne Young is sourced from the book The Paddocks Beneath. Much of the information is sourced from that and The First Hundred Years, there is only a small amount of references available for the article. The references given are comprehensive given the article's material. michael talk 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objection isn't that it only has four references; the objection is that if I wanted to fact-check the article, I'd have to read all four references from cover to cover, I guess. Inline citations should match up facts (and direct quotations) with sources and page numbers. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but what do you request that I do to fix this and gain a support vote from yourself? Apply inline citations from the books stating chapters and page numbers, correlating with the appropriate text in this article? michael talk 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Such footnotes could simply be of the form "Warburton p. 22." for example. If whole paragraphs or sections tend to come from one source, a footnote somewhere near the beginning or end of the paragraph or section explaining that would suffice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I should have that done within a day. michael talk 23:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to do all of those for Warburton. michael talk 09:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do so for your other sources too? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only have The Paddocks Beneath in my hands at the moment. For the others I'd have to go down to the local library and reborrow them; I will do this in short time. That said, Warburton's book actually cites the other two itself so all information is covered nonetheless. michael talk 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further cross-referenced. michael talk 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My objections above have been struck; I will re-evaluate the article with a deeper reading if I have a chance. Thaks for putting in the work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this is well-referenced and looks good overall. Writing quality is pretty good, but a little touching up here and there wouldn't hurt. Also, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on whether or not this is comprehensive, but what about things like crime and commerce? Were there any significant crime waves? What types of businesses were there? Like I said, I'm not sure if there's anything notable that would fit that description, but if there is, it should probably be included. Also, are there any external links? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 05:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burnside is the wealthiest suburban city in Adelaide; it has never required a police station or welfare office. Crime is very low, non-notable.
  • Businesses are minor, mainly consisting of office headquarters in the near-city suburbs (eg. Dulwich). Historical businesses, such as mining, Vineyards and the Coopers Brewery are covered in the article. Present-day business detail will located at the City_of_Burnside#Economy article when I complete it.
  • External links relating to the City of Burnside are located in that article.

Thankyou for your copyedit and support vote! michael talk 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That explanation works for me, though perhaps it might help to copy some of the external links here as well. Not a big deal though; if any have sections on the history of the area, they might be worth adding; if not, don't worry about it. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article. Although I might say that the online sources in the footnotes needn't be in url-form - they should be as normal external links, or like the online sources in Australia.--cj | talk 05:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a "disputed statement" tag within the "Early history" section, and the tag refers to the talk page. The talk page doesn't mention the deal with the dispute, though, or whether it ever got resolved. Has the dispute been resolved yet? If so, you can probably remove the tag. If not, then someone needs to do the research to find out what the deal is. --Elkman - (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obejct—2a. It's not bad, but the prose is not yet 'compelling, even brilliant' as required for a FA. Here are examples.
"The year of 1928 also saw the building of ..." (tired expression, and redundant "The year of"; why is this 'also' when you haven't already mentioned anything else that happened in this year?)
"401 acres were remained under cultivation ..." (grammar, plus how many hectares would that be?)
"World Wars I and II sent many of the sons of Burnside to fight" (the wars sent the sons?)
"statue of an Australian Imperial Force soldier stating:..." (is it the soldier or the statue who's stating?)
"post-war economic and baby-boom" (clumsy ellision)
"programmes" (AusEng, surely?)
"programme" is the AusEng spelling (or, at least, that's how I learned it in school in Brisbane). Lankiveil 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it changed in the 1970s and 80s, and now differs from BrEng in this respect. Tony 01:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots more. Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout; would take a good editor 90 minutes. Tony 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have those specific pointers fixed within the next day but I would greatly appreciate further input if you have other qualms. michael talk 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Michael; the whole thing needs a going over, preferably by someone who's a little distant from the text. Can you ask someone who's good at editing? Tony 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed those specific pointers with exception of the third one, which makes clear and perfect sense. The World Wars did send people to fight, hence the usage of the term. I know no editors other than Australians and this article had recieved little feedback. Would you be able to review the text / suggest someone else to do so? It's already been through three copyedits beyond my original text. Thanks, michael talk 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The fact that I could easily find a number of problem sentences indicates that the prose is not yet "compelling, even brilliant", as required. It doesn't matter how many people have run over it—promotion to FA status is special. Here, you can expect to have the quality of the prose scrutinised closely.

So the Olympic Games sends many athletes to compete, does it? I suppose we can see what you mean, but the expression does not stand up under examination. Better to say, plainly, 'Many of the sons of Burnside went to fight in World Wars I and II' than to try too hard to be elegant. Here, the "a saw b" expression works better:

"A post-war economic and baby boom ... saw Burnside grow at a spectacular rate; from a population of 27,942 in 1947 it grew to 38,768 in 1961.... 1953 saw the building of a public ballroom, 1965 saw an Olympic Grandstand; both in Kensington Park."

But by now we're tiring of the same construction; and while we're at it, the semicolon is wrong—use an m dash, or a comma. This is not compelling prose.

Earlier in the paragraph, we have:

"When Australia celebrated the Golden Jubilee of the Federation of Australia in 1951, Burnside residents joined in the celebrations. More important at a local level, Burnside's centennial was commemorated in 1956."

The function of 'More important at a local level' is unclear. Is it a laboured attempt to link the national 50th anniversary with the local 100th anniversary? If so, the connection is a bit of a stretch for the reader. Why make it?

Let's look at the next few sentences:

"it envisaged leaving Greenhill Road once reaching Hazelwood Park". What does this clause mean—are the Councillors planning a picnic on the roadside? And the following sentence starts with 'It' referring not to the Council, as here, but to the Highway, I presume.

Then: "The proposal was eventually rejected in favour of upgrading Mount Barker Road and Linden Avenue remained a huge out-of-place road"—here, the absence of a comma after 'Road' forces the reader to do a double-take (upgrading the Road and the Avenue? Oh no, I see what it means ...). A 'huge' road is not idiomatic.

You see, this can't possibly pass muster here until it's properly edited. I'm sorry that this is probably frustrating to you, but most sentences contain problems. Tony 10:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have my own check done within a day, hopefully I'll be able to spot some improvements and fix them. If you can offer more or do a copyedit yourself it would be greatly appreciated. michael talk 10:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, which ones are 'pedantic' and an imposition of my personal preferences? Tony 10:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing half of the copyedit. If I get some free time (very busy at the moment!) I'll have a look at the rest, but again, if you can finish the job it would be great! Cheers, michael talk 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. michael talk 04:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. Having copy-edited the article, here are more observations.
    • It's very weighted towards information about the local government (council). Doesn't make for a fascinating read. You might consider removing some of the mechanistic stuff (Acts, list of councillors etc).
    • The aspects that would interest readers more are often not followed up; for example, you say that education was a priority in the mid-19th century, and that the maintenance and planting of trees was a priority in the 1920s. Were these moves ahead of their time?
    • There's almost nothing of the economic history of the area; this is a serious deficiency.
    • You might relate the area historically to what was happening in South Australia, and on the whole continent, at a few strategic points.
    • I'm slightly concerned at the reliance on a narrow range of sources. It really shows when you put an inline reference at the bottom of a paragraph; there, we wonder whether the reference refers to the whole of the preceding paragraph, or to only the preceding statement. How much is copied verbatim?

Tony 13:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's disappointing to hear that it makes for an (assumed) boring read. I don't really know what to do about this, South Australian history in general is a very niche subject so I wouldn't expect it to be absoultely captivating. I might consider removing lists - is this an objectionable point?
  • Yes, the educational and beautification aspects of Burnside are exceptional compared to other Adelaide local government areas - it is for this reason they get such attention.
  • I don't quite understand points three and four; the article details quarries, wineries and breweries in regards to economic history (of which there is little in whole) and even pipes in about an economic downturn across Australia at the end of the 19th century.
  • For such a niche subject, I was lucky to find such detailed souces. While there is not a huge range of texts, it is worth noting that some other Adelaide council areas have not even produced local history books.
  • None of it is copied directly or exactly from the texts. I have focused, in parts, on things that have been given particular attention though.

I must thank you for offering all of this advice and for copyediting the article, without all this criticism it (and myself) wouldn't improve. Again, thankyou. michael talk 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; as I said, maybe removing just a bit of the council stuff might help; if those aspects were exceptional, why not tell us—that would lift the article. Where is Burnside in relation to Adelaide? There's no map. I guess it would be nice to know what the agricultural industry was in the early days, and whether the crops and livestock changed over the decades. For example, was it wheat and sheep? Dairy? You don't mention the topography, either. I suppose that it was heavily forested in the early days, and that there was deforestation at some stage. These are aspects that will give the reader a better feeling for the way life, the economy and the landscape have evolved there. (Much better than lots of council stuff.)
I noticed a problem sentence: "although still a mix of villages and crops under cultivation, it supported a modest population"—the first clause contains an odd combination, and villages, of course, are not under cultivation. Just why this mix is unlikely to support a modest population ("although") is unclear. Can you fix it? Tony 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not wholly independent, it is a daughter article of City of Burnside (I am presently working on it) which contains (or will eventually contain) other information relevant (maps, geography, etc) to the area. Some points you brought up will be covered there. I have fixed the problem sentence. michael talk 15:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You possibly should get rid of the red links in the article (created stubs or delink). MyNameIsNotBob 08:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the red links will be gone within a few months when I get around to writing individual articles for other Burnside subjects. I will create stubs now if this is an objection, but I would much rather wait and create worthwhile articles in time. michael talk 08:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Wow! Great article! Well referenced, well written and comprehensive. I wish all articles about the history of areas were like this one :-) In fact, I may one day update my History of the Strathfield area article to be more like this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming[edit]

This article has gone through massive effort to organise it well. It is well-sourced, both in print and in text, and I think it has a balanced point of view. I think it is one of the epitomes of colloboration. By nominating it for FAC, I hope any further objections, which there probably be, will be brought to light more quickly in which case we can quickly rectify them. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and Comment Seems neutral and well-written. This article has been nominated in the past. It's a political issue at the moment and I think that it's a bloody a good idea to feature articles like this. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whether the subject is important and current is not the point. Whether the article meets the criteria is the point. — Johan the Ghost seance 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see his comment in a good light, in fact the reason we have FA is to show WP's best articles and if important subjects get chosen we will get more people coming and watching what WP looks like and they will see that there is some factual accuracy and real encyclopaedic information in WP's core. Lincher 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Leland McInnes 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object No vote Needs to be summarised, inline references formatted correctly, image placements tested on low resolutions, reduction of unnecessary headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, which inline references are to be formatted? I suggested footnotes, but then a lot of people decided against it. Are there any issues with the images? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically: the Terminology box should be merged into the lead, CO2 and temp records be right-aligned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen the same kind of style in other encyclopedias though, such as World Book et al which for the circumstance seems fairly appropriate for the article as a clarification. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article needs a thorough copyedit as I've found essay type sentences such as Indeed; It is therefore not correct to etc. It needs to be summarised too. Précis the content here and move the details to daughter articles. Lastly convert the gifs and jpeg images to png. I've also noticed that one of the images has a deprecated licence. Please update. I've switched to object. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The style is a major problem. It is not just about conveying highly technical content, it is also highly controversial - there have been edit wars in the past over single word. As to summarising the content - these are the summaries! Every section is a summary of another article and so attempts to summarise what is in the main articles. I cannot really see how much more summarising there is to do without just turning it into a portal.--NHSavage 12:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I've long felt that the article was too long and that, as a summary article, there was too much detail which belonged in the daughter articles. --Richard 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Convert the gifs and jpeg images to png"? Since when is that a requirement for FA? See 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season for example. TimL 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jpegs and gifs use lossy compression, which is undesirable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. JPEG uses lossy compression. GIF is lossless (it's technically inferior to PNG, but wider supported...it's a toss-up). I can convert them any way we want to, but is it worth it? Moreover, it's probably better to ask the originators, at least for those generated by a Wikipedian (I think User:Dragons flight did some of them, but his seem to be PNG already).--Stephan Schulz 20:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to look at: Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload which states: "non-animated GIF should never be used" and "Do not save diagrams as JPEG" which gives some explanation of why not JPEG (i.e. lossy, but if we convert from JPEG to PNG its lost already surely?). Again this is not something I like but about the right thing on WP.--NHSavage 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, once it is JPEG, the information is lost. Moving to PNG afterwards combines the disadvantages of both (fuzzy and large). That's why its better to redo them from original sources, if possible. If PNG is clearly the preferred format, I'll start to convert the GIF's...--Stephan Schulz 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. as per nom and my comment above. Lincher 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of course. It will likely lead to another round of work, though...--Stephan Schulz 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I quite agree that the subject is important, and it would be great to have an FA on Global Warming, but this article looks to me like it needs a bit of work, mainly in terms of editing it into cohesive and compelling prose.
    • "Global warming is a term used to describe..." I know the subject is controversial, but this seems a bit tentative. Can't we come up with an agreed formulation of "Global warming is..."  ?
      How about "Global warming is an increase in average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans over a geologically short period of time." TimL 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I've tried refers to the increases to see if that flies.... William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I'd prefer "is" to "refers to". But it's OK. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second sentence is quite crowded for a lead which is supposed to be a summary. How about "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the average global temperature has risen significantly due to human activities", and move the detail and references into the main article.
      I tried removing "UN" and the dates; this shortens it. Cutting as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations is also poss... OK, I've done that too William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Better. Still a little more than I'd expect in a summary, perhaps. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again in the lead, "The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 33 °C warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make that planet's surface warmer." Seems a little awkwardly added-on, and suddenly talking about "a planet" seems jarring. Maybe this should be moved to the main article too.
      Its already in lower down! I've rm'd it from the intro. William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "other climate changes including rises in sea level": is "sea level" really climate?
      Maybe not. I've rm'd "climate" William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence:
      "Such changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, change agricultural yields, cause glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, or contribute to biological extinctions."
    switches from being a list of items to a list of verb phrases and back, which is highly disconcerting.
    • "there is a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C — already committed but not yet realised." -- unclear meaning, and superfluous hyphen.
      I moved that down and added more expl. William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Layout could do with work: there are no fewer than four floated boxes (in addition to the contents) above the first heading, which is too many. With anything other than a very narrow browser window they end up overlapping, which is ugly.
      I have tried to address this by removed one of the figures from the lead and reformatting the template. I think it's an improvement but then other mightn't.--NHSavage 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      It's better, but the lead still looks like a jumble of boxes. It would help if "Terminology" could be moved farther down, and/or if the "Subtopics" template was at the end (like Panama Canal or World War I). Maybe try organising the boxes like History of the Jews in Poland. Maybe more space could be made by moving some of the diagrams into the sub-articles -- there seem to be a heck of a lot of them in the article. Sorry to be picky, but an FA is supposed to "exemplif[y] our very best work." — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some language could be more formal and encyclopedic in tone; eg. "from not knowing the volume..."; "there is uncertainty about the climate sensitivity.";
    • Inconsistent references style; eg. "(Smith, 2005)", "[7]", "(BBC)", "(Reuters, February 9, 2006; archived)". I would suggest changing to <ref>; yes I know this contentious, but Wikipedia:What is a featured article? says "the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged", and three different citation styles certainly doesn't look good. The use of inline references in particular screws up print and aural rendering, which impacts users with particular presentation requirements.
    • Second paragraph of "Historical warming": is this too much detail, since it reaches no conclusion about which was the warmest year? Why not just say that 1998 and 2005 were the two warmest years?
    • "Globally, the majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions arise from fuel combustion. The remainder is accounted for largely by "fugitive fuel" (consumed in the production and transport of fuel), "... this could use some clarifying.
    • In "Potential negative effects", "reductions in the ozone layer (see above)" -- no prior mention of ozone.
    • The "Responses" section suddenly leaps to a super-wikilinked style; the surge of blue is quite jarring. Links like "automobile", "consumer", "countries", don't add context.
      I've gone over this and removed the less relevant Wiki-Links. --Stephan Schulz 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Still looks really blue to me. "Coal reserves" links to "Major coal producing regions", which doesn't really talk about how much coal is there; "climate change" was previously linked; I don't think that linking to "United States" and "Australia" really adds context to this section; ditto "public intellectuals"; ... — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I took out some more. I left the first link to US and Australia, though, and the public intellectuals (there was some debate about them on talk). The first para under the enumeration is really blue, but it all seems to be pertinent.... --Stephan Schulz 23:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Better -- blue, but blue that adds context. — Johan the Ghost seance 08:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of all, the article just looks like it needs a serious editing pass -- or several. I fixed a few obvious typographical issues, but the text basically lacks flow -- see criterion 2(a).
    — Johan the Ghost seance 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Referencing needs to be fixed. Any style would do but reference links should be moved from the body text to the bottom. I don't know if its actionable or not but some sections have image crowding. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to address the image crowding. I hope it looks nicer now.--NHSavage 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FA criteria call for inline citations; they don't mandate any particular style. This article makes extensive use of inline citations, so I consider the criteria met. Raul654 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I appreciate the various formatting questions but think it rqather regrettable that content doesn't count for more William M. Connolley 08:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your frustration, but in Wikipedia "Featured" has a specific meaning, which is all about the quality of the article, not the importance of its subject. This is important, because it means that ultimately all Wikipedia articles can become Featured, at which time we'll have a wonderful encyclopedia. If you want to propose a separate process to highlight "important" articles, I guess the village pump is the place to go. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say important! What I'm talking about is content quality over formatting. I find it very frustrating (and am fairly close to abandoning any interest in the FA process) to spend so long on twiddly formatting, against actual content. I appreciate that the format has to be up to some acceptable level, of course William M. Connolley 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misunderstood. In general, I don't think the formatting is a big issue here, or certainly not something that should take much time to fix. It's already better. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: in terms of stability, I looked through the history, and there is a lot of reverting etc. That is fine, but when was the last time there was a substantial change to the article or a protracted revert or edit war (say, of more than a day)? Batmanand | Talk 08:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there has been any revert war for ages (months; more). IT gets anon vandalism/POV pushing, of course. And the content is also stable (scientifically; I think some got shuffled a while back). William M. Connolley 09:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, support. Batmanand | Talk 21:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I have fixed the 2 red links, tested the images at very low resolution and they look great, merged the terminology box, moved the subsection box to the end, the graphs have been moved to the right and unjammed in sections, removed false "see also" ozone reference, stripped the responses section of all non-essential wikilinks, fixed "such changes" sentence, and fixed anthropogenic fuel sentence.
      • Big improvement as regards layout. I have two more comments, but these are low-priority:
        • You have a bunch of "thumb" images with sizes set. The problem is that this overrides the user's expressed preference for thumbnail size. For example, I have a huge monitor, and in my preferences I set all thumbnails to display at 320px. Which is great, until I come to "Global Warming" and it doesn't work. Against this, I appreciate the desire to have things like graphs visible in the main article.
I have now fixed this.--NHSavage 14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good! — Johan the Ghost seance 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyediting and references soon to follow.
      • I see this is being the biggest hurdle right now, so let me try to clarify my objection. Basically, I'm looking at criterion 2(a), "the prose is compelling, even brilliant". Right now, I think the article has the facts and the NPOV, in other words the bones, but it needs the flesh of good prose to make it read like an article from beginning to end. At the moment the body looks like a list of references introduced by pretty terse comments. Just look at the first para of "Historical warming of the Earth": 4 sentences, 4 facts, but no feeling of the paragraph leading me through the facts, explaining how they relate, or what the overall significance is. Here's my lame effort at fixing it, though as I don't understand the technical issues, this may not be factually accurate, so please don't use it without serious vetting:
        The key indicator of the existance of global warming is a sudden change in global temperature trends in the recent past. Although detailed temperature monitoring is a recent development, it is believed that global temperature was relatively stable over the past one or two thousand years prior to 1850, with various fluctuations, which are possibly local, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. Since 1850, however, temperatures have trended upward: relative to 1860-1900 the global temperature on both land and sea has increased by 0.75 °C; detailed temperature analyais available since 1979 shows land temperatures increasing about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade (Smith, 2005)). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C per decade since 1979. Of particular concern is that this change is simultaneous with the development of human industry, and the consequent rise in the production of pollutants.
      • I'm not saying that this paragraph is FA-worthy, but maybe it gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. I sympathise with how hard this is for a deeply technical, high-level article like Global warming, so I've tried to find examples of FAs that tackle the same problem. Quantum mechanics looks like a good example.
    • Now two of the suggested fixes were strange to me and probably others and need clarification. Why should the history of Global temperatures have LESS detail? I don't imagine that is an actionable objection or work-point. Also, the section headers seem all essential to me, so which ones specifically should go? I agree there are a lot of them, but I don't see which ones are unnecessary for a featured article. Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Historical warming of the Earth" goes into a big debate about whether 1998 or 2005 was the warmest year. There are two problems with this:
        1. you don't provide the answer;
        2. it seems to me that it clearly doesn't matter, since they were obiously very close -- "a few hundredths of a degree" -- and obviously both very warm.
        So, why not just say that all folks concerned agree that 1998 and 2005 are the warmest two years on record?
      • I guess the "Section headers" comment isn't addressed to me...?
      • — Johan the Ghost seance 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object, great article, very informative. However, it lacks proper inline ciatation and that is part of the Featured Article criteria. If this can be fixed, I will support the FAC. --Terence Ong 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it's not a requirement per se, it's an aesthetics issue. What's so horrible about footnotes anyway? How much does it cost in convenience for the sake of making the article look way more professional? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, featured article status will give the community more excuse to resist changes to the article. This is an especially inopportune time for such resistance to be encouraged. There is a rash of publishing going on in advance of the next IPCC reports. The climate science underlying global warming is in a state of flux and rapidly maturing, a difficult task amid political controversy.--Poodleboy 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is completely wrong... there is a lot of new pubs, but its all confirming the old stuff, so the article remains pretty stable William M. Connolley 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment would be more credible if you were scrambling to delete recent results that threatened your POV.--Poodleboy 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I now give up on any hope of this becoming a featured article. I had been working on the other comments as I thought this was an important article. But given that "Consensus must be reached for an article to be promoted" and the fact that there will a large amount of publications on this for the forseeable future so PB will never accept this as FAC what's the ****ing point?--NHSavage 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel your pain, but please don't be discouraged. "Consensus" doesn't mean "unanimity"; irrelevant or invalid objections should, and will, be ignored. In my opinion, Poodleboy's comment comes under that heading, as it does not relate to the FA criteria or any other aspect of Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of. This is an important article -- in my opinion the most important one in Wikipedia. But, and for the same reasons, it's going to be about the most difficult article to get to FA. The good news is that you've done 95% of the work -- you've got a comprehensive list of facts, with concensual support and references. I know that that was extremely hard. Now you just need to get a writer who understands the subject to put a layer of good, compelling prose over it, and you're there, as far as I can see. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an inoperable objection that cannot be resolved. I move for it to be struck out. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you saying is an "inoperable objection"? Poodleboy's idea that "FA status will give the community more excuse to resist changes, etc."? Or the comment by User:NHSavage?
    I assume you mean that Poodleboy's objection is inoperable but the positioning of your comment makes the meaning a little ambiguous. --Richard 07:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The objection is ludicrous. Making an article featured doesn't prevent it from tracking new developments. See eg. Panama Canal which just acquired a whole new section, "Third Set of Locks Project", within 24 hours of the information being published, despite being featured. Global warming science is always going to be in a state of flux, the same as just about every other aspect of human knowledge. Global warming is always going to be one of the most -- if not the most -- difficult article in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it can't be featured. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Natalinasmpf - this objection is certainly inactionable. Raul654 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I just learned today what a POV fork is. On reading the WP:POV fork guideline, the following question immediately occurred to me: How would you argue that Global warming controversy is not a POV fork?
Now, you might ask "What does that have to do with Global warming being a featured article?" The answer (IMHO) is: If Global warming controversy is a POV fork, then so is Global warming and the two articles should be merged into Global warming. If that's true, then the content in Global warming controversy has not been adequately covered in Global warming and therefore Global warming should not be FA. I will withhold my vote pending an answer to this question.
(NB: I am not an opponent of global warming but I have been observing that a lot of anti-global warming edits have been slapped down in the month and a half that I have been on Wikipedia.)
--Richard 00:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern but I do not believe it is justified. The controversy is mentioned in the article not ignored. The controversy article is not really a fork any more than any of the main articles included in the global warming template are forks.--NHSavage 06:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. See What content/POV forking is not. Also see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight as for why we do not include any uninformed opinion into the article. This is a controversial topic. Hence it is edited a lot by people who are blindly parroting Rush Limbaugh or The Day after Tomorrow. It's also a complex scientific topic. Hence many of these edits don't improve the quality of the article and are struck down. But this goes both ways. See e.g. the discussion on Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph --Stephan Schulz 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've tried to add to this article and other related ones in the past, I don't feel that I should vote on the nomination. However, I will point out that, although the scientific explanations of elements of the theory are excellent and well-presented, I believe the article to be unnecessarily biased towards one point of view. If you'll look at the "discussion" page for the article, including the archived discussions, you will see that many have tried to assist in making the article more neutral. Their comments usually generate pejorative, and often personal, responses from the supporters of the "as is" article. It's true that some have tried to make the article biased the other way, i.e. anti-global warming theory. However, community contributors who have taken a cooperative approach to attempting to address the issue and appear to genuinely want to have as neutral an entry as possible, have usually received the same treatment as those with an obvious agenda. Although complaints are common throughout Wikipedia of articles being "hijacked" by a certain group who won't allow, or very reluctantly allow even minor edits to an article, I believe this article is an example of how sometimes those complaints do have some validity. Cla68 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any concrete examples? I've been watching this article for a long time. I have seen a few reverts that are arguable, but nothing on substance. As for "genuinely want to have an article as neutral as possible" - well, intention is irrelevant. What is relevant is if the article is improved by an edit. --Stephan Schulz 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say to look at the content sub-headings on the current "Discussion" page for the article starting at "Neutrality" and reading down from there. There's also some good examples of pejorative responses in those entries, including some from an active editor/protector of the page who voted in support of it for FA status. It's obvious that the article draws it's share of trolls and vandals. But, community members who've tried, with good faith or good intentions, to participate in refining the article have been treated, in my opinion, in an unnecessarily dismissive and rude way. Whether my opinion on this matter is valid or should have any bearing on the FA nomination for this article, I'll leave up to the rest of the community. Cla68 16:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through that section and the few that followed. I found a useful debate, no abuse. WMC and Silverback have a history of debate without pulling punches, but neither has complained so far. This is a contentious page, so it's unreasonable to expect all happy faces and agreement all around...and I'd say that's a good thing. --Stephan Schulz 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the Solanki material and the hostile dismissal of model albedo problems are two examples. I hope you will assist me in inserting legitimate peer reviewed material, even if it disagrees with William's POV.--Poodleboy 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I've been spoiled by the more genteel debate the seems to exist in most of the history-related articles. Again, if the community accepts how this article has developed and continues to evolve, then that's that. The community's opinion, of course, trumps my sensibilities on the matter. On a slightly different subject, if the article did add the new in-line references that several community members here suggest, I think the way would be clear for this article to get a clear FA support consensus. Although, I think the stability of the article may be a factor. Cla68 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems ok. Mopper Speak! 14:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is one of many articles I've been able to use in a collegate paper because of its statistics, and references. Good. --Chris 20:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - Only if an inline citation system is created, and a thorough copyedit is done for flow and non-specialist readability. Judgesurreal777 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edit required—I've done down to and including 'Historical warming'; the rest needs work too. Tony 08:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I understand it is a contentious issue, but it's like the neibour next door who just had 3 or 4 mature trees cut down (they had to be affecting either human life or property damage, and i suspect neither, and suspect she didnt obtain a permit or even have an arborist visit, and if she did that would make me even more shocked, they wernt affecting anything, and if they were, removing them has created far more problems than there suposedly were there while they existed) sorry to rant, but anyone who dosent accept the fact of what we're doing to this planet, in my opinion, is mad. Don't take me as a raving 'greenie', believe me, there are plenty of trees out there that need to be cut down, it's just a matter of doing the right 'right' thing. Putting subject matter asside, this article contains amazing information, one of the best combined, overall sources on this 'much needed to have attention drawn to it' issue. Great referencing, well researched, lots of other places to back up and support the article. I can't believe this hasnt become a featured article already. The statistics speak for themselves. Nick carson 08:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So called 'Global Warming' is a mere political tool used by socialists to proffer yet more guilt by the successful in order that they can exact yet more taxes. The so called 'Carbon Credit' companies set up by the people who push this theory are enough proof that its merely profiteering by socialists and victimization of the general public, with emphasis put on the successful who falsely feel guilty based on lies told by the likes of Al Gore. If this wikipedia site were to be truly fair then it would mention these facts. I do suspect that the socialists have some measure of control over this site, however, due to it being riddled with lies elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.189.182 (talk • contribs).

