Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2007

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind[edit]

Thanks to a helpful review from what was formerly the Computer and Video Games Wikiproject and useful comments from visitors to the talk page, I am ready to submit The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind for featured article candidacy. I have hoped to be as comprehensive and bring in as many relevant sources as possible, following the recommendations of that first CVG peer review. I have also aimed to keep the style of the article up to code, although this is an area in which I am of unsure footing, and of limited expertise. I had hoped that the standard peer review would have helped me on this point, but no kindly copy-editor thought to drop by. That said, I will be glad to receive your stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - One of the best computer games articles I have seen for a long time to appear on FAC, and one of the few that I'm going to support. Incredibly comprehensive and uses a wide range of sources. I have a few suggestions to make though:
    • It could do with some more "non free" media. I know some guys don't like it, but frankly those guys just bore me. It could do well by having a screenshot of first person combat in game, as well as the inventory screen showing all the attributes etc.
    • The soundtrack was rubbish in that there were only like 5 tracks and the Cliff Racers always set one of them off. But the theme is pretty iconic and is used again in later games. A 30 second snippet of the theme would be useful to have in the article.
    • A bit too much seems to be made of Lynda Carter's contribution to the voice cast. I don't really think it matters when Bethesda announced they had hired her.
    • You cite a few reviews from publications such as Computer Gaming World and GamePro, fairly major publications which could also do with the score in the reviews box.
Thank you very much for the support Hahnchen! I hope I was able to address your suggestions. I've added two screenshots: one of the first person combat, and another of the windowed interface. (I actually have a fuller description of the game's interface in the Morrowind subsection of the "Gameplay" subpage") I added an audio sample of the title theme. (It's my first, so I wasn't really sure where to cut it. It's quite a heady experience, creating audio samples! ;) ) The Lynda Carter miscellany has been trimmed, and GamePro's score has been added to the review box. I'm afraid I wasn't able to find CGW's score, since the only version of the article I read was the one uploaded to "Find Articles", and that version doesn't have a score. Sorry. :(
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and another thanks for supporting! Geuiwogbil 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You found the CGW score on the Game Rankings page! Sorry for missing that. Geuiwogbil 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article's material is done as well as possible. Few things it could use would be related to slight gradual expansion, however it already has all that's necessary. The article is also written with a serious approach, extensively discussing not just the game from a player's viewpoint, but giving a good overview of the game's reception, influence and position in gamedev field. It has a concise and summarizing plot section, while giving much attention to actual information not found in the game, and sections on gameplay detail put them into perspective of the overall game development and progress. This is the kind of article one would expect to find in a printed general encyclopedia, reviewing the game in full context, making it interesting by itself, as a report on a piece of game history, and not just as guide. Lots of detail go into history and achievements, providing detailed and well referenced analysis and overview. So it might serve as an example of how a serious game article should look like. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support and kind comments, CP\M. Geuiwogbil 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very excellent article, you've really taken it to the top in the last few weeks! I wish I had the time to make the Oblivion article look half as good. --PresN 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support PresN. If it hadn't been for your GA nomination of the page, I would never have taken the time to be here! You've done good work on the Oblivion article, and it's much cleaner now than it was before you started. Thanks, again, for your prior comments and current support. Geuiwogbil 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Surface weather analysis[edit]

Since there have been positive comments on the talk page since it earned GA, and no reported problems so far, I have nominated this article for FA, which would be the first FA for one of the core meteorology project articles. It appears stable. Thegreatdr 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - inadequate sourcing. Addhoc 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where specifically do you think additional sourcing is needed? Thegreatdr 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example - the first three citations link to a non-functioning website and the publisher of this site isn't mentioned. Addhoc 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replaced the dead links with a primary source. Thegreatdr 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Addhoc 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Found a random cite book ref and changed it to fit the ref format used in the remainder of the article. Thegreatdr 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; you mention the use of SWA in aviation in the lede, but the article never goes on to discuss this subject; perhaps a short section is in order. Also, in the first section, you cite the time standardisation info as (W.S.R.), but you never state what this refers to. This cite should be converted to a ref format. Laïka 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the reference to standard time. Thanks for catching that problem with aviation being missed in the body of the article...will add that shortly. Thegreatdr 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A section has been added for aviation. Thegreatdr 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; ideally this image should be an SVG, but it's very tricky to make a copy of the image, given that the symbols used by the NOAA really are that pixellated, and the images themselves aren't really a reason to oppose an FA so long as they add to it, which this one does. Laïka 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a good article, but I have just one question before I support, why is Dry Line bolded in the article? Darthgriz98 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than it being also in the title of the section, there was no good reason. That part of the structure preexisted my upgrade of the article some months back. Since only fronts was bolded in such a manner, I have removed both bolded words/phrases. Thegreatdr 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to see a few more citations, some of the sections have none at all like the front section. Darthgriz98 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be more thoroughly referenced now. Let me know if you see any spots where additional references would be helpful. Thegreatdr 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support looks fine. I did not give this article as well of a look over as I should have, if you can get this copy-edited I will remove the conditional. Darthgriz98 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has come a long way since being placed up for FAC. DarthGriz98 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; not at all ready for FAC. Inadquate WP:LEAD, numerous short stubby sections, headings use special character (/) (see WP:MSH), large chunks of uncited text in history, inconsistent wikilinking (first occurrences should be linked), numerous terms introduced for which red links should be created or articles should already exist, WP:MOSNUM issues on temperature ranges, multiple See also templates at head of section which should be combined. I suggest an extended stint at WP:PR to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the problems with the wikilinks, special character, and the one spot where I saw multiple seealsos in the same section. I believe I fixed the problem with the one temperature range listed. More references have been added to the history section, as requested. I combined a couple of the stubby sections into other related sections. Worked on the lead some as well. Which links/articles that are not linked to you think should be created? Is there anything left that is problematic with the lead? I need more than inadequate to go on. Thegreatdr 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is the heading Synoptic Scale Features all in caps (see WP:MSH — and why are those terms not defined until a later section? Reference formatting is not consistent at all; I can't discern which style is used. Please see WP:CITE/ES. Some retrieval dates are wikilinked; others not. Solo years should not be wikilinked. Short, stubby sections have now been replaced by some massive paragraphs; for example, the middle of the Fronts section. Does it make sense that no terms used in "Plotted symbols on weather maps" or "Pressure centers" are wiki-linked? There are also a lot of terms in "Fronts" that aren't linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The various fronts have now been wikilinked. All dates within refs are now wikilinked. The massive paragraphs and lead section have been restructured per specific comments in the peer review page. The subheading is also fixed. Thegreatdr 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 1a, 1c and 2a. The lead, inadequate in scope and length, provides ample evidence that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing, preferably by someone with fresh eyes.
    • "Specific", not "specified", I think.
    • "The first weather maps in the 19th century were drawn in order to devise a theory on storm systems.[2]" A number of problems. So there were weather maps in the 18th century, but they weren't drawn for this purpose? (Needs proper use of commas to convey the intended meaning.) "In order to" is my pet hate. Why use three words when just "to" will do? Are you sure the maps were drawn for the purpose of devising a theory? Reference 2 doesn't" say that at all.
    • "such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, cloud cover, and others"—Why two subset terms: one at the start and one at the end?
    • "The data are measurements"—No, they're the result of measurements.
    • "the map's domain"—no, just "the area".

That's the first half of the para. Tony 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Tony. A bad reference was mistakenly left in during the reorganization of the lead yesterday. That problem was easily fixed. If you know of weather maps drawn in the 18th century (1701-1800), please let me know and provide an appropriate citation. The small word problems you noted have been fixed. Thegreatdr 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Tony, this article could use a good copy-edit by somebody not familiar with the article. I won't withdraw my support because I think it can be done, but it still needs editing work before it can be FA. Darthgriz98 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you lodged a Support of the article above ?? 1a (compelling prose) is a requirement for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not give the text as well as a look over as I had thought in addition to the comments I had about citations. Darthgriz98 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to give the text a look over tonight, but I would suggest enlisting the help of the League of Copyeditors. Darthgriz98 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments made at this articles recently started peer review. Leave any responses there please.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has come a long way since peer review started. Check out the changes and see what you think. Thegreatdr 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—It's not hard to find problems in the prose, still. Take this one: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but they can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits into two streams, with the resultant mesoscale convective system (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." Hyphen problems (three, I think); far too long; redundant words. Tony 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parsed the run-on sentence and slightly reworded to make it sound more encyclopedaic. Thegreatdr 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my suggested improvements have been made during peer review. I see no reason not to support this article as a Featured Article anymore.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

William Goebel[edit]