You are about a year late (and wrong, but that's another issue). --Stephan Schulz 07:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ten-Go[edit]

I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. It has been through peer review and has passed "good article" review. Cla68 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and I hope I can clear it up. All of those pictures are from the US Government, either the US Navy, National Archives, or another US government agency. Even though the Nova and Combinedfleet websites don't source the pictures, they are from the U.S. government, as they were taken from U.S. military aircraft on a U.S. government military operation which therefore automatically makes them property of the U.S. government, and therefore, if I understand correctly, publicly available, no matter who posted them on the Internet. That's perhaps why those two websites didn't feel the need to source the photos, which, since they are public domain documents, their original source doesn't have to be cited. In Yoshida's book, "Requiem for Battleship Yamato", pp xxxvi-1, pictures "Yahagi.jpg" and "Yamato3.jpg" are clearly labled as being from the U.S. National Archives. In Skulski, "The Battleship Yamato", p. 32, "Yamato3.jpg" is labled as being from "US Defense Audio-Visual Agency." I changed the source of "Yahagi.jpg" to reflect that it's really from the US National Archives, not that website. If anything further is required to fulfill the burden of proof that those photos are from the US government, tell me what you feel needs to be done and I'll try my best to do it.Cla68 01:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just add this information to the Image Description pages. Jkelly 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cla68 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, and good luck with the article. Jkelly 03:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article! InvictaHOG 18:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with conditions: The article is excellent overall, but a minor presentation problem: many of the photos have bad contrast and/or are unclear when thumbnailed. Eg. Image:Yahagi.jpg, Image:Yamato1.jpg, Image:Yamato4.jpg. Probably nothing you can do, but try resizing and fiddling with contrast on some of them. Also, a minor NPOV nitpick: The sacrifice by the almost 4,000 Japanese sailors during Operation Ten-Go in a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort to defend their homeland. Quoting a comment on my FAC Defense of Sihang Warehouse, "bravery is subjective" ... "portray it as their cultural reception". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally out of my element when it comes to editing images, but I'll look into doing what you suggest. I understand how you could feel that way about the NPOV on the line you quote. I've changed the line to read, "The story of Operation Ten-Go is revered to some degree in modern Japan as evidenced by appearances of the story in popular Japanese culture which usually portray the event as a brave, selfless, but futile, symbolic effort by the participating Japanese sailors to defend their homeland." Cla68 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chola dynasty[edit]

I have been working on this article for a few months. It has had a round of peer review and has greatly benefited from that. A number of authors have made significant contributions to it. Chola dynasty was one of the most important ruling dynasty of Tamil Nadu and they have left behind a lasting legacy. I feel this article is a tribute to them and Tamil culture in general. As I have contributed quite a bit to this article, I will be available to answer any queries or to make any suggested changes. - Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jkelly. I was not aware of the copyright issues with the images. To resolve the problems, I have
    • removed the Uttama coin.png from the article and have written to the image owner for specific permission to use
    • removed the Cholabronze.jpg image from the article
    • uploaded an new version of the Thanjavur temple.jpg with appropriate rights.
thanks Parthi (Venu62) 00:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember when asking for a new license for the coins image to clarify that commercial and derivative use is necessary for use on Wikipedia. Thanks for looking after the image problems, and good luck with the article. Jkelly 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it's very good, but does anyone have an idea on how to clarify in the beginning of the intro about how long the dynasty ruled for? I think that's critical to the subject, but it's also not easy given the state of the scholarship. See the peer review for more background and my rough attempt at some wording if you like. - Taxman Talk 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- Some issues with the lead. 1. Rajendra Chola extended...new capital called Gangaikonda Cholapuram is a little too detailed for the lead. 2. Avoid using footnotes in the lead, as it is a summary of content to follow. 3. What does: Preceding state Unknown, ?Pandya in the infobox mean? 4. Add a space between Greater(Later). 5. A few red links can be stubbed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dynasty originated in the fertile valley of the Kaveri River, Urayur (near Thiruchirapalli), their oldest capital. is choppy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have made it less choppy now. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 09:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- though I would prefer the colour of this this changed from red to blue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Adiperukku has been removed from the article - Parthi (Venu62) 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Yes, it is a good article, but I've just copy-edited the History section, and it certainly needed it. Tony 07:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tony. I have now made the chanegs suggested by Nichalp by moving the footnotes frm the Lead para to the body. - Parthi (Venu62) 07:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very good article. Well researched. I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into this article. Good job - Aksi_great (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Ignores completely the Great Schism of Malayalam and Tamil cultural spheres of influence and the associated race riots and wars between Cheras and Cholas. Anwar saadat 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the self-made maps of Chola dominions exaggerate their boundaries including Chera territories. Sources credited are unverifiable and thus remains controversial. Anwar 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Maldives were under Chera dominion, never under any of the Cholas. I am beginning to suspect strong POV pushing and hagiographic bent Anwar 23:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just noticed the mix-up in dates of reign of Cholas - overlapping and unexplained. Anwar 04:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anwar, this is a valid concern. But, since the article is already featured, this discussion has to be continued at Talk:Chola dynasty. Please raise the latest point there. Other facts have been cited in my opinion. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Anwar: All the reference cited in the articles are easily available at your local library or for purchase on any good online bookstore. There is epigraphical evidence for Rajaraja's conquest of Maldives. All the maps in the articles are based on the authoritative book by KAN Sastri The Colas. You are welcome to verify it. How do you mean they are 'unverifiable?' What are your references for the Maldives being under Chera occupation? What are your references for the boundaries of Chola territories? - Parthi (Venu62) 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Colas by KAN Sastri - [11]
A History of South India by KAN Sastri - [12]
As WP is an open encyclopaedia anyone can edit, you are most welcome to contribute. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 22:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This objection by Anwar saadat in my opinion is frivolous. The article is about a Tamil ruling dynasty and covers both political and cultural developments during their time. I couldn't find any mention of any race riots in any of the references cited in the article. - Parthi (Venu62) 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add well-structure NPOV sections to the article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's a good informative article and that's what Wikipedia is about. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A brilliant article on an important subject about which little is known to wider sections of people. It would still help to ink Adiperukku and fix minor issues mentioned by the reviewers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to Adiperukku as I didn't have the time to create the stub. I was going to create the article and then create the link as I was under the impression that any red link on a FAC is frowned upon. I have also addressed all the issues mentioned by the reviewers, except the objection by Anwar saadat. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adiperukku stub created - Parthi (Venu62) 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support well-structed and interesting. Rlevse 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article with good writing and images! Felixboy 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article with plenty of footnotes and pictures. That it's about an area outside the western mainstream makes it a great candidate for Featured Status, since it gives people a chance to learn something new. Coemgenus 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, a good article. --Bhadani 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right whale[edit]

Self-nom, and a first one in absolute age from me. Hope I haven't forgotten how to do these :). Pcb21 Pete 12:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment for now an interesting read I'll be back for a more detailed look in the next day or two, at first glance I would like to see a source quoted for the number of whales left 300,200 and 7500 appear out of balance I would have expected the southern right to be less than that figure closer to 2000, base on the media reporting in Australia. Gnangarra 13:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the IWC Scientific Committee, I've add some more information about that. Perhaps 2000 refers to the number that calve in Australisian waters? Sounds a plausible number... Pcb21 Pete 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any external links? Also, citations commonly follow the punctuation,[1] like this.[2] Probably no need for bold text outside the first sentence of the lead. Don't forget to use & nbsp; in the units (I did a couple already). I'll be back for a more thorough read shortly. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are external links but they are formatted as references. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see linked?
Hopefully someone will beat me to changing the punctation/ref order, but I will do that if they don't.
I think i've fixed all of them, not sure what to do when references are in the middle of the sentence. Suicidalhamster 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That's a great help. Pcb21 Pete 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like to highlight redirectee terms, even if it is not appropriate for them to appear in the lead section.
Finally I've change to use the non-breaking spaces where appropriate. Thanks Pcb21 Pete 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I did a few copyedits for spelling and word choice; I hope you don't mind. Also, you probably should be consistent with the capitalization of "right whale" versus "Right Whale" -- I think it should be uncapitalized. --Elkman - (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, I am very pleased to have your help. The capitalisation should already follow our "animal species rules" - that is the species names are capitialized but nothing else is. So we write "The Southern Right Whale is" but "The right whales are...". I will check that everything conforms to this when I do a run through once I've collected a few more comments. Thanks again for your help. Pcb21 Pete 17:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the capitalisation looks to be in line with policy. Pcb21 Pete 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's up with the purple infobox under Population and distribution today? --Osbus 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in response to Spangineer's request for a source re Southern Right numbers. What do you think of it? Pcb21 Pete 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unorthodox...is there a way to incorporate those facts into the article? --Osbus 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They could be sure, though I think the overall flow is better with it separated out. Pcb21 Pete 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the box it a good way to present the format used for the calculation of numbers Gnangarra 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the way, I'm also a fan of the box. It is unorthodox, but it provides a place for some useful information that would otherwise be very awkward to fit in. Not something we should go overboard with, but I like the way it works in this article. --RobthTalk 03:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do rather like the box as well. It's the sort of thing we'd probably do more of if we were in print - it's unusual, but we shouldn't be scared of it. Shimgray | talk | 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. This is good, but several things need to be sorted out. I changed some phrasing here and there and commented out a couple of sentences that seemed unneccesary or out of place.
    • The taxonomy section is slightly confusing in layout. It sounds, from reading the whole article, like the three species view has currently gained acceptance, and the 1/2/3 species dispute is largely historical; if this is the case, it should be made clear earlier in the section, since, as it is written now, it sounds like the dispute is ongoing.
    • I don't have time to give it a full copyedit right now, but someone should. The prose is good for the most part, but there are a number of clunky lines sprinkled throughout the text.
    • There are a few statements that could use footnotes. Among them:
      • "Morphological factors such as small differences in the skull shape of northern and southern animals have tended to lend support to the two species view."
      • "By 1937, using conservative estimates, there had been 38,000 takes in the South Atlantic, 39,000 in the South Pacific, 1,300 in the Indian Ocean and 15,000 in the north Pacific."
      • "It is possible that these are the remains of a virtually extinct eastern Atlantic stock but examination of old whalers records suggest that they are more likely to be strays from the western stock."
Other than these things, this looks good, and I'll be happy to support once those are taken care of. --RobthTalk 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback Robth:
I have amended taxonomy section to make things clearer.
I have references for the three things you suggested. The density of references is rather high now, but we could add more if you think it is necessary.
Re copyediting. You actually did more copyediting than you give yourself credit for and I am grateful for the improvements. Are there any particular still "clunky" sections that I can improve before attracting your support? Pcb21 Pete 08:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy looks good now. Same for citations--I don't think there's any need to add a whole bunch of new footnotes, but those particular statements seemed to me to be the sort that ought to be sourced. As far as copyediting, the problem isn't so much with specific sections as with a few recurring phrasing issues. Passive voice is a little overused, and there are some awkward uses of "because" and "although"/"though"; pronoun-antecedent issues cropped up at a few points (although I may have gotten most of these when I went through). If nobody else gets there first, I'll try to give this another look when I have some time. --RobthTalk 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Rob. I've done a further edit on top of yours [13]. I have reduced sentence complexity and reduced the use of the passive voice. Hope that helps, Pcb21 Pete 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I now Support. Good work. --RobthTalk 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I would like to see a citation in the lead about the number of whales. PDXblazers 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you merge the three maps in order to show the range of the whole family. For individual species ranges, they should be located in their respective articles. CG 09:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The species are so similar that I don't think we should create separate species articles. Pcb21 Pete 17:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the images to be crowding the text. There are a lot of them. Is there any reason not to link to a proper gallery at Commons? Jkelly 04:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have done a light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment. Excellent article, however not sure of the value of the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Southern_right_whale.jpg in the physical description section. Could it be moved to a different section (maybe distribution today) or removed completely? This may also help get rid of the crowding of the text mentioned above. - Suicidalhamster 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the rational for keeping it is that it is the only image we have of the Southern Right Whale (that section also has one image of the North Pacific Right Whale, and several of the North Atlantic Right Whale - these could perhaps be thinned down a little, but I am not sure which one I would more or remove.) It would be nice to (a) have a better image of the Southern Right Whale and/or (ii) move a few of the images elsewhere in the article (I have already moved the propeller casualty to "Conservation", but, for example, that one could go in the "Whale watching" section...). In fact, I have just found some in Commons:Category:Cetacea. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that image was there because it is the only one of the southern species. I am not seeing this overcrowding issue (actually the opposite now that the pics are down to 250px). What screen resolution was the original commentator observing the page at? Pcb21 Pete 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanism[edit]

I came across this article while reading for fun. It sparked my interest because I had never heard the term before. Soon after, it taught me virtually everything on the topic. The article is well written, concise but complete, notable, interesting, and most importantly well referenced. Virtually every fact has an inline citation. It has been peer reviewed, and is a Good article. See also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Transhumanism/archive1. Nominate and Support. Tobyk777 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Support. --Tobyk777 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --Loremaster 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Tony 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support - in depth, well structured and of general interest. Additionally, the article is well-referenced. Ronline ✉ 10:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support interesting Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I thought it was ready for FA a few weeks ago, but some contributors decided to improve it even further :) Great job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I edited this article in glancing and mostly incidental ways (a reference here, some italics there), but other people made it good. Anville 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support but with disclosure of being one of the main contributors in recent times. Given that, my support may not weigh all that heavily. Metamagician3000 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I am also a recent contributor.--StN 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Excellent article.--To Meta Therion 05:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - This is astonishingly well-written. Dee man45 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Cribananda 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Brilliant article. I was impressed and fascinated by what I read, and I think this is an example of Wikipedia at its best. I am the writer of a featured article myself, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured article. Bigdaddy1204 21:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Fascinating stuff. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object[edit]

  • Oppose -- what is with this formatting of this nomination? In any case, there are WP:NOR and image problems.
Image:Posthuman Future.jpg needs a Fair use rationale. That will be difficult, because it is an indefensible theft of commercial art to decorate our article.
Image:We Can Rebuild Him.jpg -- same as above. We're not discussing this art at all. We're just using it because it looks good.
Image:Holy Tech.jpg same as above.
Image:Neuromancer gibson.png -- why do we need this unfree content? No rationale.
Image:Futurehype.jpg -- same as the above book cover.
Image:Playing God, Redesigning Life.jpg -- especially bad; we're using an unfree book cover because it has the same name as an argument we want to discuss, but we never mention this book
Image:Terminator.jpg -- this seems to be here solely so that we can coin the term "The Terminator Argument". We should not be coining terms, and we shouldn't be decorating our articles with unfree content.
Image:Bravenewworld2.jpg just needs a fair use rationale.
Image:Enough.jpg just needs a fair use rationale.
Image:Gataca Movie Poster.jpg is the same as "Terminator" above
Image:Frankenstein.jpg can be replaced with a public domain image and should be deleted.
Image:Khan3.jpg -- more WP:NOR, and no fair use rationale
In short, this is a good essay. But we're coining new terms, making new arguments, and making new counter-arguments, and decorating it all with unfree content. This isn't Wikipedia's best work. Jkelly 01:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jkelly, I agree that the major weakness of the article is the lack of fair use rationales for the images that have been added to it. However, we are NOT coining new terms, new arguments or counter-arguments. Despite one or two exceptions, they were all selected because they have been found in the works of journalists and academics. For example, one can find explicit mention of the Playing God argument in a Washington Post article, the mention of a Frankenstein/Brave New World argument in science journalist Chris Mooney's site, etc. --Loremaster 01:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Gataca Argument"? I'd add a ref to the person who coined each term. Jkelly 01:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dr. Dale Layman coined the term 'Terminator argument' while bioethicist James Hughes refers to it in his essay Millennial Tendencies in Responses to Apocalyptic Threats. Although he didn't coin the term, Hughes makes reference to the Gattaca argument in his book Citizen Cyborg. --Loremaster 02:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Loremaster that we are not coining new terms, new arguments or counterarguments. I have inserted a specific reference to Leon Kass's use of the "Brave New World" argument. However, I do not think this is necessary in most of the other cases. As we note in the introduction to the Criticisms section, the various literary works and films *themselves* represent critiques of transhumanism. While these obviously do not take the form of "arguments", they reflect, and are reflected, in arguments made by others. It is not new research to assert, for example, that the genetically divided world portrayed in Gattaca is the kind of dystopic future contemplated by Bill McKibben and James Hughes (though they come to different conclusions about it). In other contexts, people are said to make "slippery slope" arguments even though they don't use the actual words "slippery slope." Concerning the figures, "Neuromancer" is described in the figure caption in terms precisely relevant to the section this book cover appears in. The "Futurehype" book deals with exactly the kind of critique of over-reliance on technology discussed in the section it accompanies, as mentioned in its caption. Similarly, the "Playing God" book is a set of essays precisely about playing God with human genetic engineering. I will amplify the caption to reflect this. I do not know of any Wikipedia policy that says that figure captions are not the appropriate place for discussing the relation of a work to the themes of the article.--StN 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I wanted to say everything you've argued in one sentence but gave up. --Loremaster 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is a problem with the use of some of the images. I'd be content to see some of them go, if that is the view that comes out of the discussion, even if it makes the article a bit less aesthetically appealing. Even with the headings, I'm not particularly attached to any of them, though I do think they are helpful to orientate readers. If some headings need to be made less dramatic for OR-ish reasons, so be it; I'd be prepared to do that, but I think the caution about doing so is understandable, as a lot of work has gone into making this article as clear and reader-friendly as it possibly can be.
I can't help adding that issues to do with the images and choice of headings are a bit tangential to the value of the text and its substantiation. On one hand, these issues should not be the kinds of things that the article's writers/editors (including me) should dig in on, but nor I hope would they be sort of thing that should lead to the article's not getting featured. If these are the real issues, let's see what compromises are actually necessary to address Jkelly's concerns about copyright, etc., while keeping the article attractive and reader-friendly. I'm willing to work towards consensus, and I'll await Jkelly's response to Loremaster and StN. Metamagician3000 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Since the original research issue is almost settled, Jkelly's main concern that should be addressed is image copyrights. --Loremaster 13:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the Frankenstein and Eugenics Wars images to ones in the public domain and added fair use rationales for the Enough and Brave New World images. Loremaster, I suggest that you work on rationales for Chronicle of Higher Education picture and the cover images from Sync and Wired, which are relevant to the article and should be retained if possible.--StN 19:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added specific fair use rationales to image pages for the "Neuromancer", "Futurehype" and "Playing God" book covers and "The Terminator" and "Gattaca" movie posters.--StN 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral / Comment[edit]

Comment. Please edit your nomination text first. Typos, floating sentence, redundant 'also', inconsistent upper case. I hope that the article is better than this. Tony 02:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 2 typos. I don't think it really matters if there are typos in talk pages. Who cares? I fixed them anyway. I don't think that typos in the nomination should be counted in considering this for FA status, especialy since I wasn't even the one who wrote the article. Tobyk777 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there are two more typos you haven't fixed; or are they spelling mistakes?
Tony, do you support or object to this featured article candidacy? --Loremaster 13:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know—haven't looked yet. It's just embarrassing to have a sloppy nomination text. Tony 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The depth of information in this article is excellent. However, the organization of the criticism section seems arbitrary to me, I don't understand why each book critiquing transhumanism is important enough to merit its own subsection. In addition, the subsections are named such that a casual onlooker feels that each one of these books is the seminal work of a different branch of critics of transhumanism. However, I'm not currently sure how it could be improved, so I can't properly object. I still feel it needs to be addressed, I am merely sorry I cannot suggest a manner in which my concerns could be thusly addressed. RyanGerbil10 03:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RyanGerbil10, if you were familiar with ethical debates surrounding so-called transhumanist issues, you would know that almost all of these books or movies (except for Futurehype and Enough) are often cited in works written by prominent academics. --Loremaster 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given how muddled the arguments over these issues often are, I think a "sort by iconic work" is the best method of organization we could reasonably hope for. Anville 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Anville here. Just because a work is cited by prominent academics doesn't mean that it becomes a force unto its own that lets us ignore WP:MOS. The information is here, it can be better organized. RyanGerbil10 20:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what Anville said. He is arguing that the current organization of criticisms is the best one in light of the complexity and number of arguments and counter-arguments out there in the real world. Futhermore, it isn't just prominent academics who refer to these books and movies. Ask almost anyone about cloning or human genetic engineering and the first thing they cite as a source for a criticism of this technology is Brave New World or Gattaca. Finally, from the feedback we've been getting, this current organization is what has made the article so interesting to the majority of people who stumbled upon it. --Loremaster 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the Transhumanism article states the following: "Some of the most widely known ethical critiques of the transhumanist program are found in novels and fictional films which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments." --Loremaster 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did misinterpret Anville. Sorry about that. I still don't like the way things are organized, but if everyone else thinks its great I'll shut up about it. 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If anything comes up in this FA - in the sense of any changes people identify that could strengthen the article - I'll do my best to assist. Metamagician3000 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I am too involved in the article to say more about it than that, at least for now, but thanks to Tobyk777 for the nomination. Metamagician3000 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your involvement is not a problem. --Loremaster 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 20 external links to organizztions not disccused in the article. I would like to see these dealt with within article or changed to See Also wikilinks to their corresponding articles. If they are not notable enough to have an article I wonder if we should be linking to them at all --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something could be done to improve the External links section. However, according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru[edit]

article is well-written --User:Latitude0116 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have researched and written most of the text for this article with some translation for the featured German version by User:GilliamJF, and was going to nominate it soon, but someone beat me too it, since I'll probably be the person addressing problems, I also nominate this article.--Peta 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support From the Peer Review that recently ended, following I notice haven't been addressed yet...

  • fill red links
  • Large paragraphs of text are unsourced
  • the image in the districts section currently breaks that section's formatting pretty significantly on some resolutions
  • World's smallest island nation - citation needed.
  • Only nation without capital, smallest independent republic - citation needed.

Fix those, and you have my support. Judgesurreal777 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) There is a single red link (and the amount of red links is irrelevant to the FAC process), (2) I have moved images around so this should not be a problem, if it is I'd appreciate some advice on how to fix it. (3) Fixed (4) There is no requirement for every paragraph to have a reference, I have gone to some length to verfiy all the potentially disputable facts of the article - which is harder than you'd expect given Naurus lack of web presence. The two paragraphs without an inline citation are largely drawn from PD material which is acknowledged at the end of the article.--Peta 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great job, just need references in these sections, otherwise how do we know they are true? - Judgesurreal777 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nauruans descended from Polynesian and Micronesian seafarers who believed in a female deity, Eijebong, and a spirit land, an island called Buitani. Two of the 12 original tribal groups became extinct in the 20th century. Angam Day, held on 26 October celebrates the recovery of the Nauran population after the two world wars, both of which reduced the indigenious population to fewer than 1500. The displacement of the indigenous culture by colonial and contemporary, western influences is palpable. Little of the old customs have been preserved, although some forms of traditional music and arts and crafts, and some traditional methods of fishing are still practised."

"The national sport of Nauru is Australian rules football; there is an elite national league with seven team—all games are played at the island's only stadium, Linkbelt Oval. Other sports popular in Nauru include softball, cricket, golf, sailing and soccer. Nauru participates in the Commonwealth and Summer Olympic Games, where it has been successful in weightlifting—Marcus Stephen has been a prominent medallist; he was elected to parliament in 2003."

A traditional activity is catching noddy birds when they return from foraging at sea. At sunset, men stand on the beach ready to throw their lasso at the incoming birds. The Nauruan lasso is supple rope with a weight at the end. When a bird approaches, the lasso is thrown up, hits and or drapes itself over the bird, and then falls to the ground. The captured noddies are cooked and eaten.

"The inter-governmental Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) has identified Nauru as one of 15 "non-cooperative" countries in its fight against money laundering. Under pressure from FATF, Nauru introduced anti-avoidance legislation in 2003, following which foreign hot money flowed out of the country. In October 2005, this legislation—and its effective enforcement—led the FATF to lift the non-cooperative designation."

itially inhabited by Micronesian and Polynesian peoples, Nauru was annexed by Germany in the late 19th century, and became a mandate territory administered by Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom following World War I. The island was occupied by Japan during World War II, and after the war entered into trusteeship again. Nauru achieved independence in 1968.

"Narau is a phosphate rock island, and its primary economic activity since 1907 has been the export of phosphate mined from the island. With the exhaustion of phosphate reserves, its environment severely degraded by mining, and the Trust established to manage the islands wealth significantly reduced in value, the government of Nauru has resorted to unusual measures to obtain income. In the 1990s, Nauru briefly became a tax haven and since 2001 has accepted aid from the Australian government; in exchange for this aid, Nauru houses an 'offshore' detention centre that holds and processes asylum seekers trying to enter Australia."

  • You're kidding, right? Ther article is well referenced. What you are asking for is ridiculous and entirely unnecessary.--Peta 02:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, see if you will get FA status with unreferenced statements like "the primary economic activity on the island has been the export of phosphate"

Let us not argue, just get 6 or 7 references, and you'll be done! I just found this article that I thought might be helpful, [14] Judgesurreal777 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Good article, well written. Perhaps a few more inline references might satisfy the previous reviewer. But I'd have thought that the smallest island nation and no capital statements did not require explicit references, since they can be verified on Google without too much trouble. Tony 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A prefeclty undisputed intro with supporting cites later in the text has changed to this--Peta 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A perfectly uncited into now has my support Support Judgesurreal777 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (and, for the record, I would have argued for sources for the "smallest island nation" and "no capital" claims; I checked the source given for the latter and was about to object on the grounds that it didn't mention the no-capital thing, but then I found it). Exploding Boy 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like it! I put some literature links on the talk page of Nauru it might help to get everything referenced or give even new points!--Stone 09:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section in Gowdy JM, McDaniel CN will give the german time and the phosphate mining beginning 1907. (details on the nauru talk page).
The Ellis book, which I have access to, shows that they set up the mine in 1906 and shipped made the first shipments from the country in 1907, which is what it says in the article.--Peta 10:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says 1905 granted right to mine and From 1907 untill Germany ... app. 630000 t ... were mined. But this looks consistant with the book. When people claim more refs than you have one more to give!--Stone 10:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article, very interesting to read. I have been closely following this country since I was a kid and this surely describes Nauru very well. --Enano275 01:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A nice article. Good to read. Inline reference problems seem to have been solved. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image concern
  • Jkelly 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source has been added, DO NOT DELETE :) Judgesurreal777 00:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have updated the license with information at source. The image is no longer a concern. Good luck with the article. Jkelly 00:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wheres the source for "The national sport of Nauru is Australian rules football" Cvene64 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to have come from a translation of a german article, "national sport" isn't generally an offical designation, so while I can't find anything that suggests that someone claims it is the national sport - it shouldn't matter. But I have changed the article to say it is very popular there.--Peta 11:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Light Rail Transit System[edit]

Well, after slightly over a year of work, this article which I started from scratch, I think, is ready for featured article status. Admittedly, this is a self-nomination, and any comments are welcome. --Akira123323 10:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for obvious reasons. --Akira123323 10:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to see a few points addressed before I give my final opinion.
  • There is too much image over-crowding in the lead section.
  • "The LRT network" should atleast have a paragraph in addition to the image.
  • A lot of date wikilinking that will hardly provide any additional relevant information to the reader. (See WP:DATE)
  • Although not specifically as a criteria, I feel that the History section has a lot of red links. If possible, write short stubs on them.
  • The "Incidents and accidents" can be presented alternatively as a paragraph rather than a table.
  • If the "Code Yellow 1,2" refer to actual shades of yellow, show them.
-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partially done. I wrote a paragraph on the LRT network (which includes the hours of operation, special schedules and maintenance), and I wrote a stub on the Philippine National Construction Corporation. Some dates will be eliminated per WP:DATE (still deciding on which ones, although all important dates will be kept, like the opening dates), and I'm thinking of reverting the incidents/accidents table back to bullet form, which was how it was originally (although I'm not sure if I should make them into subsections instead). Also, the Code Yellow codes do not correspond with any color (they are merely a notifier of the status of LRT operations via the PA system). Anyway, it's still a work in progress. --Akira123323 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC) --Akira123323 13:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to make a comparison between this article and the current rapid transit FAs (Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), MTR and London Underground) over the image crowding, since both the Singapore MRT and the MTR have more pictures than this article in the lead, while the Tube article has two pictures and an infobox. I'm not sure how to resolve the image crowding with respect to those three articles. --Akira123323 13:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a serious problem. I have raised the issue on MTR's talk page. Let's see what is other editors' opinion on this. Anyway, keep up the good work. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support but comment. I need to see the following addressed:
1. Give a list and links to all articles of the stations in LRT.
2. If possible, obtain a list of the trains and the companies who made them in one table, then we must find out about them by linking.
3. As what Mr. Saxena suggests, the History section has a lot of dead links.
4. As opposed to what Mr. Saxena Suggests, The Incidents and Accidents must be presented as a table but each accident must have an article about it (even stubs) and it must be linked to this article.
For a Philippine Featured Article, Everything!!! - Justox dizaola 12:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of the kinks were solved at PR (for me). --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is fine. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in the description section, shouldn't the image caption, just go in the caption area under the image - the image + caption take up a lot of space as is.--Peta 00:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re:Comment: Presuming that the image being discussed is the so-called MRT-2 picture, I can trim the caption if needed. --Akira123323 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant the Image:Lrt routemap.jpg--Peta 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm trying to maintain the present size of the picture to maintain station name legibility, although if the size of the picture becomes a problem, I can shrink the picture. --Akira123323 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Done. The picture has been shrunk from 300 pixels to 250 pixels, while maintaining station name and line name legibility. --Akira123323 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, see below for my comments regarding the issue of the size (physical size) of the description section. --Akira123323 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's an overuse of headings: half of the headings are a single paragraph. Some of the sections need to be sorted out and others merged where necessary. For instance, the "Future expansion" should be a single section without the multitude of subheadings. Same thing for "Station facilities". The System map of the Manila LRT image should be formatted like a normal image and doesn't need a fancy legend since the two LRT lines are clearly represented on the map. Take the caption text about stations and length of the lines and merge it into the actual text of the article. --NormanEinstein 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Some subsections have been merged and the LRT system map has been reformatted, although it is still at the center. Caption text has been merged into the text. <--Akira123323 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) --Akira123323 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Subsections have been merged and the LRT network section has been reformatted. The map now aligns to the left to reduce the space that the section took up. --Akira123323 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images taken from the LRTA website should have links to the original page and the original image so people can check the source. Do you have any photographs of your own that can be added to the article? The LRTA's pictures are a little drab. --NormanEinstein 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do, although they are in the individual station articles (two involve empty Yellow Line platforms, one train boarding and one station exterior). Most of the pictures in this article and in a majority of station articles are LRTA pictures, due to the LRTA's ban on photography in the LRT (see the "Rules aboard the LRT" subsection under "Safety" for details).--Akira123323 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh yeah, addition of the link(s) for the original pictures for all pictures taken from the LRTA is done. --Akira123323 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support well written, sourced. Should be able to get FA status. Mopper Speak! 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support - well structured, many nice photos and contains key information. Ronline ✉ 10:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, give yourselves a pat on the back for this one. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006[edit]

(Self-nomination.) This article is now pretty stable, as the election finished a few months ago. It is well-referenced and comprehensive and has undergone a peer review (albeit a fairly quiet one). —Whouk (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—The title needs "(UK)" inserted; there are lots of Liberal Democrat parties all over the world. Tony 02:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Liberal Democrats is the current home of the party's article as no other party is named the "Liberal Democrats" (As opposed to the "Liberal Democratic Party"). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 03:01 UTC
  • Weak Object. The article is good overall, but the end is a bit list-heavy. RyanGerbil10 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment - I think the supporters lists are important, but I wonder if there is a better way to format them? —Whouk (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. The new formatting of the lists is much better, I now see no problems with the article. RyanGerbil10 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have done a light copyedit, but it covers its subject matter concisely and well. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article has improved significantly since I was last involved (entering the results). I think it is a worthy candidate. The lists at the end of the article don't disturb me that much. Tamino 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb (and I see Whouk has been too) and made four corrections, all very minor. Any help in ironing out such small faults would be appreciated. Tamino 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comb has finer teeth than mine. I think the "listy" parts are necessary to tell the story. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you mean the list of candidates and their supporters at the bottom, I agree. Tamino 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be nice if the colors were removed next to the names in each table. After all, all of the candidates were obviously Lib Dems. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 20:41 UTC
    • It's consistent with similar tables on other Liberal/SDP/LibDem and Conservative leadership articles, although not Labour ones which don't use colour in the tables. I like the colours as they brighten up the tables and the article a bit, but I'll happily go along with a change if there's a consensus that they should go. —Whouk (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the lead image needs a fair use rationale for appearing in this article.--Peta 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I like FAs about very specific topics, and this seems to be one of them, because it shows the depth of Wikipedia. Its level of detail is good, and it provides a good record of what would otherwise be quite an insignificant topic, at least from a non-UK perspective. Ronline ✉ 10:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Tony, the article should open with "In the UK" or something similar. You may know that there's only one Liberal Democrat party in the world, but putting that phrase in front makes it explicitly clear to readers who aren't as well-informed as you. (NB I actually made this edit last week(?) and it was reverted.) Kaisershatner 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...in the United Kingdom" is at the end of the very first sentence, which makes it pretty clear, IMHO, but as always I'll bow to consensus. —Whouk (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Whouk. Remember that when (if) the article appears on the Main Page then the first few sentences are in the box so it will be easy to see "...in the United Kingdom". Tamino 08:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake[edit]