Self-nomination: I finally have the images to take this from good to featured status. I believe it meets all the criteria, and would appreciate your support. Acdixon 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought that images were not required for GA or FA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't, but they help. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And shouldn't the citations list the specfic pages in the book? I don't know the exact rules for this, but it might be needed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to cut down on the length of the References section, I just included the book itself in the cite. If you find a policy that says it is required, I suppose I'll have to withdraw this nom until I can check the books out from the library again. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize it's a pain to do at this point, but see FA's like Daniel Boone, the citation to the page number really helps should anyone want to fact check or get more information. It's really not a strict requirement for FA status, it's ultimately up to the participants in a given FAC to deem whether the citations are good enough. --W.marsh 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is indeed a big pain but it's most definitely preferable. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have provided chapter names for all book references except Klotter and Woodson. Most of those chapters are a page or less, with none of them being more than 10 pages. I will be on business for the next couple of weeks and won't be able to get back to the library to get the Klotter and Woodson books. Since this is not a strict requirement for FA, would you all consider supporting this nom in spite of the page numbering issue? Acdixon 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well referenced, well researched, well written, a credit to wikipedia that satisfies all the criteria. --Wingsandsword 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing to Support. Lots of reasons. It's a mess.
    • Let's start with the lead. What's he notable for? Being controversial, being assassinated. Great that's in the first sentence - but that's it! Can't we have at least something more on that in the lead, rather than his voice and his sex life, or rather, lack of it, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the article body? I'd dump the entire second paragraph, and replace with a bit more on, oh, the duel, the election law, the assassination and aftermath, his actual politics ... you know, the stuff the rest of the article is about, per WP:LEAD.
      • I have attempted to improve the lead, but this is admittedly my weakest Wikipedia skill. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Par 1: Born Wilhelm how did he become William? Spoke German ... meaning only German?
    • Par 2: "Goebel's father moved the family to Covington, Kentucky, on his return from military service in 1863. He attended school in Covington, and became an apprentice to a jeweler in Cincinnati, Ohio." - the meaning of "He" changes in two consecutive sentences!
    • How did he study law under Stevenson? In college, in law school, private tutoring, on-the-job training? Was Stevenson a teacher after being a governor? Our article on him doesn't say. Aha ... "rejoined Stevenson's practice" - when did he join it the first time?
      • Clarified as much as possible with the sources I have available. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath By James C. Klotter, page 7 on Google Books implies strongly that page 6, which it doesn't present, is what you want here. Do you have the actual work, or just Google Books?
          • I had the actual book. I returned it to the library, but will try to obtain it again when I return from the business trip I am currently on. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am presently sitting in the library with the book in my lap. I have clarified the text as much as I am able from what Klotter has written. Acdixon 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Political career - "However, while Goebel had to stick close to his allies in the Democratic party, the Union Labor party courted the vote of Republicans, and made the election close" - why was this a problem? Normally, when you run as the candidate of party A, and a third party siphons off votes from party B, that's not a bad thing for you, that's a good thing!
    • In fact, we sorely need the sentence "He was a Democrat" somewhere prominent in the article, besides the infobox. That's kind of important in an article on a politician.
    • James W. Bryan, John Lawrence Sanford, Wat Hardin, William Stone - so many names without wikilinks?
      • I will wikilink them if redlinks are preferable to no links. I'm sorry no one has taken the time to write articles on these men. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Presumably you're at least somewhat knowledgeable about them. Use your judgment as to which would make good articles. For those, yes, red links would be preferable to no links. If all someone is known for is as an unsuccessful political candidate, probably not. If they did something else, probably yes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only one of the group that is listed in The Kentucky Encyclopedia (a 984 page tome of most important people, places, and concepts related to Kentucky) is Wat Hardin, and the highest office to which he was elected was Attorney General of Kentucky. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This system, however, proved to be just as manipulable" - Why the "however"? - since it passed by sharp party lines, it seems clear it was intended to be manipulated, only by the Dems instead of by the Reps.
      • Not sure I agree with this assessment, but it doesn't damage the sentence to remove the word. Done. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When the plan was exposed," what does "exposed" mean? Written about in a newspaper?
      • Clarified, I hope. With that many delegates talking about it, word was going to get out. It is possible that spreading the word was deliberate to entice Hardin to drop out, but none of my sources confirm or deny that speculation. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Stone had been stabbed in the back" - overly colorful language in an article involving a couple of actual shootings
      • Corrected.
    • Why did "three hand-picked Goebel Democrats, ruled 2–1 in favor of Taylor"? needs explanation
      • No kidding. I said it was a surprise decision. None of the authors I have found even offered speculation as to why. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. I guess if you say so...
        • I have provided the official explanation given by the board, per Klotter. This still doesn't explain it for me, since the questionable tactics used throughout the campaign suggest that the Board was able to do whatever it pleased. Still, perhaps this will add some closure for you and any other concerned reviewers. Acdixon 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For several days, the state hovered on the brink of civil war." Surely not. Each side seriously considered raising troops and fighting it out on the field of battle, for the governorship of 1900 Kentucky? Where would the US Army be during all this? Just a bit of overstatement there.
      • This is the language invoked by James Klotter and Lowell Harrison, two extremely prominent Kentucky historians. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In a final act of defiance, the governor's body was carried" - whose final act? Goebel directed this? If so, say so. In what way was it defiant anyway?
      • Goebel spent his career fighting against the Louisville and Nashville railroad, which is mentioned in the political career section. Goebel's body was carried on the rival railroad's line. Klotter does not mention who orchestrated this. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The idea of Beckham as governor" - who? What? This is first mention of Beckham in the text! If he became governor, surely he deserves a Wikipedia article and wikilink.
      • Clarified. An oversight. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Augustus E. Willson is wikilinked twice in the same section, and the first time he is mentioned it is not clear if he was governor of KY or IN.
      • Not sure why the governor of Indiana would have the ability to pardon someone from charges made in Kentucky, but clarified, nonetheless. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youtsey turned state's evidence - so what did he say? What was his evidence?
      • None of the sources I have access to says what his evidence was, only that he turned state's evidence. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There seems to be a lot on Rootsweb.com: [1] [2] [3] probably more ... goes into "fits" Youtsey was subject to, and his recanting, which should probably be mentioned given the importance of his testimony. See this: [4] "It was Youtsey's confession about the alleged conspiracy to kill Goebel that led to the conviction of the others."
          • Thanks for these links; I'll try to read up on them and clarify in the next few days. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • General question - why was the KY governorship of 1900 so important that it led to so much gunplay, anyway? Remaining civil war issues? Surely not just a bit of corruption over a railroad?
      • This is the same place where the Hatfield-McCoy feud had just ended. That was over a land boundary. Remember, dueling was so prominent that it is still in the state's constitution that participants in a duel are barred from public office. People have been killed for less. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many things improved. A few more issues
    • PBS in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/maps/maps_mwusa.html says "With the state assembly charged with deciding the winner, Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, protected by an armed militia. Attempting to confront the militia, Goebel was shot." That's a fairly important difference from an assassination plot. Can you clarify or work both views in somehow?
      • It is true that Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, but Goebel was only "confronting" them in the sense that he was attempting to enter the next-door Old State Capitol (also barred by militiamen) to carry out the business of the General Assembly. There was no physical contact, as Goebel was shot several feet from the entrance of either building. (I have a picture of myself standing on the spot where he fell if you would like to see it for reference.) All accounts I have read have the shot coming from the state house, but which floor of the building remains in dispute. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Goebel was never known as a particularly genial person in public, nor as a gifted public speaker" - Can you rephrase that to be a positive statement? That Google Book says things like "cold, secluded, taciturn, deep harsh words"...
      • I can try. I suppose I was trying to avoid sounding too POV. Klotter remarks "critics would portray him as a cold, power-hungry man... Allies, however, presented Goebel as ... a caring man who dared attack the old guard and the old ways." Harrison says "Goebel was denounced by some as a ruthless, heartless demagogue and hailed by others as a compassionate, dedicated reformer." In the interest of not taking sides, I crafted the somewhat ambiguous statement above. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Issues addressed ... not completely, but let's say as well as possible. Supporting. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Poorly written. Here are examples just from the lead that indicate that a complete and thorough copy-edit is required. Please don't just fix these examples; fresh eyes are required.