This article has been nominated twice in the past (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 2). However, the main concern with the second nomination (aka Archive 2) was that it was still being featured on the main page and that the article was not stable as of yet. However, given that this happened about 14 months ago, I think the stability factor is no longer an issue. This article is comprehensive and well referenced. Pepsidrinka 00:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I read through the article and I thought it was very informative. It is well referenced and passes all the criteria set in WP:WIAFA. Great job. AreJay 01:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a bit longish for me, but a really qualified article otherwise. Consider putting up the tsunami animation up for Featured Picture too. Borisblue 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did an assignment on this topic some months ago and used Wikipedia as my primary source. It went well, and here's my gratitude to the article. It's pretty well structured and written and is definitely very informative. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Cool! My professors would never accept wikipedia articles as sources. Borisblue 14:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per the nom. Shyam (T/C) 08:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pretty awesome. Last year, I was assigned to do a paper on an earthquake. I had the 1556 China quake, and my friend got the 2004 Indian Ocean one. We were up in the school's library doing research on Wikipedia, and while I couldn't find anything on my topic, she found this well-written, comprehensive article. I was majorly ticked off then, but now, I support(just a little anecdote to precede my comment). --Osbus 14:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was great before and is even better now. --mav 16:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent work Pepsidrinka! Rama's Arrow 16:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a good article, but I have some serious concerns. There's a lot of editing to be done, with some poor wording, as well as quite a few weasel words. Paragraphs need a tighter focus and overall, organization needs improvement.
    • The last sentence of the lead seems out of place and should be incorporated into something.
    • "Unfamiliarity with warning signs" and "Signs and warnings" should be retitled, as those are not characteristics of a tsunami (those sections do go into characteristics of a tsunami, but spend a lot of time on other stuff, and the section titles are still bad)
    • Only the first two paragraphs under "Quake characteristics" appear to be about characteristics of the earthquake. "Quake" strikes me as an informal term too -- should it be changed to "Earthquake"?
    • While I can pretty much understand what "The earthquake was unusually large in geographical extent" means, it doesn't seem like a useful sentence. It looks like an early attempt at a topic sentence that should have been edited into something more useful. (I disagree, this is a just plain ugly sentence)
    • Overall, it does need some editing (several runons, e.g. "However, the northern rupture...", "The only other recorded earthquake")
    • The link to volcanic arc ought to be incorporated into the prose somewhere.
    • I'm not an expert on the subject, but the paragraph beginning "The India Plate is part of the great" seems out of place. The paragraph after it begins by referring to "the sideways movement between the plates", which I think means the "strike-slip" the paragraph before "The India Plate". If you start off the one paragraph referring to the sideways movement like that, it should be clearer what that is referring to (by putting the paragraphs together, and preferably describing "strike-slip" as "sideways movement", assuming I am correct in my interpretation; if I'm wrong, it should be clearer what "sideways movement" refers to).
    • Define or link "triggered earthquake"
    • Not clear what "a 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurred on February 19, 2005 off Sulawesi at the other end of the Indonesian island chain" has to do with anything.
    • "Coincidentally, the earthquake struck almost" should either be removed or justified. It's a coincidence, but not too terribly unlikely, I think -- unless someone's made a big deal out of it, who cares? If someone has made a big deal out of it, explain why. (I'm afraid I just don't find your response sufficient; if this is relevant, explain why)
    • There's a paragraph on aftershocks, then a paragraph on other stuff, then one beginning "As well as continuing aftershocks", which seems out of place. This paragraph should be expanded too, or folded into some other spot.
    • "Coincidentally, Mount Talang has since erupted and is now on top alert" looks like an even more irrelevant coincidence.
    • The paragraph beginning "More spectacularly, there was 10 m" needs to be sourced, as it is weasel-wordy. "There were also calculations" is particularly egregious (did the calculations just appear out of thin air?) (Still not great, but much improved)
    • "An oceanic trench several kilometres wide was also found in the earthquake zone" -- not clear whether the quake created the trench or made it able to be discovered
    • " (Earthquakes and tsunamis, Lorca et al.)." should be made into a footnote like the other sources
    • "The tsunami, like all others, behaved very differently in deep water than in shallow water" seems like an unuseful sentence (It's unuseful because the first six words can be replaced with two ("Tsunamis behave") without losing any meaning. It doesn't show that tsunamis are "dynamic", it implies that they behave the same every time -- differently in deep than shallow water, but apparently the same differences, thus not dynamic except in the sense that a tsunami is inherently chaotic, which is not related to deep/shallow water)
    • Paragraphs need to each have a clear topic. Take the "Tsunami characteristics" section. The first par. is about how the tsunami is formed and affected distant regions, which is fine. The second par. starts off talking about the speed in deep water, then veers to the height in shallow water; the next par. goes back to height and deep water, then to satellites not providing a warning. The next par. is fine. Then "Because the 1,200 km" starts off about the difference in effects btwn north-south and east-west, then there's a blurb about the northern area being less affected than the south (which is already covered elsewhere); the next par. eventually returns to Bangladesh some more, but only after spending some time on waves going around coasts before coming back to distance (the reason the distance isn't necessarily too important is because the waves can go around coasts, and the reason Bangladesh wasn't as badly affected was because it was the northern rupture zone -- these are all related topics, but these paragraphs jump about without explaining the connections). The next par. is about time, which is fine. The par. after that could be folded into it. The last par, is fine too, though the last sentence is too weaselly (I know it's cited, it's just an ugly sentence).
    • "Measured in lives lost, this is one of the ten worst earthquakes in recorded history, as well as the single worst tsunami in history." should be expanded or incorporated elsewhere. It could make a topic sentence for that section.
    • Seems to be some overlinking, especially of placenames.
    • Need citation for "An article in The Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2004" -- and that sounds like a weak source anyway. Unless they consulted someone else, the Journal can't be considered a reliable source for the effects of mankind on Indian Ocean coral reefs, nor the effects of those reefs on the tsunami. I don't doubt that it's true, but the Journal doesn't seem like a good source for it. (well, now it's just been moved to a footnote, which doesn't help -- my point is not that there's anything wrong with the Journal (or any newspaper) used as a source, merely that it is not sufficient for this point. Does Andrew Browne, presumably a reporter educated in journalism, or the English language and related fields, have enough expertise to come to this conclusion?
    • The next par., about the mangrove thing, should be expanded or incorporated elsewhere, and needs to be cited (or does that come from the Journal too? If so, same problem applies).(stricken for simplicity, but the same problem applies as in the above issue)
    • Lots of passive voice everywhere ("humanitarian aid was needed", "effort was spent", "risks may have been", "It has been reported", "is considered to be") and lots of sentences beginning with "there is"/"there are", which is a weak opening.
    • I know no one likes lists in FA, but the worst way to solve that is to turn a list into prose (e.g. "Nations all over the world provided..." -- I don't see why that can't be a sidebar list or something). (I'd not want a wholly separate list giving all the amounts given by any government. My point is that what's there is basically a list (of the top seven, I guess), put in sentence form, which makes it more difficult to read. I think a little box off to the side there that just lists the top seven donor nations would be fine and far easier to read. Look at how repetitive it is -- it's obvious from the beginning we're talking about governments offering money, measured here in US dollars -- the only informative thing is which governments and how much, which a list can do nicely (there is the bit about Australia earmarking most of it for Indonesia, but that seems overly specific here, especially since there's a subarticle just on the humanitarian response).
    • Define or link "artisanal fishery"
    • "But some economists believe that damage" and "According to specialists, the main effect" are both uncited weasel words.
    • "establish a Task Force with this aim" -- not clear what the aim is
    • "Traditional beliefs in many of the affected regions state that a relative of the family must bury the body of the dead. Some psychologists interpret this as evidence of psychological trauma." Which psychologists feel these traditional beliefs are evidence of psychological trauma? How can beliefs that presumably predated the tsunami be caused by the psychological trauma from the tsunami? (The plain meaning of this sentence is, I think, that psychologists believe the traditional beliefs are evidence of psychological trauma. if there are significant people who claim that the belief will lead to greater psychological trauma than in people who don't share in that belief, then explain that, and who believes it.
    • "Some believe that the tsunami was punishment for lay Muslims shirking their daily prayers and/or following a materialistic lifestyle. Others have said that Allah was angry that there were Muslims killing other Muslims in an ongoing conflict." -- for an organized religion with leaders and scriptures and stuff, there needs to be more on this. This is not really a sufficient source for all that, I think, and it isn't clear why only the Muslim stuff from that article is included here. I know Muslims were more affected than Jews, but in order to be comprehensive, we ought to be covering why Jews think it occurred too. A number of things are mentioned in that article about why people think it occurred, but aren't in our article -- why?
    • There's at least one citation that's a bare external link (in the lead), which should be converted to the same style as the others.
    • External links seem a bit bloated. Are they each so uniquely useful to this article? (Still seem bloated. What is the relevance of the seismic record in Hungary, for example?)
  • Tuf-Kat 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is the greatest objection I've ever seen :) Cmapm 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is quite an exhaustive objection. I'll try to fix as much as I can. Pepsidrinka 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You call this "long"? I take it you guys have never heard of User:Tsavage :)? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nope. Haven't heard of him. Just to make an update, I'm keeping an update of which issues have been updated at User:Pepsidrinka/Sandbox 2. Obviously, the striked out issues are the objections that I feel have been sufficently addressed. Pepsidrinka 03:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just to make an update, many of the issues have been dealt with, in my opinion. Please review which ones have been at User:Pepsidrinka/Sandbox 2 or see the diff since this FAC began here. Pepsidrinka 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • My responses to your comments are in italics on this page. Some others I've crossed out because they appear to have been fixed on the main article. Tuf-Kat 05:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article seems to be overloaded with images. Is, e.g., the "gallery" important enough? But overall it's a nice work by the community, I liked it since the very first steps, 2004. Cmapm 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tuf-Kat. Plus, the lead is much too long and overwrought with detail. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - deserving Featured Article. Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutly Sexy Support - I could not think of any stronger words... - Malomeat 00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I had jumped into editing this article about 12 hours after it was created and I still see too much of the ad hoc organization to which was resorted given the frantic pace of editing for those several weeks. A few specific points, in the full knowledge that I'm being a bit hypocritical, in that I have previously edited most of the sections mentioned but never sought to push it to the FA level:
    • There is confusion between 9.0 and 9.3. The lead appears to say that 9.3 is the accepted number, while the comparison in "Characteristics" is to 9.0.
    • The historical context paragraphs in "Characteristics" probably deserve their own section at the end rather than being part of the section lead.
    • The US government conspiracy paragraph: the external link is from 1999 and thus cannot support the assertion made. I would recommend removal.
    • It is unclear in the discussion in the plates that the Burma plate is part of the Australasian plate. (I believe that's right)
    • One thing that has always bothered me about "the sea bed rose" info is if only the sea bed of one plate rose, given that we are talking about subduction.
    • The article states reverberations were "providing valuable scientific data about the Earth's interior". Such as?
    • In the sentence referring to the Bam earthquake, which of the two earthquakes discussed is being referred to in "the earthquake struck".
    • Is there causation being argued for the 10 April 2006 earthquake, or is it unnecessary trivia?
    • In the last paragraph in that section about volcanoes being caused to erupt there is some weaseling, e.g. "some scientists confirm" and "Geologists say". Is there actually some doubt about causation or is it just wordiness?
    • Two different figures are given for energy release in exajoules and both cannot be correct. Please remove the incorrect information.
    • I know that many of the figures about land mass movement and global effects came from theoretical models, before anyone could get on the ground and measure things. Those measurements should now have been completed and published somewhere. I doubt that the movement was as extreme as some of the early guesstimates that this article uses.
    • The casualty figures desperately need to be solidified, at least to a commonly held estimate. We have a chart itemizing casualties by country, which is undercut by the sentence in the section above stating that the updated figure is 100K less. Either the table is an unworkable idea or the "updated figure" is wrong.
      There has been significant convergence: the chart says 230,507 while the section above reports 229,886 without citation. However, the lack of a single number is still confusing. - BanyanTree 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, this article has not been subject to the confident and knowledgeable organization and parsing that I feel would make it great. Most of the content lies where it was placed and, now that some time has passed, I would suggest an editor go at it with the proverbial chainsaw and arc welder. I'm glad to see that the external links have been cut down dramatically. - BanyanTree 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The points above, which I feel are significant, have not been adequately addressed and I continue to oppose featuring this article. - BanyanTree 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative oppose Support: In general it is a really good article but it is missing somethings and has somethings that I think should be missing:
    • The small paragraph on US conspiracy theory is rather trivial and insignificant to be part of this.
    • Their is no mention of the cooperation between Indian, American, and Australian navies for carrying out humanitarian concerns. In fact, their is really nothing in the article about the naval role that was oh so important in the aftermath. Instead we have few lines dedicated to some silly conspiracy theory. I dont know about others but I would like to read more about how the people were helped than conspiracy theories.
    • Also as mentioned already, "Unfamiliarity" with warning sign is not a characteristic of Tsunami. I think this section can either be merged with "warning signs" or somewhere else. --Blacksun 13:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the conspiracy paragraph per your and another objection above. The humanitarian article linked as the Main article under the respective subheading goes into all the details surrounding the humanitarian effort. Also, per your suggestion, I merged the subsection into the "Signs and warnings" subsection. Pepsidrinka 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, yea those changes make it lot beter. I still disagree with not including the actual efforts that saved lives on the ground while including a paragraph on pledges which may or may not have been delivered. --Blacksun 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: as good as the last few featured articles on the main page. Vastu 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes of course, this is a well-written article. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nicely written article and very good summary done. --Terence Ong 12:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What else to say, what else to say. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written. It deserves very much to be a featured article.Hezzy 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article - long, but not overly long, it contains all of the infomation one would need to know about this tragedy. And the pictures are good, too. --Coemgenus 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose 18 External links that are not cited in the article is excessive. Espacially the collections of news stories, if they are important why are they not cited within the article? See Wikipedia:External links. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links are not needed to be cited in the article for them to be mentioned. They are added to offer additional information on the topic for the reader. Nonetheless, I have further pruned the list. Pepsidrinka 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize external links are things which are not cited. I question why you have such a set of external links under news stories that would seem to me to be good source for the article. If they were not good enough to be a source, why should we link to them at all? Also the link marked "actual footage of disaster" seems to be bad.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote but a few comments, (1) The section "Human component in magnitude of damage" -is badly named - can someone come up with something more simple and grammatically pleasing? (2) See alsos that appear in the text, shouldn't appear in the see also list. (3) The casualties table poses a little bit of a verifiability problem should the links go dead - therefore I think it would be a good idea to include a full list links on the template page, or find a recent paper source that can confirm the numbers and refernce it in the article.--Peta 04:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Golden Globe Race[edit]

self-nom: I've done a bit of work on this, it's had a peer review, and has now been stable for some time; I think it would make an interesting FA. All constructive comments to help me get it there are welcome. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Initial thoughts:
    • My first reponse to the intro was - where is this around the world yacht race based? What nationality is the Sunday Times newspaper? I assume its the UK newspaper (I'm from the UK myself), but its not clear that it is.
      • I've now stated it was the British Times -- as for where the race was "based", the article already states the start was England. Other than that, people could start/finish anywhere, so it wasn't really "based" anywhere -- a significant part of the wierdness of the whole thing. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article seems to be over-reliant on a single source - the book "A Voyage for Madmen" which seems to account for something like 85% of references. Can you diversify the sources? Otherwise it feels like the article is just summarizing the book.
      • I sympathise with your point (though actually it's 68%), and I've had that concern myself. But in point of fact I have both A World of My Own and The Long Way, and went through them sentence-by-sentence trolling for references in an effort to get references to Madmen to an absolute minimum. (Also Chichester's book.) The problem is that those books only cover limited parts of the race. The only other book is The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst, which would flesh out Crowhurst's part, but unfortunately I don't have a copy right now (though I've read it several times). OK, there's Trimaran Solo, but I don't know where I'd get it, and it's probably as limited in scope as any other book. I could use web-based articles, but they are all (certainly all the ones I've seen) just lifted from these same books. The fact is that A Voyage for Madmen is an excellent and well-researched overview, and it's extremely difficult not to lean on it. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More images are required - pictures of the trophy, plus some of the yachts and sailors would be good
      • I totally agree that more images would be great -- if you could tell me where I could get some, with appropriate copyright status, I'd certainly include them. However, when you say that "More images are required", note that Wikipedia:What is a featured article? specifically states that "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article". Bottom line, if you can give me any idea what other pictures I can include, I'll try to make it happen, but it's not easy -- none of the books (or anything else I've ever seen) has a picture of the trophy, for example. Please believe that I've been racking my brains over this issue. Remember this was 1969, and there wasn't the same degree of recording every detail of every event. Also, I don't want to overuse Wikipedia:Fair use, though I guess there's scope for at least a fair use image or two -- but in that case, which ones? — Johan the Ghost seance 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More wikification of text needed e.g. for terms such as merchant marine, tanker, exchanging cables, weekend cruiser, carol, ulcer etc. Imagine if a 12 year old or an English language student was reading the text. Also are all the locations wikilinked in their first appearance?
      • Good point. I've done a major wikilinking/clarifying pass -- should be better now. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care should be taken that the formality of the writing style be maintained. The prose sometimes slips into informalities or journalese: "he started writing a huge essay", "A trimaran can be a very stable boat; but if she gets knocked over, say by a rogue wave",
    • this sentence needs rewriting:"Two books on his sailing experiences had already turned him into something of a star; but he was disenchanted with the material aspect of his fame, considering that by writing his books for quick commercial success he had sold out what was for him an almost spiritual experience."
Bwithh 21:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your constructive comments, which I've addressed individually above. Let me know what you think. The images thing is a bummer; I don't know what's considered a reasonable number of fair use images for an article, and I can't think of one image that sums up the race (no trophy image, for example). I'll give it some more thought, though. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added images of the four main competitors. Let me know what you think now. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I've asked Bwithh to update his status on this FAC, given my responses above; no reply (in over a week). — Johan the Ghost seance 12:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment from the editor: what do people think of the sidebars?
    • merge into one "timeline" sidebar
    • keep as is
    • ditch entirely
    ...? — Johan the Ghost seance 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I find the sidebars distracting and would prefer that they were removed entirely. Also, what's the significance of the bands of colour on the bottom of the positional maps, such as Image:GoldenGlobeRaceApr10.png? --NormanEinstein 14:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for the comment. The bands are the bands of "high-latitude" winds -- the roaring forties, furious fifties, and screaming sixties. They are actually labelled; perhaps not too clearly...? — Johan the Ghost seance 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now merged the timeline sidebar into one, just so we can see what it looks like; if the consensus is to ditch it entirely, no problem. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I originally thought this might be cool, but it's not really looking that appealing to me, so it's gone (archived -- see the talk page). — Johan the Ghost seance 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, interesting, comprehensive. As always, minor things could be improved, but the basic article is great. Prose and format could do with a few small pokes. The diagrams assume they're being viewed in sequence, which when the wikip image servers are being as slow as they are atm is perhaps a bit hopeful. I looked at a middle one first, and was slightly confused over what directions the different dots were going it, and yes, what the coloured bands were. In the context of the article though (yes... I was looking at the piccies first...) it's fine. Also, the output of <references/> is particularly unsatisfying here, actually makes the references harder to understand (as proved by the Madmen comment above) rather than easier. Were it not for some crazy ideas about inline citation from certain editors, I'd say just ditch the notes and make people go to the damn library if they want page numbers. As is, perhaps giving up on automation, listinging all the sources at the top, then the page numbers collapsed in a more orderly (manual) format with the old ref templates would help. Might try it out ina sec, revert if it sucks. --zippedmartin 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the comments, and of course for the support! I'll look into adding more labels to the later diagrams, that might help -- and maybe we don't need quite as many of them (I was making up for the lack of pictures). The references thing would be so much better if it could do multi-column... but collapsing them in some way could help, I'll look into that. What I don't want to do is have fewer references, becuase I believe that inline citations are necessary for WP:V. If someone takes issue with "Crowhurst had started creating a faked record of a voyage", for example, I want them to be able to see where the information comes from. If they aren't interested, they can always skip it; it's just a little number in a box. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 08:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here's my thought on references. If I could cite each book just once, and then say "[2] p. 420" inline in the text, that would work. But:
    1. <ref> doesn't seem to support it
    2. adding it manually would be a hack (eg. <ref name=madmen/><sup>p. 140</sup>, which would break every time the reference style changed)
    3. most of all, it would make the ref list more manageable at the expense of having more prominent intrusions into the text. Since I think the number 1 thing should be readability of the text -- not the ref list -- I think the status quo is going to be best.
    Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more info to the maps, and tweaked the layout to be more consistent -- maps on left, pictures on right. Let me know what you think. — Johan the Ghost seance 10:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I had a crack at changing to ref/note templates after I posted that, but didn't succeed in getting anything clearer, mostly becuase two columns of notes made it rather confusing as to what the internal link had just bounced you to.
    Oh, and pictures. Fine currently (though maybe some of them need to be clearer about their source? hard to keep track the pseudo-legal hoops wikip wants you to jump through any given week), but some more wouldn't hurt. Bernard Moitessier has some pics of a restored Joshua, but they're not very good. Longer term, could perhaps *write* to Knox-Johnston and ask if he'd be willing to gdfl a pic or two. --zippedmartin 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea... though I don't know how many pictures he actually owns, since he probably sold the copyright to his sponsor. Anyhow, I've added source info for the photos that are there. Cheres, — Johan the Ghost seance 12:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added one of those Joshua pics you suggested, as I think it gives a reasonably good impression of the boat. — Johan the Ghost seance 12:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. I like the article. It reads well and is informative, but think it would benefit from an external link or two. --NormanEinstein 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. Any particular ideas on appropriate external links? The race no longer exists, of course, so I can't link to that; and everything I could think of linking to (like the Sunday Times, and the major personalities) are already linked to via Wiki pages. (Usual Wikipedia pratice seems to be to have a link to the The Sunday Times (UK) article, for example, and let that article be the single repository for external links.) Also, most of the external sources I found on this are already cited as references. But any ideas on this would be welcome. — Johan the Ghost seance 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Positives outweigh the negatives by a large margin, but I'll list the negatives in case you feel like addressing them:
    • I'd say move that table down to the bottom, as a summary, it seems an appropriate place for it.
    • It's long. It's more article than I like to read at once. Anything you feel you can condense, condense.
    • It has — I feel like an idiot for saying something this trivial — too many semicolons. Yep.
    • Like others, I'm worried about the overdependence on one source.
Now, as far as the positives go, it is structured very nicely, written well, seems comprehensive, and is absolutely fascinating. Really brilliant stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks hugely for taking the time to look into this so thoroughly, it's much appreciated -- as is your support, of course! Looking at your points:
  • The table: is now at the bottom, as per your suggestion.
  • The length: yes, that is one thing that's been bugging me from the start (when it was quite a bit longer!). I've already done several passes of eliminating stuff that was a bit superfluous, and condensing where I thought I could. It's now to the point where I feel that too much more compression would lose interesting information. Of course, it's a balance between interesting facts, and maintaining reader interest through a long article. Also, I don't see any really good way that it could be split. Still, I'll have another pass through.
  • The semicolons: since coming to Wikipedia I have discovered in myself a tendency to overuse semicolons; this is something I'm now battling with. Anyhow, I've trimmed a whole bunch out; hope it looks better now. Actually, I can't believe how many there were; given the number of editing passes I did, I must have semicolon-blindness; or something.
  • The heavy use of one source: OK, I'll order the Crowhurst book, which will help a lot, and maybe even Tetley's, and diversify. Without going to the newspaper print archives, that's about it for main sources.
Thanks again, — Johan the Ghost seance 10:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, a great read! Very interesting story and, without being anything so unencyclopedic as tongue-in-cheek, very amusing in a deadpan way. The maps look professional and also pretty. It's inconvenient that you can't look at them at a reasonable size and read the article at the same time, but I guess that can't be helped. (Unless you use Zocky's picture popups like I do, they're fantastic. You read it here first!)
The semicolons, yeah, they're well used, it's not that, but, well, there are definitely too many, yes. (Just look at the last paragraph.) Minor landlubber gripes: to "single-hand" a craft probably is a concept to a sailor, I don't doubt it, but to the rest of us it's jargon. What does "lying ahull" mean? Bishonen | talk 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen, thanks very much for taking the time to comment, and of course for your support! To look at your individual points:
  • semicolons (assuming you mean the last para of the lead): I would never do that in a routine way, of course, but I thought that for that specific case it was an interesting style. However, you're probbaly right, it's not really encyclopedic, and thanks to the generous contribution of an other editor, they're gone. (And many other semicolons have now been purged.)
  • to "single-hand" a craft: changed to "single-handly sailed her", which I think is clearer, given that single-handed sailing is wikilinked and copiously explained in that article.
  • "lying ahull": added an explanation.
Hope that looks better now. Thanks again, — Johan the Ghost seance 10:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; those were only tiny gripes anyway. But I did mean the (then) last paragraph of the article, "There was considerable controversy..." Great article! The sentence "He left anyway" (about Crowhurst) was a high point for me. That was where I broke down and cried. :-) Bishonen | talk 12:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! I love the bit about Tetley passing Cape Horn, after both Knox-Johnston and Moitessier were tempted to go on... ;-) — Johan the Ghost seance 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Like other reviewers I think it needs diversity of references, and a few more illustrations. I realise you're working hard to try to secure both of those and it's not easy. Agree the table belongs at the bottom. Love the maps. This is the sort of article where Wikipedia really shines, fascinating reading about an obscure, but notable topic. I loved reading this, and would love to see it make FA (this, by the way, is my first FA comment ever... I liked the article that much). GREAT work! ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support, and for the nice comments! It's certainly a fascinating topic. The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst is a fascinating and (to a sailor like me) illuminating story. — Johan the Ghost seance 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support after a tweak or two: The "attrition" paragraph needs to have its prose smoothed somewhat. Currently, it's choppy, with "he was here," "he was there," and "he was the other place" -- basically, some variation in the sentence structures and elimination of repetition. The maps showing the relative positions of each person are very small on my high resolution monitor. I could, of course, click for an enlargement, but I'd prefer it if the maps are legible enough to entice me to click. Perhaps move them up to 300 px on a side? Otherwise, it's an interesting story with desperation, folly, and conniving -- all the things that are best in a Wikipedia article. :-) Geogre 15:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to comment. I've had a go at that "Attrition" section; I hope it looks better now. As to the maps, the thing is that they're thumbnails, and I don't like setting sizes for thumbnails -- because this overrides the user's expressed preferences (see "Files" under prefs). So, maybe you could set a larger thumbnail size in your prefs? On the other hand, I take the point that as maps, there's a case for making the thumbnails themselves large enough to be useful. Let me know what you think. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The changes vary it a good bit. I used a dash in one spot to give some variety (as you hadn't used them anywhere, so they ought to be effective as spice) and did some very minor alteration to try to get the commas to behave. Otherwise, it looks better. I suppose I could try Zocky's app, but, of course, that means installing things, and the man at the computer store told me I should never do that. Geogre 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re the maps again, I can heartily recommend Zocky's picture popups. — Johan the Ghost seance 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, but not everyone uses those... so making them bigger would help a lot. Something with less bright background colors might be nice too but that's not a must. ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made the maps larger as per your suggestion. BTW, Zocky popups doesn't require you to install anything on your computer; it's just a change to your Wikipedia configuration. However, I totally agree that Wikipedia should be usable without "add-ons". — Johan the Ghost seance 11:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oh, and viva the semicolon! Long live the semicolon! Semicolon users of the world, unite; an honorable punctuation mark needs defending from Kurt Vonnegut! Geogre 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geogre; you know I love the semicolon; it's one of the best ways of achieving variation of sentence structure; and when used prettily and correctly, as in this article, it is indeed a thing of beauty; but there's a rhythm to these things; any punctuation mark can be overused; there is such a thing as cumulative effect; somebody stop me, please; help; Bishonen ; talk; 17:17; 7 May 2006 (UTC).
      • I was with you till that last one... but you've went too far now bishi... Semiabuse is something up with which we should not put. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unFortunately();
for (some[reason]) {
my ( punctuation, seems, to, be );
suffering:
from (occupational, stress);
}
lately();
Johan the Ghost::message(new Date(19, 09, 0, 7, MAY, 2006, Timezone("UTC")));
Ewww... K&R braces... --zippedmartin 08:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Great article, interesting, well written, includes the word "slapdash"! :) A couple of comments, you have a Notes section, could you include a References or Further reading section, like a bibliography or something. Basically the References section would include all the books you've cited but just in a list instead of notes. Photographs of all the major racers would be good too. Like you have for Crawford. Other than that the images could probably cope with being made a bit larger, but that might just be my screen. - FrancisTyers 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comments and support:
  • I've added that "Further reading" section as you suggested.
  • I actually have photos of the 4 major racers; but I could look into getting others. Trouble is I can't stretch fair use too far, and I think all the relevant photos are owned by the same source -- the race sponsor.
  • The images are thumbnails, and you can set what size you want thumbnails to be shown at in your preferences, under "Files". If I set a size in the article, you can't do that any more.
Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Great article! Like the others, more sources to diversify the view of the subject would improve the article (every author has his/her unique writing style, interpretation of the subject, and viewpoint; more sources usually means a more diversified and comprehensive article), but I feel that it's fine if Madman is considered the penultimate source on this subject. I'm not concerned about the semicolon usage; going through the article, I reworded to some sentences to make them flow better, but I don't that it's too big an issue now. Overall, the article reads smoothly. I also don't see a problem with length; it's a longer than average article, true, but it's comprehensive and covers everything fully. The only thing that's quasi-bothering me right now is the chart at the bottom (and even if it were moved back to the top); it seems to sumamrize what's described in the article (such as finish date, boat, etc.) and just doesn't feel right at either the end or beginning. (Not too sure what to do with it, either... :-) ) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your time and effort, and for your support! A few points:
    • Thanks for the copy edit; a big improvement. I've just made a few tweaks: clarifying the trimaran stability issue a little; clarified Moitessier's attitude to materialism developing over a long period (this comes over strongly in his book); Tetley knew he was pushing before the sinking.
    • Re sources, after the FAC (pass or fail) I'm going to make a work list in the talk page; sources will be the one big issue, as far as I can see. I just got (today!) Tetley's book; the Crowhurst book is on order. I'm not aware of any other primary sources without digging into the newspaper archives (which would give me the same info that's in Voyage for Madmen).
    • Re semicolons: glad it looks good now, you should have seen it before I purged a million of them... ;-)
    • Re the chart: Yes, it's a little bit of an appendix, but I think it's useful. It would be nice if WP articles could have a clear "Appendix" section for this kind of stuff.
    Thanks again for your work on this! — Johan the Ghost seance 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Altgens[edit]