      • What would you suggest, then? I've already sent it to peer review once. In a month, all I got was one automated bot review. Now I bring it here and you basically tell me it's beyond my ability to fix ("fresh eyes are required.") As seen above and below, I've actively attempted to correct any and all concerns brought to my attention, and will continue to do so. What more can I do? Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I have recruited several editors I respect at WikiProject Louisville to look this over. They collectively brought Louisville, Kentucky to FA status almost two years ago, and many continue to participate in FARs and FA development. I may also post an all-call on relevant WikiProject talk pages. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to die in office from assassination"—When does assassination not result in death?
        • As I understand it, assassination is when the attempt is made, regardless of whether or not it results in death. This phraseology sounded weird to me too; I took it from one of my sources. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP adds value if possible to the sources it draw on; your critical eye might have seen this error. Dictionary says: verb (often be assassinated) murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.
No problem here with changing to a simplified wording. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His tendency to utilize the state's political machinery earned him, at various times, the nicknames"—"Utilize" is an ugly equivalent of "use", but neither is suitable here. They beg the question of how he used the machinery. Remove "at various times" as redundant.
      • The deal-brokering and deal-breaking described in the article is how he used the machinery. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it begs the question in the lead, which should prepare the reader for the greater detail in the body of the text. Just be more specific here: "... use the state's political machinery for his ... purposes earned him ....".
Hopefully corrected. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "the common man's" in quotes?
      • I thought it appropriate, as it's a bit of an ill-defined term, but I have no problem removing it. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Goebel's abrasive personality made him many political enemies, but his championing of "the common man's" causes, like railroad regulation, won him just as many friends. This schism came to a head ..." "Just as many friends"? What, exactly the same number as his enemies? Who's counting? This is what I call a false equivalent. What schism?
      • I consider the reference to "just as many" a figure of speech. I have reworded to hopefully correct this issue. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "having elected the party's first governor four years previous." Ungrammatical ... ly.
      • Easy enough to fix. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead finishes with a major statement that is unreferenced: "The resulting political maneuvering brought tempers to a boil, and resulted in Goebel's assassination." Yet trivial information such as his nicknames is referenced in the lead. Tony 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that the article itself supports this assertion.
That's circular. Since it's the lead, the requirement for referencing is looser; but "brought tempers to a boil" is highly subjective and attitudinal, so I suggest that you remove that bit and deal with it in the body of the article, where it can be comfortably referenced.
If that phrase is the issue, it is removed easily enough. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpolations are above. Now what about the rest of the text? Please locate some good copy-editors who've worked on similar FAs. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I've done some recruiting, and hopefully, they will be able to help me clean up the prose. In my (meager) defense, much of the lead was re-composed at the prompting of AnonEMouse above, so it is the most recent part of the article (read: has had the least time to be reviewed.) I hope the rest of the article is better, but you seem to indicate that it isn't. I will continue to try and fix issues as you or other editors bring them to light, which I hope you will continue to do. (Specific instances are easier to fix.) I still hold out hope that this can become an FA, and that right soon. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article has been improved from one that was in poor condition to one that is well referenced throughout, well supported with verified sources, and is also well written. You can't expect much more from that. If this does not pass, let me say that you did a fine job Acdixon on improvements! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to look over this article and provide suggestions for improvement. Here are my comments. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assessment: All in all, the article is great. Well referenced, and the prose is excellent. In particular, the sections 2 and 2.1 were good enough that I had to check your sources for plagiarism. It's already probably FA-worthy, and if my suggestions below are dealt with, it will be unambiguously an article that "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation"
    • References suggestions: Always check Google Books for your sources. One of your primary sources, "William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath", is (partially) available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=cw-1wFeQoIgC. Also, page numbers would help. The best way to do this is to have separate References and Notes sections, with the Reference section listing the books in alphabetical order by author (including publisher data, etc.), and the footnoted Notes section citing the references above in an abbreviated fashion with page numbers. Example: "Klotter, William Goebel, pp. 301-305." Also, the full name of "The First New Dealer" is apparently "The first new dealer, William Goebel: His origin, ambitions, achievements, his assassination, loss to the state and nation; the story of a great crime", according to Amazon.
    • Organizational suggestions: The article is lacking a section on Goebel's personal characteristics. The lead section mentions his personality, as does the last paragraph of "Early Life", but it would be better as its own section. (After all, the fact that he never married isn't really a part of his early life.) Also, the Goebel Election Law section seems to need a concluding sentence, in my opinion. Also, in the "Assassination and aftermath" section, you state he was hit in the chest, and the reader wonders "Is he dead? What happened to him?", but the text veers off into discussing political disagreements before confirming he was not killed (immediately). It would be better to say something right after saying he was shot, like "Goebel survived, but was seriously injured, and pandemonium broke out", or something.
    • Suggestions for clarity: In the "Gubernatorial election of 1900" section, was the maneuvering illegal? I can't tell. Was it widely considered unethical? Also, I assume Hardin dropped out because he realized he couldn't win against Goebel's and Stone's agreement, and I assume that he reentered when he believed he had a chance again, but both should be stated explicitly. Later in that section, you say the Board of Election "ruled 2-1 in favor of Taylor", but you never say what the case was or what they were ruling on. (Presumably they were asked to review individual county results?) What does "go behind" mean in "go behind the official county results"? Reword this. Finally, it says "the Republican minority was incensed", and I assume this means the minority in the Generally Assembly, but this should also be explicit. In the "Assassination and aftermath" section, the last sentence should be reworded. (Split it up, and make it clear that "the company" refers to the railroad.) And the article's very last sentence should say "conclusively identified" instead.
    • Rewording suggestions: In the lead, "common man's causes" would be better as "populist causes" so as to be NPOV. The last sentence in the lead suggests that the assassination was a natural result; it should instead say "Goebel was assassinated amid his controversial political maneuvering" or something. I don't think "Perhaps because of his stern demeanor" makes sense in explaining his lack of romance; plenty of stern people marry. Anyway, it's speculative. In the Goebel Election Law section, replace "much opposition in the politics of Kentucky" with "much Republican opposition in Kentucky"; it's clearer, and lets the reader know what kind of opposition it got right up front. Immediately afterwards, "after the passing" should be "after the passage". In the "Resolution of the election" section, the phrase "cooler heads prevailed" sounds too casual to me - reword. In the first sentence of Trials and Investigations, the "but" is a bad idea -- he didn't flee despite suspicion, he fled because of it. I would say, as a separate sentence, "Seeing an indictment looming, he fled to Indianapolis to avoid having to testify."
      • Thanks for taking the time to leave some great feedback. I've addressed the "easy ones" tonight, but I'm headed to bed following a long day with the wife at Holiday World. I'll try to get to the rest of them in the morning. Of course, if any of my corrections don't adequately address your concerns, please let me know. Thanks again. Acdixon 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I have now addressed all of the concerns above, with the exception of page numbers which a) will take a while and b) are not strict requirements for FA. Please review my changes (summarized below) and comment if the new prose can be improved. Acdixon 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (link to Google Books) Done. Thanks for the tip regarding Google Books. I didn't know this was common practice.
        • (long title of Woodson's book) Done. I used the short title for convenience, but I suppose the long version is more appropriate.
        • (personal characteristics) Done. I've added a section to address this aspect of Goebel's life. I hope this is what you were looking for.
        • (hit in the chest) Clarified.
        • (political maneuvering) I can't find anything that says it was illegal, but Klotter seems to believe it didn't win him any friends, especially in his own party. I've made this more explicit in the prose.
        • (Board of Elections) Clarified.
        • (the company) Reworded.
        • (Goebel Election Law) Actually, the law was unpopular with voters from both parties, but was driven by the Democratic political machine in the state. I've tried to clarify this.
        • Where simple wording changes were suggested, I generally took them verbatim.
  • Support. All my suggestions (except page numbers, sadly) have been dealt with. The new "Personal characteristics" section is absolutely great, by the way. Congrats on your accomplishment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Alfred Russel Wallace[edit]