Okay, okay, maybe the man was unremarkable outside the one day he became world famous, but the lack of interest is astounding. It's not polite to beg, but, here I am (slaps self with trout).

Already a Good article, one suggestion from one editor (User:Maclean25, with my thanks) gave me the material to finish this article. RadioKirk talk to me 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now images need a better fair use rationale, please find a image if you can of the subject, also the In popular culture section is only one line, please expand. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RadioKirk talk to me 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support better now, just try to expand a little more, thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever find anything more, I guarantee it, thanks. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support As long as you deal with the two one sentence paragraphs. The last sentence should be incorporated into the paragraph above and the second intro paragraph should be expanded, probably with information about his length of AP employment. Also, take out the parentheses around the Clint Hill information and clarification of what you mean about the number of photos taken (was it 3, 4, 7, did he lie, I'm not sure from the sentence!) InvictaHOG 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the Hill passage reads better with the parens (grin), but, done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you like it better the other way, not a problem with me...just was awkward, but that's just my opinion! Great job. InvictaHOG 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just read it again and it flows better than I first thought. I'd considered it what I call a "necessary diversion" when I first wrote it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though the Footnotes/Resources sections should be ironed out. The standard is to have a References section listing everything used in the writing of the article, and a Notes section for the footnotes. In this case, a combined "Notes and references" section would be fine, but they should be in a top level heading (==Notes and References==), almost always with no subheadings. If the Resources were used in the writing, they should be a Reference. If not, they should presumably be under a Further reading section (which is also a top level heading). Tuf-Kat 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe... apparently the standard has changed... again ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. While a great article, it has absolutely nothing about the rest of his career with AP. There's a 40-year gap there with only the motorcade photo information. Rebecca 05:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may? Even if I found anything else, I would question its relevance. Admittedly (as I note), Mr. Altgens was entirely unremarkable until the one day that made his a household name 'round the world. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha[edit]

This is a renomination for this self-nominated article You can view the previous FAC here.Ccson 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good to me. It would be nice to see it as a FA since its 100th anniversary is this year. Amalas =^_^= 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a very strong article. --Xtreambar 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object. Neutral. There are some picture layout issues, and the use of the colored quote boxes is distracting, the quotes should be woven into the text of the article itself instead of separated into boxes. RyanGerbil10 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are boxes appear in a current Feature Article, History of Michigan State University, and the inclusion of quotes boxes my be an individual style as opposed to FA criteria. Can you review the Michigan State article and possibly its FAC archives to see that this was not an objection during its candidacy. thanks you for your input. Ccson 05:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged the pictures. Ccson 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not fond of the quote boxes, but I won't object to the nomination solely because of them, however, it's also not a full support vote, simply one of contented ambivalence. RyanGerbil10 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the quote boxes are slightly NPOV, or at least a bit unencyclopedic. I would fully support without them. RyanGerbil10 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoteboxes have been deleted. Jtmichcock 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I Support. RyanGerbil10 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of quoteboxes violating WP:NPOV. The article's tone has become quite a bit more encyclopedic, though. Tuf-Kat 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would you support if the Quoteboxes were removed? Jtmichcock 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support now. Tuf-Kat 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Mitch[edit]

Big time self-nom. I rewrote this article from scratch, and, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject, I feel this article exemplifies the featured article criteria. The article is stable, as I have been the main person working on it lately. It's comprehensive, with plenty of detailed information on the actual storm, preparations for it, impact for each area affected, and aftermath of the hurricane. It is completely cited with under cite web formatting. It's long, but not too long. In my biased opinion, I feel this article is ready to become the next Featured Article from the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject. Support. Hurricanehink 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Other Central America" looks awkward. I preferred it when it was broken down by country. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 01:21 UTC
    • Good point. Tito just changed it to Rest of Central America. Would country by country be acceptable here? Mexico, for example, only has 2 lines. Would that be fine, having a sub-section of just two sentences? Hurricanehink 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, Mexico isn't generally considered part of Central America, though finding a more precise/accurate section name might be tough. I don't think splitting it up further (i.e. by country) is a good idea; keep the subsections substantial. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about Latin America? Mexico is included in that. Hurricanehink 16:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Belize is not normally considered part of Latin America. Tuf-Kat 22:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Really? Then what should the title of that section be? Hurricanehink 22:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about separating Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and El Salvador (north of the destruction) from Costa Rica and Panama (south of the destruction)? (Belize is English-speaking, and thus not part of Latin America.) —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 22:58 UTC
                • Hmm, OK about Belize. That could work Cuivienen, though it's not perfect. The destruction occurred throughout Central America. The damage just peaked in Honduras and Nicaragua. Hurricanehink 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Rest of Latin and Central America" would work, as Belize is in Central America. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That works. Aside from the title of that one section, what more needs to be done? Hurricanehink 11:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just gone through the article with a fine comb, checked that there weren't any glaring errors (yes, Mitch affecting a river near Arizona is not an error), copyedited it, etc., so I believe it passes the criteria now. If possible, rain gauge measurements from Costa Rica would be nice, but I'm pretty sure those are not available. Either way, support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool! Unfortunately, I couldn't find rainfall totals in C.R. Hurricanehink 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, support now. You did a really great job with this one, Hink. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 01:24 UTC
  • Support. It's amazing what mostly one person can do in so little time. Nice job Hink! Isn't the sattelite picture of the runoff awesome? Icelandic Hurricane #12 01:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Cuivienen and Icelandic Hurricane! Yea, I love those types of picures. Hurricanehink 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lincher 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Could there be book references as it would be interesting for somebody who wants to go deeper in the subject. Lincher 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appears to be quite a few on Amazon.com. I don't have any of the books, so I can't reference them. How do you decide which one is suitable for further reading? Hurricanehink 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I normally go by the depth of information available in the book. If it gives more information on some subject mentioned in the book, you can add it. I do Google Books search too in order to find book references. Lincher 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I don't have any of those books, and am too young to buy them via online (only 17). Book references can't really be added unless you've actual read them. Hurricanehink 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very nicely written and informative article. Beno1000 18:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good effort. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it is an article that fulfills the criteria for featured articles. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this baby looks ready for primetime. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks great Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X[edit]

Self-nomination: I would like to nominate this article for FA status. A great deal of effort, including a thorough Peer Review, has been given to turning it into a quality article that I feel meets the criteria of FA, and should be among those pages that hold this status. Ryu Kaze 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-nom/Strong Support, as one of the writers of this article, I personally feel that this is in the top five gaming articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure Ryu and all the other outstanding, intelligent writers feel the same. It's time for this article to shine. — Deckiller 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as a contributor to the article, I can vouch that it is well written, informative, and neutral. ~ Flooch 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support. Two things. First, I'm a stickler for FAs following wikipedia standards, including WP:LEAD, which states that for an article this size, the lead section should have at least three paragraphs that summarize the article, and you have only two. Second, sections consisting of nothing but a list of facts, such as the "Trivia" section, are highly depreciated in FAs, as lists are not considered "Brilliant Prose". Fieari 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the trivia section could easily be integrated into the rest of the article. There are only four points, two of them about gameplay and the other two are about character voices, which you already have sections for. Maybe the first point about online play could do with a reference too. --darkliight[πalk] 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll expand the lead and incorporate the Trivia section into the main body of the article. Ryu Kaze 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, guys, see what you think. I've dropped the Trivia section and incorporated the info from there into the new lead, the Battle System section and the Characters section. Ryu Kaze 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also dropped the Voice Cast section (the other list section) and just put a link to the IMDb page in the See Also section. Ryu Kaze 11:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied now. Good work! Fieari 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice was really helpful. Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: One of the best game articles on Wikipedia, covering every aspect of the game clearly and adequetely. ~ Helmandsare 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In its current state, this article is excellent. In my opinion, Fieari's objections no longer stand, but we'll see. RyanGerbil10 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Reception section much too short. Whereas I like that it has sourced sales figures, there's nothing on the critical reaction of the press to the game. Metacritic? Famitsu? I know the readers poll put it at number 1, but what did the magazine actually say when it was released? - Hahnchen 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and found that information. I'll add it in. Ryu Kaze 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Please let me know what you think, and thanks to all of you so far who have offered suggestions for improvement. Ryu Kaze 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you've added is good, maybe one or two reactions from Western sources would be good. You could just link to metacritic or gamerankings. - Hahnchen 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cool. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ryu Kaze 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection struck, I'll give a proper read through the article later. - Hahnchen 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - User:Ryu Kaze has done some excellent work bringing the quality of this article to a point where I can't see any obvious ways to improve it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: WPFF has produced some great articles, but I think this time it's one of the best game articles out there. The prose is all very informative and I feel even if I hadn't beaten this game I would be able to understand all of it. I personally would like to see a screenshot of regular gameplay (not in a battle, on the menu, or in an FMV), but I certainly understand that those kind of screenshots can be bland (and in this article, there might not really be a good place to put one). And another minute thing: is it possible to get a better scan of the North American box art? The black part at the top looks like someone messed with it in paint or something. Click on it and you'll see what I mean. But all in all, great work, everyone! – warpedmirror (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. It looks taller than it should be and there's some kind of brown crap on it. I'll just save the image, cut off the extra black space, make it all black up there, and then reupload it. Thanks for the support and for the suggestion. Ryu Kaze 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to just have to try scanning my game's case. This isn't working as well as I expected it to. Ryu Kaze 01:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, new scan up. See how that one looks to you. Ryu Kaze 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! – warpedmirror (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for the help. Ryu Kaze 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks for the nice supports guys! — Deckiller 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks to all of you for comments and/or support. Ryu Kaze 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Images need fair use rationale and references should come after punctuation. IGN references have formatting problems. Pagrashtak 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of those. Ryu Kaze 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the first things you mentioned are taken care of. I'll go check out those IGN references now. Ryu Kaze 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IGN references fixed. Thanks for noticing that. Ryu Kaze 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missed one, but got it now. Ryu Kaze 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wow. I thought that The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker was the pinnacle of video game articles, but this blows it out of the water. Well sourced, comprehensive, and true to the game; this is one of the best nominations I've seen in a while. Dee man45 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Ryu Kaze 11:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ^_^ — Deckiller 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, well written. Nice work. Thunderbrand 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - some poor writing. Examples:
    • In the intro For instance, event director Motomu Toriyama has remarked that — because of the voice acting for Final Fantasy X — dialogue became the basis for scenes, accommodating the time span of spoken scenes with the time required for the spoken dialogue to be conveyed in a realistic manner makes no sense at all
    • Nor does Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action as was previously the case...
    • Final Fantasy X deviates from previous Final Fantasy games.. - you can't deviate from a game.
    • ...he desired to forego... - very poor phrasing
    • The player acquires five mandatory aeons over the course of the game - eh?
    • As examples, she's cited the masks.. - unencyclopaedic style
    • Curiously, in Kingdom Hearts II, Selphie Tilmitt of Final Fantasy VIII fame pronounces it "tie-dus." - who says it's curious?
    • In additional to its sequel, the game's success prompted Square Enix to produce a sequel a two disc DVD machinima film of the game's story - makes no sense.
  • There are weasel words such as The soundtrack is said to reflect an Okinawan atmosphere. See also section is redundant with links in the main text. And I think the story and character sections are far too detailed and should be summarised much more. As they are they really put off a reader who isn't a serious fan of the game already. Worldtraveller 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can fix some of these things. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 17:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is what I changed:
  • "For instance, event director Motomu Toriyama has remarked that — because of the voice acting for Final Fantasy X — dialogue became the basis for scenes, accommodating the time span of spoken scenes with the time required for the spoken dialogue to be conveyed in a realistic manner...——>"For instance, event director Motomu Toriyama has remarked that — because of the implementation of voice-overs — dialogue became the basis for each scene. The duration of a scene would be drawn out to last as long as required for its included dialogue to be spoken in a manner considered true to life..."
  • "Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action as was previously the case..."——>"Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action..."
  • This one still doesn't make sense to me. Think of your reader as educated but ignorant and think what they want to know and what you need to explain to them to get them to understand what you mean. You're using words in a sense in which a committed gamer might understand them but most other people won't.
Okay, good point. How's this?: "Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action..."——>"Whereas in previous games a selected mystical creature would appear to perform a single action...." Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Final Fantasy X deviates from previous Final Fantasy games..."——>"Final Fantasy X's gameplay deviates from that of previous Final Fantasy games..."
  • Still not entirely happy... suggest 'differs' as a better word to use.
Okay. Added "differs" in place of "deviates." Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he desired to forego..."——>"...he wanted to implement a world map concept with a more realistic approach than..."
  • "The player acquires five mandatory aeons over the course of the game..."——>"The player acquires five standards aeons over the course of the game..."
  • "As examples, she's cited the masks..."——>"For example, the masks..."
  • "Curiously, in Kingdom Hearts II, Selphie Tilmitt of Final Fantasy VIII fame pronounces it 'tie-dus.'"——>"...while Selphie Tilmitt of Final Fantasy VIII fame pronounces it as 'tie-dus' in Kingdom Hearts II."
  • "In additional to its sequel, the game's success prompted Square Enix to produce a sequel a two disc DVD machinima film of the game's story..."——>"In addition to its sequel, the game's success prompted Square Enix to produce a two disc DVD machinima film of the game's story..."
  • I think this is still grammatically confused - 'its' appears to refer to the game, and not to its success as intended. Suggest 'The game's success prompted both a sequel and a two disc film etc etc'.
Good catch. Addressed. Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The soundtrack is said to reflect an Okinawan atmosphere"——>(dropped for redundancy)
I didn't attempt condensing anything of the story, as — after repeated condensing — I personally feel that if it is condensed any further, it may lend to do nothing more than confuse readers, as I myself can't see what else within reason could be trimmed and still maintain overall clarity; with the character section, I don't feel that it's very long, and that — since the inclusion of more details was a conscious objective of the creators — it requires more words to describe those important subtleties. However, if there are specific parts you can point out to me that you feel are extraneous, I'd make an effort to trim them. Thank you for your input so far. Ryu Kaze 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flooch has trimmed the Characters section down some and done a fine job of it (the info on the characters was repeated on the individual character pages). Is this more appropriate? Ryu Kaze 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I suggest is what I mentioned above - assume your reader is ignorant about computer games in general and this one in particular. What do they really need to know? How much about the plot does a general reader really want to know? I think much much less - from my own perspective as not much of a gamer beyond playing a huge amount of Timesplitters, the story section here really does not interest me very much. Other sections are interesting but the plot description seems likely to appeal mainly to people who already know about the games. I've spotted some more problems of possible excessive detail elsewhere, such as Instead of characters gaining pre-determined stat bonuses at the transition to the next level..., which really doesn't mean much to a non-gamer. The edits that have been made to the characters section have hugely improved it, and if something similar can be done to the plot I think it would also greatly benefit. Worldtraveller 22:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I see what you're trying to say. I'll try to address this as well. Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, "Instead of characters gaining pre-determined stat bonuses at the transition to the next level..." has become "Instead of characters gaining pre-determined strength and ability bonuses after a certain number of battles..." and I've also tried to address the issues you mentioned with the story section to make it sound more open to the uninitiated. See what you think. Ryu Kaze 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we could get some more feedback from you on this, it would be most appreciated. The Story section has been tweaked considerably to sound more open toward the uninitiated. Ryu Kaze 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've appreciated your very positive response to my suggestions. I have to say I still believe the article is too long. Some sections are nice and concisely written - for example, Game play, Field map, Development, Critical response, Subsequent impact (although the latter is a tautology - impact can hardly be anything but subsequent!). Other sections still seem overly detailed, like the story description, and geographical and cultural aspects. The overall length of the article is 45K, and that alone is likely to put off a lot of readers. I generally try, with articles I write that I nominate here, to keep them between 20K and 30K in length, as I think this sort of length allows for a very thorough treatment while ensuring you're not outstaying your welcome, as it were. I really believe that if an article about something like Mercury (planet) can be comprehensive at 33Kb in length, then an article about a recent computer game must be too long if it's 45kb. I am not saying an article on a computer game is not worthwhile or should not be featured, just that it should be an appropriate length, as required by the FA criteria. Worldtraveller 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your follow-up, Worldtraveller. You've offered a lot of quality criticism that has helped to better the article. I'm not sure what else we could do here... maybe some of the geographical information could be shifted over to the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page and a summary with a little more brevity placed here since that's the "daughter" article. Even so, that's probably not going to condense the page much further.
Personally I don't think that the article violates FA criteria of appropriate length because it doesn't offer a required kb count, though it does require the article to be comprehensive. Since there's a lot of content here, that means there's going to be a lot of stuff to cover. I do see what you mean about the Mercury (planet) page, but they're obviously two drastically different subjects that have to be approached in different ways. Trying to shorten some of the sections just for the sake of kb count would leave them worthless in my opinion, as it would be impossible for the uninitiated to glean anything of value from them.
For instance, with the Story section, we were told that it should encompass the story from beginning-to-end, as other video games with FA status do. But there's a lot to this game's story, and what we've offered there might look like a lot, but I assure you, it's like a cliff's notes of cliff's notes of cliff's notes. We don't even make note of several major characters and subplots there, and what information is present is required in order to gain any kind of understanding of the plot. For example, it couldn't be mentioned that Tidus vanishes at the end without explaining what he is and why his home city exists. Sin's origin and inevitable return likewise can't be explained without that information, nor can the reason Tidus' father became Sin.
Also, doesn't the article size page say that length is no reason to sacrifice valuable information? I will concede, though, that we could probably shorten the Geography section a bit by transferring all the info there to the daughter article and then summarizing it here on the main article. Also, I'll be sure to change "Subsequent impact" to "legacy." XD
By the way, despite the Story section's length, is it any easier to read in your opinion for someone who is unfamiliar with the game? That was one of my major concerns after your previous follow-up. Thanks again, and have a good one. Ryu Kaze 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've now shortened the Geography and cultural aspects section, and fixed the "Legacy" header. If the Story section is really the only one you still feel is too long, I hope I can convince you that it's actually an example of extreme brevity. XD Ryu Kaze 16:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've observed, protected, and sparcely edited the article for many months now, and have never seen it in such good shape. ~ Hibana 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your support. Ryu Kaze 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Final Fantasy sucks. It would be devastating to Wikipedia to put that garbage on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.47.193 (talk • contribs) anonymous,and not an appliable excuse
Not liking the subject material isn't a valid argument, and any well written article is capable of appearring on the front page. Dee man45 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Do you think the sections might be too big too? Worldtraveller said that about the Story and Characters sections, but I honestly can't see what else could be trimmed. That may well be an effect of looking at the page for so long, though. I mean, I can acknowledge that they're not small, but I really don't see how we could trim Story any further without losing clarity. With Characters, I feel like there's a lot of very valuable, relevant info there, and that it would be more damaging to the article than beneficial to lose some of that. Like the Wikipedia Article size style guide suggests, sometimes valuable information is more important than kb count, and I personally feel like that's the case here. But like I told Worldtraveller, if you can point out to me some parts that you really feel don't contribute anything, I'll try to trim them. As someone who's researched so much information on this game, it's sometimes hard for me to distinguish relevant info from non-relevant info after looking at it for so long, which is why Peer Reviews and FACs can be so helpful. Anyway, thanks again for your support, and if you feel like there's some information there that is really extrinsic, I'll see about trimming something. Ryu Kaze 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Igordebraga's comments on Character section length, and have done a trim of the article in response. ~ Flooch 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a good job of it you did. Nice work. Ryu Kaze 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never my opinion was THAT important... but the trimming was nice, some sections flow better. igordebraga ≠ 12:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as a contributor to the article and part of the Peer Review, I can vouch that the article has been through many watchfull eyes and revisions to be the best it can be Renmiri 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember working on this article a good while back, when it seemed rather sloppy and confused. It's much better now. I'm tempted to support, but I would like to see better referencing, more in-line cites. I don't want to be overly strict about it, because this is nicely written, organized and illustrated, but surely each section should have at least one direct citation—I noticed some that had none, and others that were pretty weak on it. Everyking 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.
  • article often contains muddled writing, e.g. CTB sounds exactly the same as ATB from FF9 to me, how specifically is it different from previous FF battle systems?
  • many instances of poor writing eg "This desire for battles that would feel as though they were part of the story also led to the implementation of the new system summoning seen in the game" - what is a "system summoning"?
  • this sentence is especially terrible: "With this in mind, when penning Final Fantasy X, he wanted to attempt establishing a connection between the player and character such that — since both are finding themselves in a new world — the player's progress through that world and growing knowledge about it would be reflected in Tidus' own ever-developing understanding, a connection allowed to the player through Tidus' first-person narration of most of Final Fantasy X, in which the player (controlling Tidus) advances that narration". whole article needs to be copyedited by an "outside" editor.
  • the article misrepresents much information, e.g. "Final Fantasy X also borrows heavily from the mythical beings of other cultures, such as Arabian (the aeon Ifrit), Hindu (the aeon Shiva)" without mentioning this is nothing specific to FFX but common throughout the entire series.
  • Reception section is especially poor, just listing scores is meaningless, give specific examples of what individual critics liked and disliked about the game, were there any general consensuses about what worked and what didnt? specific quotes are required from reliable respected reviewers (e.g. not "the official playstation magazine"). this sections needs to be a whole lot longer. there is a serious neutrality problem, not one criticism on the whole page? reads like a fanpage. where does it sit in the FF games canon? the best? the worst? all reviewers comment on this and yet there is nothing about if consensus is its better than FF7/FF6/FF4 etc.
  • quality of the sources used is poor. 90% primary source and square's own promotional materials. needs decent critical secondary source material, like for example edge magazine (which notably didnt rave about the game, yet is never mentioned here).
  • a noticeable lack of citations for dubious assertions e.g. "Due to its intense popularity, Square Enix released a direct sequel" - how do we know they didnt always have plans to release a sequel, where is the source that confirms it was due to intense popularity?
  • there are numerous other assertions that need citations. "Different versions" section for example doesnt have a single citation.
  • dont specify image sizes in image tags.
  • "Development" section is much too superficial. where are the details about technical aspects and programming? there is nothing. questions like how big was the development crew, when did dev start and end, what about the voice dubbing and translation are not addressed at all. the "Development" and "Reception" sections should be the biggest sections as the rest can be got by just reading the instruction manual and playing the game. there is very little "added value" in this article if those sections are not improved and extended.
  • finally, what impact did FFX have? how did the competition react? did the dragonquest series do anything in response to the technical innovations of FFX? did any former enix guys comment on the game? other industry people? have there been any references to FFX, or borrowing of its technical innovations in other games? article lacks any mention of its long-term legacy in this respect. Zzzzz 10:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's what I call real feedback. I will attempt to address have addressed some of these issues. Would you be willing to be the "outside" editor, Zzzzz? ~ Flooch 10:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that some of the editors tried to do too much with the writing, and it came out a bit awkward. I'll try to fix some. — Deckiller 13:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'll try to help in addressing some of these things, particularly where citations and the References section are concerned. Ryu Kaze 13:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for Final Fantasy X's reception spawning the idea for making a sequel, I've got that reference. There's an interview with the producer and some other main development guys on page 191 of the Final Fantasy X Ultimania Omega). Yoshinori Kitase says "Speaking conversely, FFX received a splendid reception and made us think of adding to it." This extended not only to a sequel, but also to developing a plot-related link with Final Fantasy VII, one of their other very popular titles. There's also an IGN interview where the game's popularity was confirmed as the reasoning for them making a sequel. I'll try getting more information about those other things. Ryu Kaze 13:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Zzzzz, if you have the issue of EDGE magazine where they reviewed the game, that would be a lot of help. Since it's a UK magazine, the only three issues of it I've gotten are those I special ordered, and I didn't get that one (I got the one with their review of Final Fantasy VIII instead). All I know is that they felt it didn't really expand on much of what was done in the previous console generation. Ryu Kaze 13:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Zzzzz, Flooch has taken care of the wording cases you mentioned, and I've added various additional references, info on the online elements that were dropped, expanded the Development's lead, and gotten a reference on the contribution Final Fantasy X's reception had to the later development of Final Fantasy X-2 and the FFVII-FFX/X-2 connection.
I still need to get some more information on other criticism (if anybody here has that issue of EDGE magazine, don't be shy), but I think this addresses the large majority of what you've brought up. Please let us know if there's something we're overlooking. Ryu Kaze 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I don't have any info on how Final Fantasy X may have inspired the competition (I will try to get that kind of information), but as far as Final Fantasy X's legacy goes, the Reception section now makes note that its popularity led to the development of the first direct sequel to a Final Fantasy and the development of the connection with VII. I'll see about getting that other info, though, and try to find out if anything from X in particular was utilized in the development of later Final Fantasy titles (though there's not been very many produced since then). Ryu Kaze 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way again, I added something on the Sphere Grid's development to its section. That's something else I meant to mention before: some of the developer info is in the Gameplay sections. Ryu Kaze 16:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've now added a quote from EDGE magazine that provides a little bit of a counterbalance to the Reception section. I hope that will be sufficient, as -- in all honesty -- most critics did give Final Fantasy X hyped reviews. EDGE is one of the only game critics out there that doesn't buy into hype and makes a conscious effort not to advertise it either.
I'll now see if I can find anything else on a legacy, but everything's been addressed at this point to some extent or another. Please let us know if you feel that this has accounted for the shortcomings the article had before. I hope this will satisfy your concerns with the article. Ryu Kaze 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back to look at a few of things, but I'm confused as to what specifically is wrong with those things that are still up. Could you, perhaps, be more specific? For instance, this one:
"quality of the sources used is poor. 90% primary source and square's own promotional materials. needs decent critical secondary source material, like for example edge magazine (which notably didnt rave about the game, yet is never mentioned here)."
I'd say at least half of the sources used are outside of the game and Square's promotional materials, and where they are used are in places where they obviously would have to be (information that the developers themselves offered about the game's development was usually in their own stuff).
This one's a bit confusing too:
"'Development' section is much too superficial. where are the details about technical aspects and programming? there is nothing. questions like how big was the development crew, when did dev start and end, what about the voice dubbing and translation are not addressed at all. the 'Development' and 'Reception' sections should be the biggest sections as the rest can be got by just reading the instruction manual and playing the game. there is very little "added value" in this article if those sections are not improved and extended."
All of those things have been added.
This also:
"there are numerous other assertions that need citations. 'Different versions' section for example doesnt have a single citation."
There is a citation in there for the only thing I can see that would need one. I don't really see what needs citations otherwise. The existance of certain books -- which is all that isn't sourced -- shouldnt' require a citation.
I still see room for improvement in some of the other things that haven't been struck as well, but with these things, I'm quite confused. Ryu Kaze 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've now gotten rid of the image size specifications. Ryu Kaze 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've changed the wording of the Battle system section to explain why CTB is so different from ATB. Ryu Kaze 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added some more info to the Development and Reception sections, and changed up the Different versions and merchandise section. See what you think. Ryu Kaze 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more criticisms to the Critical response section in the Reception area. Check them out. Ryu Kaze 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking things over again. If at all possible, though, could you give us a more specific idea of what isn't clear about the CTB description at this point? I basically completely redid that paragraph previously, and added distinctions between the ATB and the CTB within. Perhaps another editor should check it out in case I'm missing something.
By the way, I did actually add some programming information. There wasn't a lot that I could find, but I found that they motion captured human movement, fed the raw data into the computers, and then manipulated it etc. I also added a bit more on the legacy info, in that those same motion capture and voice-over techniques became a Final Fantasy standard, as did the use of proportional field maps in place of an overworld map. Again, thanks for coming back to look things over, but if you could add a few more specifics about what's not quite clicking for you, I'd be more than happy to try to address them. Ryu Kaze 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way again, I'd like to add that I'm going to order the issue of EDGE magazine that had the review of Final Fantasy X. I'll be able to add more critical response info once I get it. Ryu Kaze 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording on the CTB up some more to try further emphasise its differences from ATB. If you could get back to us on whether or not there's still any issues with any of these things, it would be highly appreciated. Ryu Kaze 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I am a member of the WikiProject, I have hardly contributed to the article (unfortunately), but I think it's up to standards. —Mirlen 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Mirlen. Ryu Kaze 02:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great job, very comprehensive. jaco♫plane 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's appreciated. Thanks for the compliment. Ryu Kaze 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is a great article! Very informative and comprehensive, and an easy and understandable read for those new to the series. Great work! Onlynameicanget 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a whole lot. That's what we're hoping for. Ryu Kaze 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But, I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but why do you need the three other smaller cover-arts? Isn't that taking a bit of a liberty with fair-use? But anyway, support. Cvene64 13:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that they're there since each one is from a different region and Wikipedia doesn't have any one region of members, even if the majority are probably from North America. Or maybe it's just to showcase the various versions. It's the standard template used for each of the Final Fantasy titles, actually, and was implemented before I even joined Wikipedia. Perhaps it's something to discuss at WikiProject Final Fantasy, but to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't push the fair-use thing any further.
Thanks for your support! Ryu Kaze 15:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought they were just special editions/limited edition covers or something. But your explainantion makes sense. Great article!
  • Comment: Thanks for all the support! — Deckiller 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, and interesting. I really think that it looks like superior material. I even learned some things about the game, such as the fact it was supposed to have online gameplay, and I thought I knew nearly everything important about it. And the sections are coherent and I think everything is there. My only concern would be the story section, I don't know if it is necessary to summarize all of the game story, I remember a comment about it from the FFVI failed FAC saying that there was no need to summarize the whole game story. But if no one has any objection about it this time around, please keep it since I can't say that I hate it. --DarkEvil 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the support. Concerning the story, we'd actually originally only had it as an introduction to the story, but during the Peer Review, we were told that it should actually summarize the whole thing since the three video games that already had FA status did that. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks a lot for your support! Ryu Kaze 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd just like to thank everyone who has offered support, and also add that attempts have been made to resolve the two Objections still up at this point (those from Zzzzz and Worldtraveller) but that we're still awaiting responses. I left requests on their talk pages for them to follow up, so the attempt has been made. Just thought it should be put out there in case anyone felt like we were ignoring those Objections. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we've gotten a new response from Worldtraveller. Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and comprehensive article, one of the best gaming articles I've read on Wikipedia thus far. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support! Ryu Kaze 23:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween II (film)[edit]

Self-Nomination: This article is about the sequel to the film Halloween which was promoted to featured status earlier this month; I am the primary author of both articles. I am nominating this page because I believe it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. It is comprehensive, well-referenced, and supporting images are properly tagged with fair use rationales. Although everything brought up in the peer review was addressed, I'm sure there are still some minor things that could be changed. Dmoon1 21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-written article. --Myles Long 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dmoon1 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and comments on the peer review. Dmoon1 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... "casted"? Is that correct? Jkelly 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to MS Word spellcheck it's not, so I changed it to cast. Anything else? Dmoon1 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. article needs another thorough copyedit from an outside source:
  • e.g "is the last film in the Halloween series written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill" suggests "the halloween series is written by jc and dh, and this is the last one" which is not what u mean.
  • How's this: "While other films in the Halloween series follow, this is the last one written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill." ? Dmoon1 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "large supporters of the film " - what does it mean, "large"?
  • Changed "large supporters" to "invested heavily". Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • another poor sentence: "They considered setting the sequel a few years after Halloween and in a high-rise apartment building in which Laurie Strode lived".
  • Clarified this sentence, I think. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reads like this: "Hill mentions in a 1981 interview with Fangoria magazine that the finished film differs somewhat from initial drafts of the screenplay. She explains how she and Carpenter had originally considered setting the sequel a few years after the events of Halloween. Also, they planned to have Myers track Laurie Strode to a high-rise apartment building in which she is a resident." Dmoon1 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
get rid of "Also, " and it will be fine.
Done. Dmoon1 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tampered Halloween candy" - cant use "tampered" like that - should be "tampered with" or something.
  • Changed "tampered" to "tainted". Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the words "Halloween II" appear too often! dont have to say "in halloween II" everywhere, the article is about H2 so we already know the context!
  • Reduced the number of times "Halloween II" appears in the article. Dmoon1 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took out a few more Halloween IIs; the majority are now located within quotes. Dmoon1 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • avoid 1 and 2 sentence pgraphs (merge them where possible).
  • Merged the a couple of the smaller paragraphs, mainly VHS/DVD and novelization paragraphs. Dmoon1 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is a 1-sentence pgraph in the "music" section BUT merging it would create a 1-pgraph section, so no good. is there any possible way of expanding the music section into 2 pgraphs by adding some more info somehow?
Found a couple of comments by critics about the song's role in the film; now has its own paragraph. Dmoon1 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • why did nick castle not return? "casting" section is basically a prose list, would be good to break it up with some comments from the actors about how they went about playing their roles, learning their lines etc, or from the casters about why they chose who they did.
  • Reorganized "Casting" sub-section; added more meat to this section; quotes from Warlock, Shoop, Rosenthal, and Castle (about Lance Guest).
  • please expand the stuff about rosenthal-carpenter friction. carpenter made a remark about H2 being "as scary as an episode of quincy", direct quotes like that one from both parties about their disagreement will be very interesting.
  • I tried to find some quotes earlier and couldn't, but I'll look some more. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found Carpenter interview with Twilight Zone Magazine where he makes that statement and incorporated it into article. Still looking for a good Rosenthal interview. Dmoon1 06:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inserted comment made by Rosenthal about Carpenter "ruining" the film. Dmoon1 13:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the advertising part doesnt really fit in "reception" section. maybe better before the boxoffice results.
  • Moved advertising information as suggested above. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i will put the timeout review (a positive one) on the talk page later on, please incorporate some of its comments in the article.
  • "Halloween II Murders" is an excellent section btw - but change the heading to "Halloween II murders".
  • Deleted "The" and italicized "Halloween II", lower-cased "murders". Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point with that one was the capitalization of Murders- capitalization is discouraged in headers, and I nearly changed it when I was looking at it- but judging from the rest of the text "Halloween II Murders" is used as some kind of label or title, in which case Wikipedia has no choice but to capitalize it. Personally I'd leave in "The". CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and change "Comic Book continuity" to "Comic book continuity". Zzzzz 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed template. Dmoon1 02:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broke up Zzzzz's comments for easier editing (hope you don't mind). I'll address as many as possible very soon (I'm in the middle of writing a final exam now). Dmoon1 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've tried to address almost all of these objections. Anything else? Dmoon1 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful and thorough critique. Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a sob and a frown: Everything Care Bears Movie II could have had! I'll look at the Halloween page for further inspiration and, starting tomorrow, I'll begin trying to get a green plus on CBMII. --Slgrandson 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query—The logic of this is unclear: 'grossing only $25.5 million at the box office in the United States despite its $2.5 million budget.'
    • Response: The complete sentence says: "Still, Halloween II was not as successful as the original, grossing only $25.5 million at the box office in the United States despite its $2.5 million budget." It is to show that even though the film had a much larger budget than the original, it did not do as well in the box office. The original Halloween was filmed on a budget of $325,000 and grossed $47 million at the American box office. Perhaps this should be clarified in the introduction? It's mentioned further down in the article. Dmoon1 09:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is that screenshot in the plot watermarked or something (that black square in the bottom left)?Cvene64 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The screenshot is promotional material, so I changed the license and summary. Thanks for pointing that out. Dmoon1 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Saiyan Support good movie + good article - Malomeat 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very well done, good job.  ALKIVAR™ 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a good film article. Nice work. Cvene64 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- This article is far too long, given the depth of the subject matter. It could be edited to be much more concise, and should be no more than half its current length. -- Gnetwerker 07:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't very helpful, do have any particular examples of where the article could me more concise? Dmoon1 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is currently 37K, shorter than many FAs that come in at over 40 (Xenu, Rush (band)); to say it should be 18.5K is an arbitrary measurement. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, excellent film article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. Dmoon1 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Sihang Warehouse[edit]

Self-nomination. A highly detailed account of a little-known (to the western world) battle. As such, a WP:CSB work. It has been peer reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, archive is here.