previous FAC

This article was nominated about a month ago by another editor. The nomination was premature, but as a result of the process a lot of valuable input was gathered that significantly improved the article. Since then I and a couple of other editors have made many more improvements, and a noted Wallece expert was kind enough to make some edits and leave some comments on the talk page. I was able to solicit reviews and comments from some other editors, and I believe the article is now ready for FAC.Rusty Cashman 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please combine identical footnotes. For example, I see three footnotes in a row that read "Slotten pp. 422-436". Why do I see "pp. 4" instead of "p. 4"? Lose the confusing second external jump in web references. Pagrashtak 14:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a sample edit to show the work needed per Pagrashtak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS: there are numerous WP:MOS issues. Have a look, for starters, at WP:MOSNUM and WP:DASH. Why are some solo years wikilinked? See WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM. Has this article had a peer review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • References are alphabetical by last name of author, but Further reading uses a completely different style. Further reading should follow the same format as References. SandyGeorgia[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been taken care of now. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per numerous referencing styles, (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET) pp. is completely acceptable, if not preferred, over a single p. --Phoenix (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope I'm not being dense, but I don't see a single example on either of those pages where pp. is used when referencing a single page. Pagrashtak 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the issues raised by the preceding comments have now been adequately addressed. I kept the 2nd links in the web cites but I made sure there was non link text in between to make it less confusing. Incidentally, I think this is a weakness in the web cite template and I have left a comment to that affect on the template talk page. While the article was not peer reviewed, in preparation for this nomination I did ask several editors to review the article as well as solicit input from an outside expert. Some of the feedback that resulted can be seen in the talk page. I am not quite certain I understood everything SandyGeorgia was commenting on so I am not completely sure all those comments have been addressed. I am not sure this is relevent or not but there is one quote with a wiki-link in it. I think that in this particular case that is appropriate per the exceptions mentioned in the policy Rusty Cashman 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If one of the comments to which you replied was mine, I'd just like to point out that I'm in favour of said stylistic issue, that being the citation template. Sandy will probably see your message and may better explain his comments. I'd like to also have a closer look, and will do so in the next 24 hours. --Phoenix (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rusty, having multiple external jumps in a web reference is confusing to the reader. I don't want to have to decide which one I think will lead me to the reference. Publisher and other similar information should link to the Wikipedia article or be left as plain text. For example, link to Western Kentucky University, not WKU's home page. Pagrashtak 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am going to concede on this point. I have already fixed the p. vs pp. issue for cites of a single page, and I will fix the extra external link problem within the next 24 hours. Hopefully, that will resolve all the issues over ctitation format.Rusty Cashman 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok all the external links to publishers in the web cites are gone and I managed to combine a couple of them. I am really hopeful that the format issues with the citations are behind us. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should be made clear that Wallace developed his theory of natural selection during his Malay Archipelago exploration. I don't like the organization of the article, though I think it can be made to work. However, as I read through, I often come across places where I think: "wait, shouldn't there be something here about X" only to find X mentioned in another section. I'll try to pinpoint some of the other places where this is an issue.--ragesoss 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a couple of edits I just made should address the issue of clearly drawing the connection between Wallace's Malay archipelago expedition and his ideas on evolution. I don't think there is a big structural problem with the article. It just took a little text to make the connection.Rusty Cashman 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment from nominator A few days ago I received a marked up hardcopy of an old version of the article from a leading Wallace scholar with numerous hand written comments. I have just finished a series of edits inspired by those comments, as well as some comments that appeared on the talk page. At the same time 2 other editors (rageoss and dave souza) have been making some significant improvements to specific parts of the article. My belief/hope is that the article should now be reasonably stable once again.Rusty Cashman 08:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per a couple of thorough nitpicking reviews. 1 2 :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still feel a little uncomfortable with the organization, but it covers all the important issues, is well-referenced, and each section reads well.--ragesoss 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object While this article is clearly well-researched, I feel that its prose and organization is just not quite good enough for FA. Also, perhaps oddly, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive enough for FA.
  • Should not what Wallace is "best known" for be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead rather than the second?
  • The "Early life" section jumps around quite a bit - can you work on making the sentences flow into each other better?
  • This is still a problem. The paragraphs just list facts about Wallace rather than narrate his "early life." They give the feeling of "and then this happened and then this and then this and this..." Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a problem.
  • I would argue that the article should be structured differently as well. Why not tell the story of his life alongside the story of his developing scientific ideas? Once I read the "Exploration" section, I thought, "that's it on natural selection"? It's rather odd. I would relay parallel the information which is in "early evolutionary thinking" with what is in "exploration" in regards to his early explorations, for example.
  • Related: I feel like the headings don't take the reader along through Wallace's life. Even more importantly (and this is probably a result of the organization of the page), there is not much information on Wallace's life here. Obviously Wallace was important because of his science, but the biography part of this page seems to have been completely lost after the first section or so. Readers are interested in Wallace's life as well as his ideas. This impression may just be a result of the poor organization, though. When I finished reading the page, I felt that I had learned a lot about Wallace's ideas but not about Wallace.
  • Related: I feel that the page lacks chronology. It is hard the follow the story of Wallace's life. So, sections like "Other controversies" or "cybernetics" are just stuck in and it is difficult for the reader who is not already familiar with Wallace to figure out what is going on in Wallace's life - what is happening simultaneously?
I think I understand your points. There is a lack of biographical context after he returns from Indonesia, and I agree this needs to be addressed. I also suspect that the lack of chronological order you mention is at the root of some of rageoss's reservations over organization. After I read your comments I spent some time reviewing other articles (especially other FA articles) on leading scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. I think I see 2 ways of handling this problem. One is the way the Charles Darwin article handles things which is, to a large extent, to interleave the biographical detail with the detailed discussion of his works and ideas all organized chronologically (which is what I believe you are recommending). The 2nd approach is the one used by Galileo Galilei where there is a single biographical section that outlines, in chronological order the significant events of the subject's entire life with only relatively brief allusions to their work at appropriate points. The biographical section is then followed by other sections that treat the subject's work in detail in a more thematic manner. I suspect this second approach would probably fit Wallace better and would do less violence to the current organization of the article. Although there would still have to be significant shifting of material. Would such an approach meet your concerns? Rusty Cashman 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just biographies on scientists that wrestle with this problem. I myself primarily write biogrpahies on authors and the same issue arises there. I have done both styles - interweaving life with works/ideas (Sarah Trimmer) and separating life from works/ideas (Mary Wollstonecraft). I think that the root of the problem is that the page doesn't choose one of these strategies. I would be fine with either one, so go ahead and separate the life from the work and see what happens. As you say, the subject determines the structure. Right now, it is just hard to get a handle on all of the information because of the lack of structure. Awadewit Talk 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many subsections that are too small, I think, such as "Wallace effect" and "Defence of Origin of Species."
The "Defence" and "Differences" sections still seem small - why not integrate them into a section on the "Origin" and evolution? Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin. I have eliminated the defence subsectionm altogehter and just moved the text into Natural selection and DarwinRusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it works to have the cybernetics section in there like that - why not put that in the "Legacy" section? To me, it just totally interrupts the flow of the page.
I think I understand the problem here. The text did not make it clear that Bateson had noted another significant difference between Wallace and Darwin's thinking, namely that Wallace appeared to envision natural selection as a kind of negative feedback mechanism that kept populations in sync with their environment. I believe it is more clear now. Rusty Cashman 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The contextualization works much better. Awadewit Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "social and political views" section was sparse and largely uninformative, unless one knows those figures and one's history. I think that such information can be worked into the biography if it is important.
  • In general, I would say that the first part of the article needs a copyedit for the following reasons: use of imprecise diction such as "get" and "a lot"; typos; repetitive diction; and some overly long sentences.
  • I would still like more copyediting - there are some typos and many of the sentences snake around quite a bit. Maybe you could list it at the League of Copyeditors. Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the Early life section and I think it no longer reads like each sentence was written by a different editor. Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor quibble: Aesthetically, it is awkward to have the majority of the pictures on the right-hand side of the page. Awadewit Talk 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your objections have been addressed by a recent series of edits to the article, which have included a significant reorganization of the material along the lines discussed here. Rusty Cashman 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cybernetics" section is out of place - why is it in the middle of the discussion regarding evolution? It is kind of a footnote to history. It should not interrupt the main discussion of evolution and Darwin.
I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also quite a few block quotes - I think some of these should be taken out. Which ones are the most essential?
I am sorry but I think the block quotes convey ideas effectively and add impact. I don't see how eliminating any of them would improve the article.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't object on this basis alone.

For me, the last remaining thing is the "Early life" section - it still has absolutely no flow. It just moves from one thing to the next without any connection at all. Awadewit Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished some edits that I hope address this issue. Rusty Cashman 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well-researched, well-written and (seemingly - I am no Wallace expert) comprehensive article on Wallace. I appreciate the revision that the editors have done to make it easier to navigate and follow. Awadewit Talk 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Dominik Hašek[edit]

After undergoing a peer review and obtaining good article status, this article has undergone several changes to enhance the prose, the references and the overall content. It is a very comprehensive article that is structured similarly to FA-status Martin Brodeur, and I feel that it is ready for an FA-review.

  • Support Per nom. Sportskido8 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been working on this article for a long time, and I believe it meets criteria at this point. --Wafulz 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All dates should be wikilinked per WP:DATE. Also, either use Hasek, or use Hašek, but don't use both throughout the article. Pepsidrinka 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not all dates are wikilinked. Solo years should not be wikilinked unless they provide WP:CONTEXT. *Full dates* and month-day combos are wikilinked so date prefernces will work. Month-year and solo years are not wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, all "Full dates" are not wikilinked. Look at the entire Transactions section. None of them are wikilinked. Also, Image:0222 hockey2.jpg is a cropped image of a picture that has no source. Pepsidrinka 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree about the date wikilinking. However, a transactions section is one place in particular that I think can do without them. The Wayne Gretzky article doesn't link them either. And I fixed the name consistency issue. Sportskido8 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question? The only time "Hasek" is used is in the references section, for the sake of being technically correct by listing the "real" title. Should this be changed for consistency? --Wafulz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Someone fixed the "Hasek"s throughout the article, but the reference titles should be exactly how they are in the source. My contention with the dates in the transactions section is for formatting purposes. Let the user decide how they want to format the date. Dates aren't wikilinked for any reason other than for the formatting. If formatting wasn't an issue, then there would be no practical purpose to do so. Is there a reason why, just in that section, dates shouldn't be formatted? Pepsidrinka 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I formatted all the transaction dates, as requested. Sportskido8 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Why do we roll along just fine with formatted references, and find the last four footnotes unformatted blue links? Why do most footnotes include publisher, and then the Willoughby note suddenly has none? Please review for consistency. I also corrected an ndash as a sample of work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do. Just curious, what specifically needs an ndash? Is it only game scores, or do I need to put it for something like "6-year old"? Sportskido8 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support been using this and the Brodeur articles as tools to improve the Sakic article. Both the Hasek and Brodeur articles are of similar qualities, and one of them is already FA. Kaiser matias 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Nice article with lots of references but the writing is well below the FA standards. The lead was full of peacock terms. There are still a number of one-sentence paragraphs and flow certainly could be improved. I recommend asking the League of Copyeditors to go through it since I don't think there are too many objections on other grounds. But as it stands, the article should not be promoted. Pascal.Tesson 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will check for more of these writing issues but I'm not sure it's quite as bad as you're saying it is. There are a few two or three sentence paragraphs but they are infrequent and have a reason to be short. As for the flow, can you give me an example of what you would like fixed? Thanks. Sportskido8 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense but although the article is pretty well written, it falls short of the standards. I suggest you take a look at the excellent User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a on how to improve the writing dramatically. Here are some specific examples:
        • Change sentences of the form "It would be several months before Hašek would find out that he was even drafted."
        • condense "who wrote a column that night that appeared in the following day's newspaper." Done
        • "After the Senators were eliminated in the second round, they opted not to re-sign Hašek, despite claiming he would take a pay cut." Who's claiming? Done
        • "His play made him one of the most popular figures in the Czech Republic, with popularity status comparable to that of the country's president Václav Havel". The sentence is awful but more importantly it is completely unsupported by the reference! (The reference is to an interview with Hasek where he tells of Havel jokingly saying that Hasek is going to steal his job). By the way, I found that the sentence "He is extraordinarily flexible — at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country marveled at how he could contort himself to make saves." is also unsupported by the corresponding reference. (Sure, Hasek tells a story of that sort but for one thing the sentence makes it sound as though all Czech doctors were intently studying this kid with good flexibility and secondly we should not be constructing a featured article from vague tales the subject tells about himself) I suggest that all references should be double-checked very carefully.
          • Question? The exact quote is Doctors were always amazing at young Hasek because of the amazing things this double-jointed boy could do with his body. The flexibility helped him make saves the other goaltenders didn't - or couldn't. Is there any way you'd prefer the sentence be rewritten? --Wafulz 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Answer! Indeed this is the quote in the article. First, the broken grammar says a lot about the quality of the reporting. Secondly, it's clear from the context that these are either Hasek's words or a rephrasing of them and so this should be treated with suspicion. Not that Hasek has any sort of reputation for making stories up but the whole story seems pretty far-fetched. Sure, maybe he recalls that a doctor once told him "hey kid, you're incredibly flexible" but the context of the Wikipedia article makes it sound as though he was a major object of amazement for Czech doctors. Frankly, I think the whole sentence needs to go. Actually, I've been bold and made the change. The whole paragraph reads more smoothly and is less fanboyish. Pascal.Tesson 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Hašek and his wife Alena have two children: a son named Michal (born 1989) and a daughter named Dominika (born 1994)." as Tony would say, spot the redundancy. Done
        • Too much blue. For instance, teams need only be linked once.
          • I think I've gotten most of the links, but I'm new to the "too few/too many" links problem. --Wafulz 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really think the league of copyeditors would find many many ways of improving the article dramatically. Pascal.Tesson 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fixed the sentence in the International section with the "popularity status". I think it makes more sense now. Sportskido8 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support I would like some more citations: (for starters first round game against the Ottawa Senators box score please). When did he make his NHL debut, first start? Can these be found easily for hockey? I haven't looked lately. I have faced heat on citation objections. I have just gotten Chris Young (baseball pitcher) up to my own standards though his minor league career. No one is going to contest the annual awards he has won but citing each sentence of such a claim would be nice. I will add some more particulars later this week. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps instead of a box score maybe an article that claims he thought he was injured? I know how crazy you are about box scores Tony, and let me tell ya, box scores don't say anything more than numbers. So I will try and find relevant articles. Sportskido8 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now that I look at it, there are more than enough sources there with the Ottawa sentence. A box score could not possibly add any more benefit to that area. Sportskido8 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The part of the story I am interested in has no reference. The reference two sentences later is surely medically related. I am interested whether he was replaced before the game started, after the first period, or what have you. I need a box score to see this.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about a box score for the game with the most important goal in Sabres history. ("the decisive sixth game being one of the longest Stanley Cup playoff games in NHL history. Hašek and Ed Belfour made 50 and 53 saves, respectively, in a sudden-death triple-overtime duel that only ended when Brett Hull scored a controversial Cup-winning goal with his foot in the crease.") This would be an interesting one. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This whole section is uncited: "Final years with Buffalo (1999–2001)". (admittedly only 2 short paragraphs)TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added two credible references to this section. Sportskido8 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must say I am really enjoying reading about my favorite hockey player of the last 15 years (I grew up in Buffalo). Each of the aforementioned citation request is associated with curiosities that your article has stimulated. Here is another one. Is it possible to determine who the "future considerations" in the 2001 trade were. For example, if it became a 2003 2nd round draft pick who was the pick used for. I am not sure how easy future consideration are to track down, but if you can find out it would be nice. It might be more comforting to me as a Hasek fan if I can say we got someone for him.
      • There is another uncited paragraph in Detroit and Ottawa (2001–present) (the 2nd one)
      • Can you find a citation for the 2006 Olympics stuff. Done
      • In the style of play section. I would change the language to read stick hand and glove hand. That is the language I am familiar with and I grew up watching both American broadcasts and Hockey Night in Canada. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral The prose needs work throughout and there are some MoS errors. Here are a few (not all) examples:
    • "For his third stint in Detroit, he lost a considerable amount of weight between May and September of 2006 to increase his flexibility." should be "between May and September 2006", there also might need to be a mention that the weight loss was before the season; assume that at least some of your readers know nothing about hockey.
      •  Done
    • "His strong play is credited for bringing European goaltenders into a league where the position was once widely dominated by North Americans." Awkward "Is credited with establishing European goaltenders in a league..." might be better see here about using into btw.
      •  Done
    • "He is extraordinarily flexible, so much that at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country were marvelling at how he could contort himself to make saves." I think someone meant to say "so much so that" either way, that's not the best way to word the sentence. A semicolon could just eliminate the need for extra words "He is extraordinarily flexible; at one point in his childhood,"
      •  Done
    • "at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country were marvelling at how he could contort himself to make saves." Clunky, "doctors marveled at how he could" is better.
      •  Done
    • "Because of his flexibility, Hašek manages to make saves that other goalies would consider very difficult" weak prose. WOuld consider very difficult is particularly weak, find a source that says he makes saves others cannot and just strengthen the wording, perhaps using a quote to avoid someone potentially perceiving it as bias.
      •  Done
    • "Hašek presents one of the most unorthodox styles of goaltending in hockey." He presents? Who does he present it to? Just say "has" it's tighter and more direct.
      •  Done
    • Ref #10 needs formatting, ref #2 needs pub info. Also publishers should only be wikified the first time they appear in the reference section to avoid huge swathes of blue text. For instance, refs 14–16 all have The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel linked.