  • Support. I read this when it was a colloboration, and I thought it was excellent. Raul654 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a high standard article of its kind. Well done! --Terence Ong 05:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the montage imgage needs updated copyright information and a fair use rationale.--nixie 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have updated the copyright tag to a more specific one and added rationale for each of the 3 component images. (Image) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add some artist details to Image:Sihang painting.gif, as it is not actually possible to tell when the painting was made and by whom from the details currently given on the image page.--nixie 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First thing in the morning tomorrow. (10 hours later) I'm pretty sure the source is in one of the CDs of war photos I have, just give me some time to dig it out. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean there are too many photos? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present, there is some Anglicizing necessary. The content is very strong, but there are some idiomatic English expressions that need to be smoothed. If I have some time, I'll do a bit at a time, but I hope other editors will jump in as well ("show the League of Nations of China's determination even further" is such a case; it's just a question of getting the English idiom right). Geogre 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've done a copyedit and hopefully removed all the weird English. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really like the article but there are a few rough spots. The lead needs to have dates added. The Background section jumps right into details without even mentioning the overall conflict (the Sino-Japanese War). As others have commented, there are a few spots where phrasing needs to be improved, such as "grabbed the attention" in the lead. --NormanEinstein 13:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates have been included in the lead para and I've included a paragraph in the background section dealing with the start of the entire war. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - fill in the red links! :)Featured articles don't have red links Judgesurreal777 15:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is incorect - as I have said on this page before, red links are orthogonal to the purpose of being a featured article. They indicate direction for future work. Raul654 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this article deals with a relatively obscure event in a continent that does not have a good coverage of Wikipedians, this is a case of systematic bias. I don't think that at this point we can utilise the same "no red links" criterion to judge this article. :( -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've gone back and looked through all the red links, some were really non-notable (at least given the current coverage of such articles) cases, and have been removed, others are notable and I've written stubs on them, still others I think are notable but I have not been able to find enough information to write an article about. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fix the nationalism in some sentences (very sparse). Sure, the defenders were brave and all, but portray it as their cultural reception, because bravery is subjective, though achieveemnt militarily amazing. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worried about POV too. Because I'm (of course) POV on this subject POV definitely creeped into the article. Kirill Lokshin pointed out some for me, and I tried my best to remove them all. I've removed all references to the "Heroes" that could be replaced with "troops", "soldiers", "battalion" etc. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. The article is comprehensive in covering the defense in detail. However, for a FA candidate the article should also have a reference section that has the sources listed with publisher date/place along with ISBN if possible. This should be the case for book sources, but not necessarily for contemporary newspaper articles, since references for those are hard to come by. Other than this the article looks good. BlueShirts 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References have been updated with place of publishing, publisher and year of publication. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is very detailed and accurate. I support it with both of my hands up!Anthony Gao 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with reservations. A suggestion - I know it's not required, which is why I am still supporting the nomination, but it might be a good idea to take some time and create a few of the articles that are currently red links on this page. It doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the article itself, but I do feel it's important to have useful links in featured articles. Even if you just write a few good stubs, it could get the ball rolling and eventually give more depth to the main article. Kafziel 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that the red links all needed to be removed, just that it would be good to start articles for them to get the ball rolling. It doesn't take much; I just created Order of Blue Sky and White Sun with Grand Cordon, so that's one less. (I just picked that one because it was a very long and noticeable red link.) It doesn't take long, and this article looks better for it. As I said, you are by no means required to do it, and my support will stand regardless. Kafziel 14:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: Makes one think how global Wikipedia is in its coverage of well-known and obscure topics. However, either those scattered red links need to go, or they need to have articles created for them. --Slgrandson 04:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing here, it's more or less done, for details please look above. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Impressive. Tony
  • Support. No other remaining concerns, except a minor issue which I mentioned in the talk page that I expect to get rectified easily. Also, excision of the term "brave" was not what I intended, more of representing that as cultural perception, but either way goes. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - fine job, can find no fault! --Loopy e 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Self-nomination on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This article meets all of the featured article criteria, is exceptionally well-written, and is the standard to set for future hurricane season articles. While there has been a bit of controversy whether the List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms should be merged in, it is highly unlikely that this article would be significantly modified in the future, and at this point, with all the Tropical Cyclone Reports in, it is finally stable. In my perhaps biased opinion, this is the best article on Wikipedia, period. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject and others in general have put a lot of effort into this article, and the result is excellent. --tomf688 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the grounds that it meets all of the criteria. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. -- WmE 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's time for a seasonal FAC. Everyone did a ton of work on this monster, but it's lookign great now. Hurricanehink 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this is a great article. Concerns: Is there a real need to bold all of the storm names? Seems unnecessary to me, but I rarely find bold text in the article text outside the lead to be beneficial. Also, don't forget about & nbsp; in the units. I agree with the decision to keep the list out of this article; it'd get too long. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The bolding was done in order to make it easier to find an individual storm within the summary of all of the storms. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:24 UTC
  • Support per all, and wishing he had managed to nominate it first. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:24 UTC
  • Object. Support. At present, the first three sentences of the article read:
The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season unexpectedly became the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, shattering previous records on repeated occasions. The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with record damages over $100 billion USD and at least 2,048 deaths. The season's five landfalling major hurricanes — Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma — were responsible for most of the destruction.
Counting problems with that:
  • "in recorded history". We don't know that, since hurricanes that never reached land might have been ignored prior to satellite surveillance.
  • if it's the most active, it would shatter previous records. Kind of obvious?
  • "of" missing between "record damages" and "over". If a reader mentally inserted a colon here, an incorrect statement would be made.
  • "unexpectedly"? predictions that global warming would cause more severe hurricane seasons were widespread before 2005
    • No, they weren't, at least not among meteorologists (non-expert opinions don't matter). Meteorologists generally (and still) believe that global warming causes more intense hurricanes without increasing the number. In any case, the unexpectedness of the activity is elaborated upon in the predictions section. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:54 UTC
  • 2,048 deaths is not the record for a hurricane season, even though many readers might get that impression.
  • "landfalling" is not linked, even though landfall has a technical definition that the reader might not know, referring to the cyclone's center (tropical cyclones have caused significant damage without ever making landfall)
  • ditto for "major hurricanes"
That's three definite problems, and four more that I believe make this a (very) good article not quite ready to be featured. The first paragraph it's important, I believe, and should probably be part of the featured article criteria. In this case, it seems to suggest the hurricane season was more extraordinary in its effects than it actually was: it most likely wasn't the most active year for atlantic hurricanes in historic times, just in the last 40 years or so. it wasn't the one that killed most people. I'm not aware of anyone having done the math that it was the most damaging relative to GDP, or GDP in endangered areas. (It was, for the US, the most traumatic (at least after WWII). It was the first time a major western city was destroyed in a natural disaster in many years.)
Sorry for the long post. I'll put them on my user page and link to them if preferred?
Changed to support. I've read the rest, and it's really good.
RandomP 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replying per point:
  • The reason it is in recorded history and not just history is exactly the point you bring up.
  • Not necessarily: there's several records of intensity, number of storms, major hurricanes, etc. that were all being claimed by different, very-active seasons. It is extremely rare for one season to claim all of them at the same time.
  • Typo. Fixed.
  • Yes, unexpectedly. Claiming that global warming is the reason for the activity of the storms is original research, and previous estimates by experts, who had supposedly taken global warming in their predictions already, fell far short of the actual activity level of the season.
  • That is clarified in the next paragraph, as well as the records section.
  • The two links are fixed now.
  • Hypothesizing that other seasons could have been more active is not appropriate, as it would be basically degrading the article to weasel words. Basically, using all the records that are available, it is the most active season ever recorded. I'm not sure either that comparing the season to World War II is appropriate either, as they're two completely unrelated events, and it is impossible to make every single comparison possible and keeping the article at a finite length. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly, damage in terms of GDP is not how the damages are discussed, either by the article or by the National Hurricane Center (or any other expert organisation). It was inarguably the most damaging season in both the US and Atlantic-wide even when inflation is taken into account. In fact, as damages do not include economic impact (which is calculated separately), referring to damages per GDP would not be proper, as GDP refers to economic power and not the market value of a nation itself. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 23:09 UTC
  • Just FWIW, I strongly disagree with you on the point that non-expert opinions don't matter. Public opinion (and public reaction) does. Also, the "unexpectedly" modifies not the "actual activity levels", but the "most active season on record". Virtually no one expected that the 2005 season would be as strong as it was, but given the differences in counting, the 1933 record being broken in the next couple of years seemed likely anyway.
  • Did I actually compare anything to World War II? I just used it to describe a time period, which coincidentally is when radar became available.
  • "Basically, using all the records that are available, it is the most active season ever recorded". I still think that a casual reader (such as the ones that read articles because they are featured; i.e. the readers we are actually concerned with here) will be unaware just how short reliable records of hurricanes are. Again, you attack a proposal I did not actually make (to hypothesize that other seasons were more active). I still suggest rewording to avoid actual readers think that records show the 2005 season to be the most active "since records began" (i.e. generally the late 19th or early 20th century).
  • for the record: I did not suggest to mention damages relative to GDP in my list of reasons for opposing. I agree that damages divided by GDP of the endangered areas (yielding a length of time) might not be the best possible way of comparing damages, but you've got to admit that that time ("how long would it take to repair the damage if no one did anything else?") is certainly not something that "would not be proper" to refer to.
  • I'm also vaguely concerned that a statement where "damage" does not include human lives lost might be read as one that does.
Still, I've withdrawn my objection. If every opinion people held after reading our articles were perfect, there'd be no ignorance left to fight in the future :) RandomP 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seem more significant than global warming. I agree "global warming causes more hurricanes" was/is a commonly held belief, but I am not aware of the more specific "2005 will be extremely active because of global warming" being said before the season started. Therefore the global warming things should be on more general articles but not the individual seasons.
  • Check List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, from that it can be seen 2005 was the most damaging with inflation taken into account (due to Katrina), but possibly not if "wealth normalization" is considered.
  • Perhaps the "record" should just be dropped from the damage figure? We know the season is a record breaker from the first sentence and the fact $100 bilion is a record is mentioned elsewhere (in the box). I am concerned that the 2,048+ figure taken in conjunction with the "up to 2,000" deaths from Stan could lead the reader to think the other storms only contributed a few deaths.--Nilfanion 10:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. However that 2048 death figure should be rephrased, particularly when taken in conjunction with the 2000+ deaths from Stan, it seems to imply most of the deaths were from Stan.--Nilfanion 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Considering the size of this hurricane season alot of work was done on this article. Congratulations to the editors of the Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. Tarret 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some topics are simply so important that Featured Articles simply must be written about them. Wikipedia should rejoice that another such topic may be scratched off of that list. RyanGerbil10 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment + Question: Some of the in-line citations are of the format sentence. [1], when in fact they should be formatted like such — sentence.[1] per WP:FOOTNOTE. Also, there's information on the economic and political impact of the hurricanes, but is there any particular reason why the social impact of the hurricanes wasn't covered particularly wrt Katrina, which left millions of people displaced and unemployed? Thanks AreJay 13:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the inconsistent citation format.--Nilfanion 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I would say about the social aspect is that, since it applies only to a single storm, it should be covered in Hurricane Katrina rather than in the main season article. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 14:47 UTC
I'd say that most if not all major hurricanes had some sort of social impact. I know that Rita and Wilma ravaged south Florida. Dennis devastated Grenada; I would say that the social impact wrt displacement, loss of property, death etc was greater with Dennis and Katrina because of the intensity of the particular hurricane and because of the lack proper, coordinated disaster response infrastructure; however I do feel that a discussion of the social impact of the hurricanes is pertinent. Some of the discussion around the individual hurricanes deals with the social impact, but that can be expanded upon and structured in Wikipedia:Summary style. AreJay 15:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have got a little confused with the storms. Wilma affected Florida, Rita scarcely touched it, but affected LA/TX. Dennis had hardly any effects in Grenada but hit the US and Cuba hard (were you thinking of 2004's Ivan?). Nonetheless, I think you have a valid point, we have a paragraph on the political consequences (of Katrina), why not social?--Nilfanion 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the mixup...you're probably right. I very vividly remember the 04 season though because I was living Florida back then and got hit by Frances, Ivan and Jeanne and had no power or heating for 12 days, but that's a different story. I'm glad you agree, some commentary on the social impact of the hurricanes will make this article more complete. AreJay 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but, given this article contains a list of the storms anyway, and almost all have their own article, do we need an intermediate page like List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, or perhaps it should just be merged here) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles for individual storms are relatively new. We're still working on converting the list page into a more concise list. That said, the current list page is longer than the entire current article, which is why it is separated. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 21:00 UTC
  • Question - why are all the storm names bolded? I don't think they should be. Worldtraveller 17:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics), hurricane names should be in normal typeface (i.e., not italicized or bolded). AreJay 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bolding of the storm names has been removed. The reason for it was felt finding an individual storm in the summary was difficult. I think with the box at the start of the section, which lists the storms in order, that isn't an issue now really.--Nilfanion 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that looks better. Another question, though - why are hurricanes on 'first name terms' throughout a lot of the article? I think for clarity and good writing wtyle it would be better to refer to 'Hurricane X' throughout, rather than calling it just X. Aso, from economic impact, Agriculture in multiple countries... - why not just many countries? A good proofread might uncover more such writing lapses. Worldtraveller 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree about the "Hurricane x" change; it would be horribly repetitive, especially in sentences where multiple storms are referred to. That said, they are written that way in the Storms section (e.g. "Hurricane Katrina devastated the coast..."), but are left on first-name basis throughout the rest of the article, for the same reason separate links to another article are not made adjacent to one another. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It also causes issues like with some phrasing, like with "Stan briefly reached hurricane strength before making landfall". Using the "hurricane X" format would make statements like that painful.--Nilfanion 19:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object Support. The article states that "at least 2048" people were killed; however it gives figures of over 1600 for Katrina and over 2000 for Stan, plus more for other storms. That's over 3600 for Katrina and Stan combined, and some more if you add the other storms. "At least 2048" is technically not wrong if the true number is 3600+, but it's not overly consistent with the rest of the article. Otherwise, a great article about a difficult topic. My compliments. Kosebamse 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    It's difficult to make this clear - the National Hurricane Center acknowledges that over 2,000 deaths were caused by Stan and the extratropical system together, but only attributes 80 deaths to Stan alone. The other 1,920 deaths are not counted as directly the result of Stan (thus the total adding up to 2,048; only Katrina has a rising death toll). —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 21:00 UTC
    In this case these difficulties should be explained (briefly), and/or the (apparently) conflicting figures should not be in the inrtoduction to avoid confusion. Kosebamse 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    That number has been removed now.--Nilfanion 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Objection withdrawn. Kosebamse 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is very good. I suppose I will support, although there are parts of the article that I think could use better referencing. Everyking 10:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say which bits you think the referencing could be improved on? It is possible those refs are absent as they are in the relevant storm article.--Nilfanion 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good and Strong SUPPORT. I've been watching this article since Tropical Storm Arlene formed and I've seen the remarkable progress its has made and the enormous amount of effort its editors have put into it. I sincerely believe that this article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer.Omni ND 00:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has gone a long way. Pikachu9000 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is one of my favorite articles and deserves the FA category; has all the points that in my opinion makes an FA, since all the reports are done. Well done, Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones! It will be another FA material for our trophy case. juan andrés 18:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Could definitely be better with some bits of the phrasing. NSLE (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-05-02)

Mercury (planet)[edit]

I've been working on this recently hoping to bring it up to FA standards, and with the help of the featured German version's ToC which highlighted some gaps in our coverage, I think it might be there now. I think it's now comprehensive and accessible so I'll give it a run here and see what anyone else thinks. Worldtraveller 17:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A nice article! The only minor thing I should suggest is to convert external links within the article into references. Cmapm 17:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could the external links listed in the notes be cited according to WP:CITE (and WP:CITE/ES)? {{Cite web}} could be useful here. AndyZ t 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Recent edits show dramatic improvement. --Keflavich 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article, the only thing I think could be improved is the main picture. A color version in which tiles are not so evident would be better. Great job. --Enano275 21:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trouble is, the only close up images are from Mariner 10, and they all tend to look a bit like that. True colour ones don't exist, but there are some false colour composites - I'll see if I can find one. Worldtraveller 21:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that won't stop it from being a FA anyway. --Enano275 14:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found a pretty nice colour image and put that at the top instead of the old one. Worldtraveller 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fascinating, and a pleasure to read. HenryFlower 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clean, organized, nicely written. &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Does justice to a fascinating topic. You might want to clean up your in-line citations though. Per WP:FOOTNOTE, they should be of the form sentence.[1]...some of your in-line citations look like such sentence [1]. AreJay 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment. Personally I've always found it really bizarre when people put refs after a full stop - seems to me very strange to have a citation for something in a different sentence. Is it a US/UK difference? I notice that the line addressing this was only very recently added to WP:FOOTNOTE. Worldtraveller 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if it is...I typically use MLA Style and the MLA format for in-line citations is structured in much the same way as yours currently are. I don't think this is a problem, I just feel that we should standardize our formatting in the article since I've seen instances of the sentence.[1] format as well as the sentence [1]. format. Should be fairly easy. I can't realistically hold you to WP:FOOTNOTE anyway since it isn't Wikipedia MOS policy. AreJay 03:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quite comprehensive, writing is fine. Compares very favourably to the Venus FA. I'm personally indifferent, but I can imagine someone coming along and expecting an In Popular Culture section. Marskell 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've just done some cleanup edits that should have been done before the article was even nominated, but there are things I can't fix on my own. For example: there are no sources cited at all in the Early astronomers section, and the only reference in the Ground-based telescopic research section refers to events in the year 2000. The statements about the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew names need to be sourced. Ditto the claims about the Greek astronomers who figured out that "Apollo" and "Hermes" were the same body. Also, the section implies that the terms Morning Star and Evening Star referred to Mercury, while the disambig pages themselves indicate the terms referred to Venus. Angr (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks - I'll address those points later today. I saw you just changed all the citations from being before punctuation to after it - I have to say that positioning seems very illogical, and I'd only just last night made sure they were all before the punctutation, so I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes about this which you might want to weigh in on. Worldtraveller 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've always seen footnotes to the right of periods and commas in published work, both British and American. It's a matter of style, not logic. Another problem I have is with the sentence Mercury's smaller orbit means it is not much farther away, and the fuller phase more than outweighs its greater distance from Earth, which I can't understand at all. The context suggests that this sentence is supposed to be explaining why Mercury is brighter in its gibbous phase than in its full phase, but I don't see that it achieves that goal. I can't make any sense of it at all, not least because of all the comparative forms (smaller, farther, fuller, greater) that don't explain what's being compared (smaller/farther/fuller/greater than what?). Angr (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added references throughout the historical studies sections, and rewrote the part explaining why Mercury is brighter when further away - is it clearer now? Any further parts needing work? Thanks for your comments. Worldtraveller 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A place less hospitable than the US South! Very good article, very comprehensive, and very readable, given the scientific writing necessary for it. The Spacers do good work in general, and now PlanetaryTraveller has a good submission on the sun's meteor shield, from hornéd helmet to I. Ron Core. Formatting issues are formatting; they are after the content, and, while those with an interest in consistency can ask for consistency, they're surely not substantive objections. Geogre 14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great example of excellent prose in a scientific article. Joelito (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Indeed very clean, organized, and referenced. No problems here. --Jay(Reply) 00:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, excellent article. One little thing that I saw, though, was that the referencing format is not consistent. In parts, it uses a bare link after the formatted reference, and in others, it uses descriptive text as part of the link. It's something so trivial it doesn't merit opposing, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment, I'll sort it so references are consistent. Worldtraveller 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent read. Could you please convert the one or two red links that still remains in the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • only found one redlink, which I removed because it linked to something which probably wouldn't deserve its own article. Worldtraveller 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johann Schroter under Ground-Based Telescopic Research is still red. No idea who he is past an observer of Mercury, do what you will with it. --Keflavich 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, well spotted - I found that he already has an article, he was just lacking redirects - he's blue now. Worldtraveller 09:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illmatic[edit]

This article covers the topic completely. The hiphopwikiproject has worked extremely hard to bring it up to FA-status. Not only is it already a GA article, it is well written, accurate, and sourced as well --Chubdub 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - it looks great. --HasNoClue 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per nom. -- Tutmosis 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't like the excessive block quoting, but don't know enough about the subject matter to object. Is there any other way to cover this information? savidan(talk) (e@) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even as someone partial to pretty extensive quoting, the large, repeated block quotes here also make me a little nervous. I do wish it could be handled a little more elegantly, but it's not something I'd object over. Everyking 10:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any suggestions to improve the article's visual appeal. If I were to remove the block quotes, what would I replace them with? Chubdub 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom.--Fallout boy 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Crumbsucker 09:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you merge singles history with chart positions? Maybe just call it "singles", then?--Urthogie 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that I simply merge the two sections with both charts displayed? Or combine them into one chart?--Chubdub 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Combine.--Urthogie 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I see what you mean. But how do you suggest I include information regarding the singles (i.e. Label #, Music Video directors, etc.) into the chart as well. Chubdub 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the label # and music video director for each one is really not necessary, because label # is kind of a factoid (an external link to the record label at the bottom would be enough) and music video director is already listed once on the personell heading. Also, now that I think about it, the combined heading should be something like "Chart history".--Urthogie 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Chubdub 01:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, finally reached its destination. MOD 19:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. P.O.N.Y. 02:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - on the condition that: Reference is provided for the working cover art (headlock) and the Bow Wow quote. Also, is there any way there could be less quotes and the content could integrated in some other way - though this is not a condition of my support, just a comment. But yeah, try and find those two references. Great work! Cvene64 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the lead is too long and covers material that is not mentioed in the body of the article (like the album cover) - the longish quote in the lead is not really necessary either. The text could also use a copyedit to make the tone more encyclopedic (Despite, In fact etc.). On a minor point, refs go after punctuation, there is a mix of before and after throughtout.--nixie 05:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Lead, a lead should be no less than three paragraphs. P.O.N.Y. 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that.—jiy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that contain 30,000 or more characters require three or four paragraphs P.O.N.Y. 19:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that either. It says "The following specific suggestions have been proposed..." As with any guideline, WP:LEAD contains suggestions, not requirements. Furthermore, this article is medium in size, containing roughly 22,000 characters worth of prose, for which the guideline suggests 2-3 paragraphs. I agree with nixie that the lead needs to be trimmed of its superfluities and unique information (i.e. Jesus in a headlock, remastered edition).—jiy (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about now????--P.O.N.Y. 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think its too short. Seeing as the article is undergoing a major edit, I will not make any additions to the lead as of this momemnt. But more content and details needs to be added before admission. Chubdub 00:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- thanks for addressing my concerns, the adjustments you have made improve the flow of the text and have made the lead more direct and informative, the release addition is also a good improvement. On my last point, notes should follow punctuation, they all seem to do so following your adjustments to the article. Great work.--nixie 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - never seen a hip hop article that detailed Mike 14:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Yungmike513. Very nice work hiphopwikiproject.--Jonthecheet 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but two comments:
    • Could you make the Personnel section a table?
    • Try splitting the lead into two paragraphs, without removing any content from it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 is adressed. I'm sort of reluctant to make a Personnel tabel that has such limited information. But should we decide to make one, what should a Personnel tabel include? And how should it look like Chubdub 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane[edit]

Self-nom, largely, with a good deal of help from Bishonen and Ganymead. Peer Review. From the English Restoration until maybe the late 1800s, this London landmark was one of the most important theatres in the English-speaking world, and, still standing today (although it has been rebuilt three times), it is in some sense one of the oldest more-or-less-continuously operating theatres in the world. The article attempts to comprehensively cover the architecture, management, history, and notable performers and performances over 350 years. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Generally excellent. There are a lot of red links, but since I've never heard of Bishonen to actually work on a normal topic I'm not really surprised. RyanGerbil10 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. It's an outstanding article, but the footnotes require some formatting cleanup. Some have periods at the end, some don't; some sources aren't listed in the "References" section but just have a full citation directly in the footnote; "Ibid." is inconsistenly capitalized (and shouldn't, as far as I know, be italicized); and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that -- and will get to work fixing it -- except for "some sources aren't listed in the "References" section but just have a full citation directly in the footnote", which is intentional: sources referred to just once get listed in a footnote; sources cited multiple times are listed under References. As it so happens, this generally works out to put those sources which serve as more general-purpose references on the topic under "references"; also a good thing. Let me know if you really think that doing it this way is inappropriate or confusing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just personal preference. The advantage of listing all the sources—including those only used once—in a bibliography is that it allows one to examine the quality of the references more easily than by hunting through the entire notes section; but the number of footnotes in this case is small enough that it's probably not a problem to do it the other way. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the periods at the end consistent, and have eliminated all "ibid"s, since, as someone recently pointed out to me, they run the risk of "breaking" as editing continues on the page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The attempt itself is bold, and the achievement is notable. Bunchofgrapes had to get the microscopic knowledge of numerous editors and combine that with his own researches and hammer away, making the thing work, making each century proportional. Instead of not providing the expert information found in Bishonen's and my articles, Bunchofgrapes did specialist research on all the other eras and managed in a short time to accumulate and communicate exact and careful information on the life of the theatre. Very well done (and I was practically no help to the article). Geogre 12:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice theater-cruft; I tried to find flaws and couldn't. Everyking 08:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ahhhhh, what a pleasure to read. My own contribution to this lovely article has been miniscule, so I feel quite comfortable with supporting it. It's full of the most enticing cruft, and is well-proportioned and very well illustrated. I'm fascinated by the gorgeous painting of Drury Lane burning in 1809 <subliminal>bigger! make the image bigger! </subliminal>.Bishonen | talk 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Subliminal hint taken. I find most everything about the 1794–1809 theatre disproportionately fascinating. It would be tempting to write a sub-article on it alone. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brinsley Sheridan stood watching the fire with a glass of sherry in his hand. When people asked him how he could stand there so calmly, he said, "Can't a man enjoy a glass of sherry by his fire in peace?" If I could find a source for that anecdote, I'd have suggested it. Geogre 03:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should do one on all the versions of the theatre. Everyking 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very excellent article! --Slgrandson 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but one comment: What is "legitimate drama"? Is there a difference between legitimate drama and other kinds of drama? (In other words, if other theaters couldn't show legitimate drama at the time, did they only show comedies, farces, or...?) --Elkman - (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depended a lot on the period. The boundries were always being tested. I believe one of the most common loopholes was to put a few musicians on-stage and have them play a bit of music now and then during the performance (as opposed to only during the intermission) -- this made the show into something other than a drama, an opera perhaps. I will see if I can find anything succinct yet supportable to say about this, though I think trying to nail down the definition may be more crucial for patent theatre than for this article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Legitimate" = legal, not just "good." The legitimate theater is theater that won't get you busted and thrown in Newgate. There were always productions being done at irregular sites and plays that shouldn't be performed, and there were some longstanding cases of salutory neglect. For example, the various fairs had plays put on, but these were not, strictly speaking, legal. The authorities tended to ignore them. (Imagine trying an arrest of players in the middle of Bartholomew Fair, and you'll see why.) You could throw up some planks and lay down a cloth and act, but you could be prosecuted for it. The patent theaters were the ones that had permission to put on plays. A consequence of this legitimacy is that the illegitimate theaters put on lower quality plays with slapdash values, and thus "legitimate theater" began to mean "good theater." Geogre 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further explanation: the default position was "plays are illegal." Coming out of the Interregnum and the closing of all theatres, putting on a play needed special permission. Even in Shakespeare's day, there were serious laws against "strolling," and players were considered vagrants, for the most part, or worse. Geogre 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see now. Actually, now that I read more closely, it says it was a patent theatre that was entitled to show "legitimate drama". Maybe a little more introduction would be warranted for people who aren't familiar with the subject matter. --Elkman - (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-We need more articles that support the Classics in this day of "If it wasn't made 3 Seconds Ago, its no good! --Ghirla -трёп- 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very interesting and informative. One minor point. Can't some of those numerous refs be doubled up into "a" "b" "c" etc. I don't know how to do it, but ALoan does. Giano | talk 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Kim[edit]