      • Question? What information would you like from the A-Z Encyclopedia? I don't think it has an official "publisher", but it has a list of credits with contacts, over 5 million hits, and a couple of awards for accuracy and comprehensiveness. --Wafulz 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add WP:PDATA.
      •  Done
    • Abbreviation formatting is incorrect the first time abbreviations appear, see WP:ABB.
    • an opposing coach once referred to them as "miracle saves." Needs a cite (which coach?).
      • Comment. It's cited, but the source only refers to him as "an opposing coach". --Wafulz 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm gonna stop now I'll come back and see if they were addressed before going on. If I have time I'll help out tomorrow or the day after. Quadzilla99 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I addressed all of your referencing inquiries. They are very consistent now. Sportskido8 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice work addressing those, here are some more, they mostly relate to tightening the prose:
    • "In 2002, Hašek became the first European starting goaltender to win the Stanley Cup when he led the Red Wings to a championship, setting a record for shutouts in a playoff year in the process" You could eliminate some extra words here. Saying Stanley Cup and then saying championship again seven words later is unnecessary. How about "While with the Red Wings in 2002, Hašek became the first European starting goaltender to win the Stanley Cup. In those playoffs, he set a record for shutouts in a playoff year." Done
    • "Hašek is considered a very unorthodox goaltender, with a distinct play style that has labeled him as a "flopper."" Shouldn't this be playing style?
      • A huge part of his career has been being labeled a "flopper" --Wafulz 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No what I'm saying is it should be "Hašek is considered a very unorthodox goaltender, with a distinct playing style that has labeled him as a "flopper.""
          • I see the whole playing thing has been removed, that's even better. I changed to neutral, as all of the points I raised have been addressed, I 'll look it over later and see how it looks. Quadzilla99 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He is best known for his concentration, foot speed and flexibility. He is also known for his unusual habit of dropping his stick to grab a loose puck with his blocker hand rather than using the conventional trapper." Starting two sentences in a row with "he is known" is probably not the best way to go. Done
    • "Hašek has one of the most unorthodox styles of goaltending in hockey." Still needs a little tweaking, how about:"Hašek has one of the most unorthodox goaltending styles in hockey." Done
    • "Hašek started playing hockey at a very young age in his native Czechoslovakia. His competitive goaltending career began at the age of six, as he explains" This two sentences should be combined, they're taking a bunch of words to say he started playing when he was 6. Done
    • "At the age of 16, Hašek made the move to the top level of Czech hockey" how about "At the age of 16, Hašek moved to the top level of Czech hockey"? Tighter wording. Done
    • "He was drafted by the Chicago Blackhawks in 1983, and despite being a very talented player, he was selected in the 10th round, 199th overall." See which part of the sentence seems like an OR personal summary or weasel words. You could just say he was drafted relatively low or low in the draft. Best wording would be: "he was the xxth goalie drafted." Would also be interesting if he's one of the handful of greatest goalies ever and he was the 32nd goalie drafted in his draft or whatever. Done
      • He was the 17th goalie. Interestingly, Vladislav Tretiak was drafted the same year, and he was a pretty deep pick too (130 something)
    • "It would be several months before Hašek would find out that he was even drafted." extra words here too could be "Hasek did not even know he drafted until several months later." or something even tighter. Done
    • There's a lot of use of "would record" or "would go on", I used to do that until I got blasted for it on a FAC, just use recorded and went etc. Done
    • "Hašek continued his success with the Sabres in the 1996-97 season, but was overshadowed by a conflict between Hašek and then-head coach Ted Nolan, leading to a clique-like atmosphere and a lot of tension in the franchise." extra words. How about "Hašek's continued success in the 1996-97 season was overshadowed by a conflict with then-head coach Ted Nolan. The conflict led to a clique-like atmosphere and a lot of tension in the franchise." Done
      • That's all for now I'll check back later. In general try to see for any way you can eliminate superfluous words. Quadzilla99 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the "Inline hockey game incident" should be rewritten a little. It's not mentioned where it happened and what he was playing (although it's in the linked source). Also, names of the prosecutor, his lawyer or even the guy he supposedly attacked should not be there IMO.--Svetovid 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the name of the supposedly attacked player should definitely stay. I am not so sure about the names of the other people, but their names were cited in the media writing about the incident, so they might stay here as well. If the names are there, it is easier to understand, who said or decided what. Jan.Kamenicek 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support. It's basically well-written, but needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples of why (don't fix just them).
    • In AmEng, hyphens are used less, but some US editors would still prefer them in "second-oldest active player", "eight-season span", and especially "European starting-goaltender" (I see that "15-season NHL career" is hyphenated, as is "league-best goals".) These are just from the lead. Later "top tier goaltender" and others.
      • I think it's important to not overuse hyphens. "Second oldest" doesn't seem like the kind of phrase that needs one, but I'll try and spot other places that do need them. Sportskido8 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good use of piped simple year links.
    • "From that point up until 1990"—Spot the redundant word.
    • "He was named the top ice hockey player in Czechoslovakia in 1987, 1989, and 1990, along with being namedand Czechoslovak Goaltender of the Year from 1986 through 1990."
    • "and only played 25 games over two seasons"—Place "only" as late as possible in a clause. "and played only 25 games over two seasons".
    • "in a 5-3 performance over the Buffalo Sabres, and on 9 January 1992, he recorded his first shutout in a 2-0 win". En dashes for relational numbers, such as scores: "5–3", "2–0", "1–1 tie", etc. Much easier to read. Just why we have "Buffalo (1996–1998)" as a title (although I'd prefer just "1996–98"), and straight after "1996-97" is a mystery. Tony 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe all the EnDashes are taken care of now. I fixed a few other things from the list too, and will try and spot other problems of the same nature. Sportskido8 07:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to revisit my opinion based on recent copyediting. I feel that the article as improved but I've been copyediting the beginning of the article and I think there's still quite a bit to do. In fact, it's an ominous sign that I'm able to do so much copy-editing myself since I don't think I'm that good at fixing little details in the prose. So I still object to the promotion for now but as I said earlier, the article clearly has the potential to reach FA status after a thorough copyedit. Pascal.Tesson 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Once again, Sportskido brings us an FA quality hockey article. Good citation, nice use of photos, I don't see many problems with the prose (maybe here & there as others have stated, but I'm not overly picky). Nice job!Anthony Hit me up... 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It's very good overall but there are still one or two issues. I went through and fixed the prose stuff I saw, the prose is OK now but not great. These are the last of what I can see though so fix these and I'll change to full support:
    • The opening sentence of the lead and the first sentence of the early life section need to be re-written per WP:DATE specifically here.
    • As a corollary to that, the opening sentences in the early life should probably begin something like "Dominik Hasek was the middle of three sons born to Yuri and Natasha Hasek in xxx. His father worked as an engineer, while his mother worked part-time at a local grocery store." Or whatever the information is. As it is now the article just barrels into his hockey career, he is a person too. The general reader finds this sort of information interesting. There is some info in the Off-The-Ice section but it should be moved to the Early Life section and expanded.
    • "However, Hašek claimed his knee was still injured and did not play in the five-game loss in the following series against the Philadelphia Flyers." This sentence needs a source. Also, why are we saying "Hasek claimed" here? Did the team doctor pronounce him fit to play and he still stated he couldn't? Or did the doctor not clear him to play?
    • "This upset many fans, who blamed Nolan's departure on Hašek's alleged attempt to rid him." This needs work "to rid him" is clunky, could be "to get rid of him" which is still informal or "drive him off" which is also informal". I can't think of anything else right now.
    • This Image:VezinaHasek.jpg needs a fair use rational.
    • The lead shouldn't be so heavily cited, as a matter of fact the lead doesn't need any citations at all as it is a summary of the article. Also the lead appears to have citations that are not repeated. This means that either the information appears in the text but is cited in the lead and not the text, which is backwards or the information doesn't appear in the text, which means the article introduces information in the lead which it doesn't cover in the text. Either way is incorrect.
    • I'd recommend that any stats or hard data have references. This shouldn't be hard just create a career stats ref and repeat it after after each mention of his stats.:"Hašek played 58 games with a league-best 1.95 Goals against average (GAA), seven shutouts, and a .930 save percentage."
    • "He missed forty games and failed to win a major NHL award for the first time in several years." Make this specific, "first time since 19xx-xx."
    • This is a run-on sentence:"During the conference finals against Colorado, he became the first goalie to be awarded an assist on an overtime game-winning goal in the post-season after passing the puck to Wings captain Steve Yzerman,[25] who then assisted Fredrik Olausson in scoring the final goal of the third game of that series"
    • "Throughout his long career, Hašek has been represented by agent Rich Winter." This just kind of pops up of nowhere, is the agent or their relationship notable? Try to put it in some kind of context, as it stands now its just random information and hence trivia. If you can't put it in context just axe it Quadzilla99 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Inline hockey game incident" could probably use summarizing. Just mention he was in a fight but later cleared of the charges in 2-3 sentences, we don't need all the particulars. It probably doesn't need its own section either.
    • If I had to nitpick one other thing, I'd like to see more mention of the team's records in his career section. It shows the progression of the teams he playing on and puts things in perspective. Also, for stars like Hasek their teams records are often largely reflective of their performance and it gives the reader. One of the reasons Michael Jordan is regarded as the best B-Ball player of all time is because his teams won six championships and he led them to 72, 69, and 67 win seasons. I'm not syaing give him credit for their record just say "the Sabres won 56 games and..." Of course this is a personal preference, a lot of people like to keep that info the team articles. Quadzilla99 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages[edit]