After two weeks on the peer review, which did not produce any strong critical objections (suggestions on image placement have been dealt with), I am nominating it here. This is my first major work on Wikipedia, started more than a year ago, which undergone many changes and additions since then. I have read some biographical featured articles, and I think, that it is now at least not worse, than they are. Although I cannot compare their prose well enough, because my English is not perfect. I would like to see it featured one day. How long should I go for it, depends on your comments, guys (unless I leave Wikipedia before I achieve this). You are welcome! Cmapm 21:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the trivia section or find a way to incorporate the facts into the articles. Btw the images look better and don't leave Wikipedia. --Osbus 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed it into "Other facts". I did not incorporate them at least so far, because I have no idea, where does the first one belong to. If it is not OK, I'll think more on this. Thank you for the support! Fortunately, now I have no reasons to leave Wiki so far, but I am not sure for the future. Cmapm 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Other Facts is much better than Trivia, but it isn't as good as having the facts in the articles. I looked at the facts, and it can be included. The first one can go under Early Life, and the second can go under Later Life. --Osbus 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've just introduced these changes into the article. Cmapm 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks right to me. Cvene64 07:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd kill the "Navigation" section heading above the templates. And move the "This article contains information from..." to the References or External links and format appropriately. I assume you used information from all of the sources you've listed, so there's no reason to give this one special billing. Nice work eliminating the Trivia section. :-) --NormanEinstein 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I find these to be very good catches! All the more, that the header was removed from another article a couple of days ago by some user, and I was indeed a bit worrying about it. I'll later fix this in other biographical articles too. I not just used the information from all sources listed in other places, but I fixed mistakes from Gymnast.ru using Gymn-forum.com article (2nd ext.link). That template seems to be inappropriate any more indeed. Thank you very much for your help! Cmapm 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I'd like to express a minor concern about fair use which isn't something I know much about(somone who knows more should look into this). Specifically, given that we have a small image of Kim, can we justify the larger image as fair use? JoshuaZ 04:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comment. Well, there are no restrictions on the image size in {{Non-free fair use in}} template, used to tag it. I believe, that all the requirements, provided in the template are satisfied. E.g., the second one is satisfied, because 1. the small image is non-free one; 2. smaller image doesn't give any information on one of the main issues in the article: Nellie Kim's competitive appearances. Besides, we have some precedents of two or more than two fair-use images in a FA, e.g. Iron Maiden (includes four large fair-use images), Miles Davis, Sandy Koufax. However, if somewhere in the future it eventually turns out, that usage of these two images together is not right, I would suggest to leave the largest one, as much more informative. Cmapm 10:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Neutral because of citations. I added {{fact}} in one spot, and I'll look for other places where more are needed. Are there any newspaper articles on this gymnast, for example? Also, the third citation is a direct quote from the source ([15]), but that isn't marked. I'd suggest finding some other sources (like newspapers, magazines, etc.) that talk about the world's reaction to her at the olympics, and put those views together in a well-developed paragraph. The one print reference is nice, but it's also written in Russian. Please give some print sources in English if possible. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added two print citations, but haven't properly expanded the text to take advantage of them. Would it be alright if I changed the citation method from {{ref}} to m:Cite/Cite.php? I'm having difficulty with reference numbering and such. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the comment and citations! I think, it would be OK to change the reference format, if the text will appear the same as it is now. In another case, it seems, that "cite.php" format is not mandatory in Wiki. I've looked to the article's version before your edits, and I saw, that the third quote was marked (if you are speaking about this one:"Her gymnastic appearances are remembered for her strong feminine, temperamental and charismatic appeal"), maybe it's not the third, but it is another one? As concerns print citations, I had a problem with them... The main library of our country almost does not contain English newspapers of that period and it does not contain at least sports magazines (only a couple of "Sports Illustrated" for 1973 or so). So, I mostly relied on online English sources and her printed Russian book. And I didn't find more info about the reaction to her performance in English, than I provided there. It seems, that her Russian book contains some additional info, but I already cited it in many places. One more "printed" info is available online [16]. But once again, it's the Soviet source too. May be some piece should be removed or reworded, if you don't find it to be right.
By the way, more info exists in online English sources. If you feel, that the article is not comprehensive or is not neutral, I'll try to fix that, just say... If you don't know, how to incorporate some info, then, please, provide it on the article's Talk Page, I'll think of this (or we can think together). Thank you for your help with the article!
P.S. I provided all requested citations. Cmapm 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "marked" in the sense of using quotation marks (since the it's a direct quote from the source that's given). I understand that it can be difficult to get some types of references. There's more information in one of the sources I have (the New York Times article), so I'll try to incorporate more of that in the next few days. I might also have time to look at some old sports magazines and see what they have to say. As for reference style, it's true that cite.php isn't mandatory, but I tend to think it's easier to use when adding references. I'll see how many more there are to add from any sources I find. One more thing—I have a reference that says that she served as the Vice President of the Belarus Gymnastics team or something like that (at least it was vice president of something related to Belarus) as of I believe 1998. Would that be worth including? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thanks for the good catch! I fixed that... I've looked into the article Diane Keaton, where "cite.php" is used and that style seems to be nice, especially those "a,b..." for multiple links to the same source, although it's still a bit distracting to me due to long reference "sentences", incorporated into the text. But it seems to be better, than the current one. Feel free to change it, or probably I'll change it myself, when I figure out how to convert the current style into it. It would be very nice, if you include more printed facts! As concerns Belarus, one related fact is already mentioned, but perhaps more should be worth inclusion in my view. Thank you for all your ongoing help! Cmapm 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cædmon[edit]

I am resubmitting this article for review, as I think most of the objections that can be answered have been. The main outstanding one is the request that no references be made in the article lead. I've played around with it, but not found a solution. I'm wondering if it maybe isn't that severe a problem. Here's a link to the previous discussion page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cædmon/FACarchive1 - Daniel.odonnell 16:09, April 19, 2006

  • Don't forget to add the 4 tildes (~~~~) :-) The notes aren't that important, though if we could incorporate the facts into the article it would be great. Lead looks fine - good summary (helps with working towards 1.0). I can't agree with bunchofgrapes objection, the method of layout for this person is necessary because, from what I read in the text, their isn't that much non-legendary and undisputed material about his life. The most significant thing about Caedmon is really what he wrote, not so much his life itself. I think we need to take into account that this is not a modern day notable person we are documenting here. Maru's comments are also interesting, but I think somewhat misplaced. I have modidifed the text that deals with "most beautiful verse" to note that it was really Bede who said this. I hope I didn't alter your meaning! If this is wrong, feel free to revert. The ironic comment is not that bad, but if we could rephrase I would appreciate it (call me difficult). Other than that, I Support - fantastic work! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response (green="accepted and fixed"; red="rejected")
  • The ironic comment is not that bad, but if we could rephrase I would appreciate it (call me difficult): I've removed the "perhaps ironically". Not a hill to die on.
  • The notes aren't that important, though if we could incorporate the facts into the article it would be great: To be honest the notes in the lead are there to answer a couple of peripheral questions that readers might have but are outside the scope of the article--e.g. the number of named poets, etc. Adding them to the main body would drive the article out off the road, IMO. But not mentioning them would be a shame. In the case of footnote 2 and 3, they are an artefact of the referencing system. I've rewritten the relevant section of the lead and the main body to get rid of notes 2 and 3. dpod 22:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. --Osbus 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. 2-sentence pgraphs are too short. expand them or merge them or rewrite them or restructure. dont have any sections with only one subsection (ie "other medieval sources"). non-standard heading sizes. shorten title of "source and analogues to the caedmon story" as it stretches TOC too much. "heliand", "general corpus" and "manuscript evidence" pgraphs too long. this reference makes no sense: "——————————. 2005. Cædmon’s Hymn, A multimedia study, edition, and witness archive. SEENET A. 7. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. ". "notes" should be before "works cited", which should be renamed "references". recheck formatting of note 25 and 28. lead should better summarize the content of the whole article. Zzzzz 23:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response (green="accepted and fixed"; red="rejected")
  • 2-sentence pgraphs are too short. expand them or merge them or rewrite them or restructure.: There is one two sentence paragraph in the piece (the first paragraph in Sources and analogues), and one one sentence paragraph (the last paragraph in Bede's account). If one were to combine the two sentence paragraph with the paragraph that follows it, one would have a paragraph that is 15 lines line--three lines longer than the Heliand paragraph you think is too long. Perhaps more importantly, the one sentence and the two sentence paragraphs are conclusions and introductions respectively. These a rhetorically distinct from the evidence that follows. Finally, paragraph is a logical/rhetorical unit rather than a visual one. While it is true that newspapers split paragraphs visually, most other genres don't except in extreme cases--which these are not.
  • dont have any sections with only one subsection (ie "other medieval sources"): This seems to me a request to sacrifice clarity to the Balaal of style. I tried it [17], but it produced a wall o' prose. The Heliand is widely recognised as a potentially special case among analogues to the Caedmon story. It seems not unreasonable to name it in the TOC and outline. Especially given your comment on the length of the paragraph it seemed unwise to make it worse.
  • non-standard heading sizes: how? The heading size is controlled by the CSS. The heading structure is sensible, so I don't know what you mean.
  • source and analogues to the caedmon story: I've renamed the section "sources and analogues" albeit with trepidation: in Caedmon's case there are two distinct scholarly discussions about sources and analogues: one about Bede's account, and another about the hymn. However, the outline should suggest at this point that we are talking about the biography, not the poem. As long as we realise that we are introducing ambiguity in our content in order not to stretch the TOC box too much visually, I'm reluctantly ok with this. Seems a bit of an odd choice to priviledge form over content, I must say, though.
  • this reference makes no sense: This reference is absolutely standard Chicago style... a recognised Wikipedia style guide. Are you really saying that you've never seen an author name replaced by a bar? If this is so, it makes one wonder about the range of genres behind your other style pronouncements. As a professional humanist and the son of a physicist married to a social scientist, I can assure you it's standard across the disciplines!
See also: WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. The style in this article is quite standard for the discipline.
While the use of the bar is certainly appropriate in printed works, it is not a good idea in wikipedia articles because if another editor comes along and inserts a reference between the two existing references (i.e., between the one with the name of the author and the one with the bar), the false impression will be created that the bar indicates the name of the author of the newly inserted work, rather than the name of the real author. Because of this, I have replaced both occurrences of the bar in the "References" section with the names of the respective authors. Polaris999 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*"notes" should be before "works cited": this is something to take up with the template authors: as per wikipedia style (which I hate) references have been tagged using <ref</ref> rather than the simpler and cross-disciplinary inline style prefered by pretty much all professional style guides. The location of "notes" is automatically determined by the template: the template places them last. Thanks to Polaris99 who fixed this.
  • "works cited", which should be renamed "references": the current section title is standard bibliographic practice--in fact straight Chicago. While I don't care myself what they are called (as long as they are not called bibliography), style guides exist to regularise choices; given the problems you have with a bar replacing an author name, I'm not sure I should take this as an authoritative pronouncement on style.
See also: WP:CITE#How_to_cite_sources. The style in this article is quite standard for the discipline.
I also have no personal preference as to whether the section in question should be called "works cited" or "references", but it is rather established wikipedia style for it to be called "references". (I just did a random check of 20 Featured Articles and observed that all 20 of them use the term "references" ...) Polaris999 05:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources and noticed that the section in question is labelled "References" there. This persuades me that wikipedia style prefers "References" and I am therefore going to make this change in the Cædmon article, which may, of course, be reversed if others disagree ... Polaris999 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • recheck formatting of note 25 and 28.: Thanks.
  • lead should better summarize the content of the whole article: de gustibus non est disputandum: I tried changing it even though I don't think it is a problem and had the changes rolled back. Some people at least seem to think it isn't a bad summary of the important points.

dpod 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Support All of my reservations have been addressed, so I now give this outstanding article my wholehearted support. -- Polaris999 05:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where the appropriate place to put this note would be, so am inserting it here. I had been expecting dpod to come onto this page and comment on the fact that I have resolved two of the concerns listed above by Zzzzz, and either approve or disapprove the changes I made. But, since dpod doesn't seem to be around at present, I think that I should mention that the concerns this reference makes no sense and "works cited", which should be renamed "references" have been addressed – satisfactorily, I hope. I also made an effort to address another concern mentioned by Zzzzz, i.e.: lead should better summarize the content of the whole article, but do not know to what extent I may have succeeded ... Polaris999 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (band)[edit]

This is a self nomination for an article on Genesis, an English progressive rock band. The article has gone through a peer review and suggestions arising from PR discussions have been incorporated into the article. AreJay 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. In the band's info box, the pic shows several people. But under members, there are only two listed. --Osbus 14:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the infobox is the band's original lineup. The two people listed are the only ones who are known to have not "left" Genesis. Everyone else has left/been dismissed. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)
D-Day is almost right. The two people listed (Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford) are the only ones known to have not "left" Genesis. The image, though, is not the original lineup; it is however the lineup that made Genesis famous and the lineup that progressive rock fans are most likely to identify Genesis with. Hope this helps. AreJay 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for correcting me. I knew that too. Guess I need to put away my U2 and Soundtrack of Our Lives CDs and listen to these guys full-time again. :? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a past members field, you should use it. See Brilliant (band) for an example. Currently according to the infobox Genesis is and always has been a duo. --kingboyk 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hadn't noticed the "past-members" variable in the template. Past members have been added to the infobox now! AreJay 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree there. This sentence is from the Criticism section. Most critiques are based on opinions and not on facts. Valid or invalid, this is an opinion that many listeners of Genesis hold, and should therefore be represented in the article. AreJay 23:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even still, if you're going to assert general opinion, it still requires a citation or a reference. Find a credible source from a magazine, newspaper, or some other music guide to substantiate claims such as the one above. Wisdom89 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I am in the process of locating a corresponding reference. AreJay 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the appropriate reference. Actually, I had already added the references a few sentences down since those sentences pertained to the same topic. I have now added the same in-line reference to the above mentioned statement. AreJay 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Image concerns. Two are sourced only to a defunct FTP server, giving us no information on the copyright holder. Taking random images from a fileserver because one likes them fails Wikipedia:Fair use. Two other images look very much like scans of posters, with what looks like permission only from the individual who scanned them. Scanning an image does not create a new licensing opportunity. Jkelly 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I will replace the images from the fileserver and the scans. AreJay 23:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one image was from the defunct FTP server. I scanned the other image from a book (I have updated the source information in the image tag). AreJay 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed and replaced images with questionable sources or clarified the image source where appropriate. Jkelly, please review. AreJay 00:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comprehensive and well written.I would also sugest adding the PD photos to the Commons and creating a page there.--Fallout boy 05:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on this. Thanks. AreJay 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! AreJay
  • Conditional Support - The article is good and well structured, but there are a lot of supurlatives. For example, it would be improper to describe "Supper's Ready" as the groups magnum opus - is that song the most famous and popular the group ever did? And saying "Some fans were unable to appreciate Gabriel's theatrics" suggests that it is the fault of the fans for not understanding Gabriel. Do you understand what I mean? This article has a lot of slant for the band, as if to suggest that everything they did was excellent and it is the fault of the listeners if they did not like or enjoy it. Support, all my concerns addressed. TheImpossibleMan 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did some online research and it looks like opinion is divided as to whether or not "Supper's Ready" was indeed their magnum opus. Some fans and critics feel that that title belongs to the 1975 concept album The Lamb Lies down on Broadway. I have therefore replaced that phrase. As far as the sentence about Gabriel's theatrics, now that you mention it, it does sound rather POV, although I did not mean for the sentence to be construed this way. I have removed that sentence as well. I am currently reviewing the article for subtle phrases or sentences that might convey a slant towards the band. I'll get back with you once that's done. Thanks for taking the time to review the article! AreJay 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up some of the verbiage that was giving the impression that it was the audiences fault that they couldn't understand Gabriel's theatrics. I have tried to eliminate "slant" towards the band as well. Please let me know if this works. AreJay 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on the PR. I still hate MLA, but you're right, there's no WP guideline to suggest it over any other format. :) All my concerns in the PR were addressed, so I can't very well have any others here. Great work. - dharmabum 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A[edit]

Self-nom More USA PATRIOT Act goodness. As it turns out, I am now documenting possibly the driest, and lengthiest, title of the Act. The umbrella article is still very much a work in progress, but I have finished documenting Title III, Subtitle A. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Too many subdivisions and I don't think many people would want to read the every single clause. It also doesn't tell what the Patriot Act is in a nutshell. EKN 15:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN[reply]
    • Ummm... the second part is not actionable as the article is not about the entire USA PATRIOT Act. The first part, IMO, is also not actionable because this is a detailed breakdown of part of the PATRIOT Act. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - The lead is not a summary of the article, in that the lead talks about being passed by congress, that it's a response to 9/11, how it's organized, and then a summary of the text. The article, however, contains nothing BUT a summary of the text. Additionally, the lead needs to be expanded to three paragraphs. The article is also a little long, and you might want to consider splitting it up a bit for summary style's sake, but I'm not going to push on this point too much yet- it depends how the article looks after it has been properly expanded. Similarly, it'd be nice to have some images, but I can understand how that might be difficult for an article on a dry topic. On the other hand, if you do expand the article in the ways it needs to be expanded as I mentioned above, there could be opportunity for images-- news images of congress debating, for instance, or 9/11 photos, or things like that. It may be possible to get images depicting things in the text of the act itself? Have any court cases made the news because of the things described in these sections? Fieari 16:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I can work on some of these things. Allow me to address each in turn:
    1. The lead needs to give a very brief one liner about the main PATRIOT Act. This is what I have done for the featured article Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II. I can rename it if you would like. The fact that this is a summary of the text is signficant because that is the purpose of the article: to explain the act in plainer language. I'd like to point out that it is more than just a summary, however. At least one of the sections also summarises a report that was done by the U.S. Treasury Dept. Did you read this?
    2. It's not really too long. 40KB is not that bad - there are longer articles like Windows 2000. And of course, this article was already split from USA PATRIOT Act, Title III.
      • Just want to comment that comparing it to longer articles does not justify its length. Some topics require longer articles but it doesn't mean that any 40kb article is an appropriate length. Worldtraveller 21:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Why does the lead need to be expanded into 3 sections?
    4. You state that "if you do expand the article in the ways it needs to be expanded as I mentioned above". You haven't mentioned how it could be expanded at all! I'm all ears if you could tell me however.
    5. Images? Almost impossible for such a specific topic.
    6. Court cases... good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, had a look for court cases. The problem is that Title III modified so many different things. However, I did do a search on FindLaw and I can't find any cases that are relevant. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry. By "how it should be expanded" I mean that everything that is in the lead section, should be detailed further in the body of the article. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't also in the article itself, with more detail. At the very least, the article body should have an "Introduction" heading that details the things mentioned in the lead with a bit more detail.
    • The reason the lead needs to be expanded to three paragraphs is due to the MoS, which all FAs should follow. See: WP:LEAD. Basically, the larger the article, the larger the lead.
    • 40kb isn't too bad, true, but with expansion, it might get a bit unmanagable. The key however isn't flat size, but how things are organized. If it can't be split further, it can't be split further, and that's fine. I'm just saying to keep an eye out for places that could conceivably be split. I'm not objecting on this point however, so don't worry too much about it.
    • Fieari 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless the MoS has changed since I've been at Wikipedia, I don't believe that the lead will need to be expanded unduly. However, Wikipedia:Lead section as always states that this is a guideline. The text is neatly summarised in the last paragraph of the lead section - any more expansion IMO is not necessary. However, you may see some areas that you may think needs expansion in the lead. If that is the case, please tell me and I'll get to work. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All I can say to Ta Bu Shi Da Yu is that I am glad someone is doing it, someone needs to say what is in the PATRIOT ACT, and I'm glad it's not me because it looks really boring. I can't tell if its patriotism or obsession, but whatever, it is, its awesome. Keep up the good work. RyanGerbil10 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Obsession (can't be patriotism, I don't live in the U.S.). Thanks for the positive feedback! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - sorry, I know that you spent a lot of work on this but I feel that it isn't compelling, even brilliant prose; I got very bored very quickly. Additionally, section titles shouldn't be more than 1 line long (I feel that this is very ugly, especially in the TOC). Also, the lack of secondary sources is giving me pause for thought. --Celestianpower háblame 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject is inherently boring, so there isn't anything I can do about that. The secondary sources: if you could point me to some that specifically address Subtitle A, I would appreciate it! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to make things clear. I don't believe your first criticism (the "boring"ness of the article) is inactionable. Your second, on the other hand, is actionable. Whether the last can be fixed is another issue - I'm not sure these sources exist. --Oldak Quill 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't really make anything clearer. What in particular is it about this article that is boring? I have some writing skill, if you could point out how you would like it to be changed then I'll do my best! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Secondary sources do exist in law review and practitioner journal articles. But trust me, they're likely to be even more boring than the Act itself.Amcfreely 05:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not the point - they can be boring as anything, they're only there to back up what's said in the text. See WP:RS. --Celestianpower háblame 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems good, nice level of detail and seemingly thorough referencing. Accuracy and detail are what really matter, and whether something is interesting to read is secondary; besides, the subject is by its nature rather dry. If you want the information, this article appears well suited to providing it. Everyking 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as per RyanGerbil10 and Everyking Chuck 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks very nice Tuf-Kat 06:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One of the benefits of this article is that it could explain the law in plainer language. By and large it succeeds, but look out for sentences like "An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — by being influenced for any official act, who is influenced to allow or collude with any fraudulent act, or who is induced to take or not take some action which is in violation of the person's official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question". Tuf-Kat 06:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Everyking Amcfreely 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support say what you want about Ta bu shi da yu's esoteric interests (and most objectors do) but the article is superbly written. Great work. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundamentally object - I originally left this point as a comment further up but on reflection I feel it's actually a major objection: I do not think a detailed breakdown of an act is actually something an encyclopaedia should contain. I think a very different sort of article should be at this title, explaining how the act arose, the implications of it, results of it, opinions of it, but a clause by clause breakdown of it actually isn't even encyclopaedic, no matter how well it might be written. Worldtraveller 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2006&oldid=381874786"