previous FAC

Self-nomination. I recently put this up for FAC, but the discussion over whether this should be one or two articles stalled the nomination. After the nomination was removed, discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Zelda Oracle merge discussion and was strongly in favor of the merge, so I'm resubmitting. Pagrashtak 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to co-nominate this one as a helper and someone who participated in the previous debate. — Deckiller 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. It is well written, and non-free images have appropriate rationales. Jay32183 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good development section? Yes. Good plot section? Yes. Good lead? Yes. Good reception section? Yes. But it discusses absolutely nothing about the sound, the visuals, who created them, nothing. On top of that, the gameplay section is not developed enough. It still lacks any explanation on the mechanics - it implies that the sword was not on the same level, but then it says it is. The first sentence almost describes ALttP - "sword is the primary weapon, and everything else is lesser". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say "absolutely nothing" is a great exaggeration. The article states that graphics and sounds were copied from Link's Awakening, and the reception section covers graphics and sound as well. The development section gives a clear picture of who created the game, even mentioning display difficulties. As for the gameplay section, I don't understand your complaint. It states that the sword is the primary weapon, but is not permanently equipped. This is an accurate description. If you feel something is missing, please say what. Pagrashtak 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article tells us how good the sound and visuals are, and where they originated from. That's definitely not enough. And the statement that Link uses the sword as his primary weapon implies that it's always assigned, and then you state that it isn't and that you don't have to equip it. Saying that it's the primary weapon is not necessary and is potentially confusing. And it still doesn't explain the mechanics - it states that you can remove the sword and shield, but not that you can equip two things at once. Also, the fact that this never went through the Peer review shows that this FAC is far too preemptive. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • First you said "it discusses absolutely nothing about the sound, the visuals, who created them", now you said "The article tells us how good the sound and visuals are, and where they originated from." You also state that discussing the primary weapon of an action-adventure game is unnecessary, but then claim that the gameplay section is not comprehensive. This did go through peer review, as I stated in the previous FAC, and I would have been more than happy to respond to these comments if they had been raised then. Right now, I'm having a hard time even telling what you want. Pagrashtak 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I told you what I want - more indepth coverage of the gameplay. It describes the mechanics as if they're a passing note. And who cares what I said before? Do you claim that the coverage of the game's sound and visuals is comprehensive enough? And the fact that no one replied is not a good excuse - that just means that the article was never properly assessed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just read the "Gameplay" section, and it seems to me that any further in-depth, and it will border on a GameFAQs guide. I think the level of detail there now is perfectly fine. The fact that Link can or cannot unequip a sword is minutia that has no place here. — Brian (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that this is a part of the gameplay mechanic - which is barely covered - has a very big place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's coverage of audio is optimal; I'm sure if Pagra could find more, he would have found it. If there is a ceiling to the amount of information available as a topic, meeting that ceiling is comprehensive in relation to the subject at hand. As for the gameplay, this article covers gameplay in the level of depth generally seen in video game FAs; therefore, it is fine when compared to the current interpretation of the FA criteria by the vast majority of editors. Also, did we get a spell checker all of a sudden? I'm noticing red underlines below misspelled words. (edit) It was just the version of FireFox. — Deckiller 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How hard is it to find who composed the music? Or anyone who worked on either graphics or sound? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that the only problem you have with the audio then? If that's the case, now that we have something hard to go by, I'll go ahead and fix that. — Deckiller 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I was initially worried about a lack of graphics/audio sections, but development is well-researched and exhaustive. Couldn't see any grammar issues, but I can barely read, so don't go by my eyes. ;) I still wish they were seperate, but what'cha gonna do. ;) Good job Pagra. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clean up the lead. 2x2 renditions of the Japanese titles is not in the least interesting to anyone other than aficionados. Hide it in a footnote. Squirrel it away further down in the article. Remove it altogether... Anything would be better than assaulting the reader with all that namingcruft in the very first sentence of the article. Peter Isotalo 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. It's sort of a standard to include the Japanese names in the first sentence for video games, but I agree that it's rather cumbersome in this situation. Pagrashtak 13:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is the lead so heavily cited? This is not a controversial subject, in fact the lead shouldn't require any citations as it is a summary of the article. Quadzilla99 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All except two of the first eleven references are used somewhere else, and it doesn't hurt to have references in the lead. The Placebo Effect 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. If there's no point in having the extra footnotes they should be removed. It just adds dinkiness. Peter Isotalo 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's really no reason for the heavy citing in the lead, the most baffling one is the citing of the title of the article. I've never seen an article cite its title, I'm not even sure what that means. Are we citing the fact that we got the spelling correct? Am I missing something? Quadzilla99 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm removing the majority of them, I see what the first footnote is for now. Still awkward having a citation on the title, maybe all that can be mentioned in the body of the text somewhere. Quadzilla99 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, it's done. Looks a lot better, one problem though. This sentence "The games were released for use on the Nintendo Game Boy Color, but special features, such as additional items, are available when played on a Nintendo Game Boy Advance.[3]" contains a ref that's not repeated. That means either a) it's mentioned in the article, but cited in the lead and not the text which is backwards or b) it's not mentioned in the text and the lead introduces information that's not covered elsewhere. Either way it's wrong. I don't have enough interest in the subject to give this article a thorough review but it does look a lot better now, of course it would look great with zero citations in the lead. Quadzilla99 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What can be shown to say that Seasons should come before Ages? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably because the Manga puts them in that order and the IGN review says that is the best order to play them through. The Placebo Effect
    • A good point! What the manga goes with is beside the point; while a licensed work, it's written in a language with completely different rules and traditions. In English, paired words are generally listed in the order that has the most pleasing sound (e.g. you don't say "women and men" or "gentlemen and ladies") and/or flows alphabetically, even if it contradicts the order of other pairings by doing so; while this isn't as cut-and-dried as "Jack and Jill" vs. "Jill and Jack", Google hits (despite being a questionable test) indicate a preference for "Ages and Seasons". Indeed, right now we have List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Seasons; regardless of which is chosen, both articles must match. GarrettTalk 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you asking why Seasons comes before Ages in the article title? I chose that order because Tale of Power, which was adapted into Seasons, was the first game of the Triforce Trilogy. Pagrashtak 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It reads well and has references for almost everything, which is no easy task for games with such a confusing development history. Putting the Japanese names in a footnote wasn't ideal, but it does reduce the clutter in the lead. One thing the article doesn't cover that I think it could very briefly brush over is how each game has its own particular items (e.g. the seed shooter vs. the slingshot) which has an impact on gameplay (the slingshot cannot fire diagonally, but the seed shooter can) and further differentiates the gameplay of the two. But that's a very minor niggle, and one I only know about because I have played both games. Overall this article sets a good standard for video game articles. Most game articles don't have as confusing a history as this let alone attempt to cover two games on one page, and I think this article has definitely succeeded. GarrettTalk 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, I'm happy with the progression of the merged articles. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support igordebraga ≠ 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still doesn't cover the fact that most of the equipment is present in both games, although some equipment is exclusive to only one game. Also, it lacks the lead composer of the game's music. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've clarified this, using the seed shooter and magnetic gloves as examples of game-specific equipment. In addition, I mentioned that there are two item slots available. As for the composer, I haven't seen anything to indicate that there was a lead composer. The sound is attributed to a company (Pure Sound Inc.), not a person; the article mentions the company as being responsible for the sound. If you find any evidence that one person is primarily responsible, as opposed to the collective group, I'd be more than happy to include that in the article. Pagrashtak 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must have glazed over that. However, all games have a most-important composer - I mean, look at TP and you see Kondo as being far more important than everyone else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I'm aware, the only involvement Koji Kondo has with these games are songs that were reused. Not every game has a lead composer. Pagrashtak 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was a big supporter last time, and there's absolutely no reason for me to change my mind. This is still a superb article. -- Kicking's back!... for this one edit. 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion[edit]

Usually considered the first mature painting by the artist Francis Bacon. Very helpfull peer review here. Ceoil 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Urgent need for collaborators who can copy-edit. Lead: Glaring spelling mistake at the top. I don't like "The work represents a summary of themes explored in Bacon's previous paintings", and I don't Bacon would; can it be reworded? "as well as and his interpretations" ... Huh? "When first exhibited in 1945, the triptych caused a sensation, and helped establish Bacon's reputation as one of England’s foremost post-war painters." Remove the second comma. "Helped establish Baon as one of" is better. Russell quote—can you give us the year in the main sentence? The lead says nothing of the stylistic features of the work, either in relation to his other work or that of his fellow artists.
Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. It's a fascinating topic, and the contributor(s) has so much valuable knowledge. Let's not waste it. Tony 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic case of being too close to an article. I'll ask around for a fresh set of eyes to give it a once over. Thanks for the other suggestions, the lead is now much improved. Ceoil 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In just two edits, User:Outriggr has ce'd half the article. Ceoil 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outriggr § has completed an extensive copyedit, and a very fine job he did too. The prose are greatly improved. Ceoil 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I am happy that Outriggr has dealt with the copy issues, but your comment re the absence of an examination of the stylistic features in the opening is also valid. I think this would warrant expanding the lead to three paras, and I'll work on that. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Universe=atom
  • The title should be in bold and italics (bold because it is the name of the article; italics because it is the name of a painting)
I disagree. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Universe=atom is right. For example, see Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). I'm surprise I never noticed that it wasn't italicized before. I'll fix it right now. WesleyDodds 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small matter, but fair enough. Ceoil 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout most of the article (except the lead and a short strip in the middle) there are hardly any internal links. (wikilinks).
And the article is all the stronger for it. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internal linking is only meant to link to articles that are relevant, and the article conforms to this. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: rationing the links ensures that the high-value ones aren't diluted, and adds to the overall appearance. Tony 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not overlinked; see WP:CONTEXT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "See Also" section, which, combined with the lack of wikilinks, literally isolates the article from the rest of Wikipedia.
See also what? I created a FB Category:Francis Bacon (painter) category specifically because I think "see also" sections are weak. If the links are not mentioned in the body text, they do not deserve inclusion. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a "See Also" section isn't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also is not required and should be minimized; See WP:GTL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only three links in the "External Links" section. Perhaps some more should be put; be sure, though, not to overdo it.
The external links point only towards relevant articles. I see no reason to populate them with tangently related pages. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having an "External links" section isn't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links should be minimized; See WP:EL and WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no picture in the "Second Version of 'Triptych 1944' (1988)" section, which fails to give an illustration of the second version.
The "Second Version" is illustrated in the linked main article. It's a triptych, and would not align within a short paragraph. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures aren't an FA requirement. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the lead can be elongated by a small factor.
What would you think is missing. The lead, in my opinion, is a concise summary of a relatively short article. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, these comments should be disregarded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering these points, my vote is OPPOSE. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think you are objecting on very minor points, and I get the feeling you did not read the article. Ceoil 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the person who objected should read the featured article criteria, and his objection discounted on the grounds that most of his complaints fail to conform to the criteria. LuciferMorgan 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This oppose should be disregarded; I also suggest the reviewer needs to become more familiar with WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Invalid oppose. — Deckiller 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from others
  • Support Meets all the FA criteria in my opinion, and I found it to be a rather interesting read. LuciferMorgan 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support—once the copy-editing has been completed. — Deckiller 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The copyediting has gone a long way in addressing some issues I was about to post about. My few remaining concerns:
1. "While these early works may be aesthetically pleasing," sounds too weasel-y to me.
2. "Bacon's critical faculties often frustrated his creative spontaneity during this period". Simplify language.
3. "He continued to incorporate the spatial device he was to use many times throughout his career—three lines radiating from the central figure of Crucifixion, 1933." This is somewhat confusing. Do you mean Crucifixion, 1933 was the first example of Bacon's use of this device?
4. Is there a particular reason to as "the Second World War"? Just Wikilinking it to World War II would be more direct (and the term needs to be wikilinked eariler in the article; it's currently linked after the term's already been mentioned.)
That's about it. Once that's all fixed I'll be happy to support the nomination. WesleyDodds 00:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed 1, 2 & 3; not so sure about 4 - to me "Though the triptych may be informed by World War II; the art critic Ziva Amishai-Maisseles has observed that.." - seems not quite right. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's nice to see a detailed treatment of an artwork, and this is in very fine shape. (Coeil asked me to copyedit this, and I have done so.) The following could be improved:
    • The Tate Gallery's essay gets into the psychodynamics of the artist. This is absent here.
    • Reference formatting: "Baldassari (2005), p.134" and the like -> "Baldassari (2005), p. 134."
    • The reference to "Grünewald's Christ Carrying the Cross" seems wrong - the title would appear to be Mocking of Christ, which is also referred to in the article, leading the reader to believe you're talking about two paintings.
    • The quote that has "mind shut snap" I'm assuming should be "mind snap shut". –Outriggr § 06:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outriggr, thanks for all the help; I've fixed the errors you noted, and yes a para or two on the psychodynamics is needed - they were very complex indeed. There is suggestion in other sources that the triptych was inspired by the sence of liberty allowed him through his father's death, as well as the chaos of WWII; both of which allowed him to feel free enough to make this breakthrough. Sutherland was a father figure and his mentor until this point, as soon as the triptych was a sucess he cut the older painter off. The Popes of the 1950s were erotic representations of father figures, plain and simple. Go figure. That's an article all of its own, right there. Ceoil 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The prose has been drastically improved, and everything else was solid to begin with. Great article. WesleyDodds 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a complete novice I very much enjoyed the prose, the article is well illustrated and well referenced. Good work. The Rambling Man 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ceoil asked me to copyedit, but I was too late to the party. A good read on an interesting painting. Yomanganitalk 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[edit]

Passed GA; I think this is ready to try for FA. It may be of interest (if only for comparison purposes) that Peterborough Chronicle is already an FA. Mike Christie (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A very clearly-written and informative article. I was a bit concerned by the amount to which it relies on one book (Swanton), but on reflection I don't believe that this is a problem. (On another note, while Peterborough Chronicle is also a well-written article, it really needs some footnotes. Anyone up for the job?) MLilburne 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well done on a fascinating article and interesting graphics/maps etc. I have a few comments and suggestions but am very close to support! I realize that many of these will have obvious answers to you: I know little about this subject so am easily confused and am going to give you the benefit of some of the causes of my confusion etc!!
  • Lead: Are "as late as" and "some time in" necessary? They grate somehow. For an uninformed reader "Having been created in Wessex, the Chronicle is not unbiased" needs some clarification and historical context. What does the "In many places" phrase mean? I think you could expand the lead to include information about how the Chronicles are important sources about the development of English.
*Composition section mainly, but in other places too: It would be good to have a source indicated for each paragraph at least, even if it is always the same one.
*Section headings A2/G. Should it include W? And also mention the G in the text somehow
*"the biases of the scribes who created them" This gets mentioned a couple of times: this section might benefit from some reworking or rewording to avoid repetition of this sort.
Good luck and I hope this is helpful --Slp1 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is now fixed -- I removed some of the grating language; I also took out the note about "Having been created in Wessex", since that's explained further down, and in fact the biases are not only West Saxon, so it was slightly misleading. "In many places" was changed. As for the development of English, there is already a sentence there -- is that enough?
I have cleaned up the sources on the composition section.
A2 and G -- my understanding is that A2 is the usual way to refer to this manuscript (it's not one of the main ones so it doesn't get that many mentions anyway). I added the G simply to make it clearer why it occupies the place it does in the list. I think the W is now quite outdated; Wheloc's edition is nearly four hundred years old, so that's just of historical interest and I don't think needs to be mentioned in the listing here.
Biases -- I've reworded this a little; the intent was to contrast, on the one hand, biases identifiable by comparing the chronicle with other historical information, with, on the other hand, biases revealed by comparing different versions of the chronicle with each other. Let me know if it doesn't say that well enough.
Thanks for the helpful comments -- I hope these changes address your concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An interesting article, which largely does a lucid job of explaining an exceptionally complex document in a short article.

A few points:

  • I found it hard to follow the early account of when the chronicle was first written and what the first manuscripts that survive consisted of. Having reread it, I think the problem is that a piece of essential information is omitteed early on: that the chronicles described events dating from 60BC and way back, and some included material from Bede, etc. The article at first made it seem, to this reader at least, that the chronicles might have only been describing events from Alfred's reign onwards. The phrase "up to 891" therefore was unclear to me, as it stood, particularly as it seemed to clash with "early 890s". I was also unsure whether the earlier, lost manuscripts were themselves retrospective surveys of history or were, at least partly, contemporary accounts: in other words, did Anglo-Saxons start chronicling before Alfred's reign, or was the whole thing written retrospectively then? These questions were partly cleared up for me later in the article; but I do think an explanatory sentence or two is needed earlier on to help the readers get their bearings.
  • "It is known that the Winchester manuscript is at least two removes from the original of the Chronicle." At that point I wanted to know how that is known, if this is the earliest surviving manuscript. Later there is some explanation of all the interlinkings, but I needed more information at that point.
  • The business of the Peterborough chronicle containing some of the earliest Middle English text known, is repeated rather too often, in my opinion.
  • Sometimes the article talks of the English language, sometimes of Anglo-Saxon or Old English. I'm not comfortable with the word "English" in this context and would rather the article stuck to calling the language Anglo-Saxon or Old English, so as not to muddy the waters.
  • When I've had to look something up in the ASC, I've often found the dating to be well out: perhaps an explanation of the vagaries of the dating might be added. The chronicle seems to be set out by year; how often did the monks update them? Did they write the entry for one year all in one go? Sometimes it appears that they filled several years in at once: if so, that could be a cause of the inaccuracies.
  • If it is known, I'd be interested to know why the chronicles petered out when they did. Were they suppressed by the Normans? Were the monks becoming culturally French? Were the chronicles replaced by Latin equivalents? I've no idea; but I'd be interested to read about that.
Anyway, congratulations on a well-written article. qp10qp 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are very helpful questions -- thank you. I'll be dealing with some of these questions and copying the rest to the talk page for further research (I don't know the answers to all of them). Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some updates to address some of the points. The two I can't answer are the one about the Winchester manuscript being at least two removes from the original, and the query about the reason the chronicles ceased being updated. I'd be interested in the answers but have no sources for them. I've recorded these questions on the article talk page as points to be researched. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but could do with fine scrutiny of the wording. I see redundant "alsos" and "thens". The joining of ideas into sentences is uncomfortable in a few places. Good work overall. Tony 13:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed copy-edit; I appreciate it. I'll look at the wording again and see if I can clean it up any further. Mike Christie (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Common Raven[edit]

This article is the first collaboration of wikiproject birds. I feel it fulfils all criteria and is about as comprehensive as one can get before getting into real trivia. The sources are cited and reliable and the article has not been the subject of any edit wars. it has hierarchical headings and has been copyedited by at least 3 of us (and we'll try to address concerns FA reviewers may have!). cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Support as another contributor Kla'quot 04:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to Conditional Support. The article is in excellent shape. However, Circeus brought up some things which I think still need to be addressed:
    • "The neck and breast are distinctly brownish but obscured by glossy black when the plumage is very fresh." - needs to be clarified.  Done hope that's okcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pied Raven paragraph is unsourced. (Partly done. One reference but it predates its extinction so needless to say cannot refer to the whole paragraph)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, the male may 'cover' the young without brooding them as such." - needs to be more explicit  Donecheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conservation and management section fails to cover properly the ways in which the species is controlled when it becomes a pest.

Kla'quot 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Got one for 3 ways in Mojave. Gotta run but there should be some others for elsewhere in the world. Got another for Finland though it is historical n cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am bothered by the fact that some paragraphs end without a reference. Even if the last sentence is actually covered by a reference in the next paragraph, it appears unreferenced. Some examples include the first paragraph of "evolutionary history", the first of "description", the third of "distribution and habitat", and the first and second of "breeding". Please make it clear where the information in these paragraphs is coming from.--Danaman5 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little worried about the article appearing over-referenced with a zillion inline thingies but will see what can be done.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to only be of concern if dozens of sentences cite repeatedly cite the same source. I don't see that being an issue here. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK no problem, working on it. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for every sentence to be supported by an inline citation... Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? Do I have the right bird, or is it only the American Crow? Crows in our area were wiped out by West Nile Virus — we don't have them anymore. Does West Nile affect the Common Raven, and should that be mentioned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • American Crows are the species hardest-hit by the West Nile Virus. Infected Common Ravens have been found, but according to this source by the National Audubon Society apparently it is not one of the more commonly infected species. Kla'quot 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and nicely written. Axl 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thorough coverage with an appropriate level of detail. A good read. I feel the "Cultural references" section is a little choppy but not strongly enough to object. Yomanganitalk 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, when you say "choppy" do you mean too many brief examples and should be expanded? It was tricky but I tried formatting the paras so that there was a theme to each (ancient, celtic-medieval-british, modern...) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really only have a problem with the last paragraph. I've edited out some of the awkward redundant phrasing but there are some remaining:
  • The Common Raven's appearances in literature mirror those of traditional mythology and folklore In what way? tweaked
  • perhaps most famously Yes, perhaps, or arguably, or perhaps arguably or perhaps, some would say, arguably, legend has it.
  • Modern literature too has seen ravens in the works of Charles Dickens and Stephen King, among others I think you need a bit more of a list here or I start to think "I bet they can't find any others", or maybe you want to say something like "in works by authors as diverse as Charles Dickens and Stephen King" (although you are then into the "how diverse are they?" argument).  Done
  • ...in Bhutan, (how?) the Yukon territory,(how?) and on the Isle of Man (how?)  Done
  • Finally it has been adopted by a sporting entity Finally? (were we waiting for it to happen?), adopted? (do they have a little cage for it?), sporting entity? (is that a team?).  Done
Like I said, nothing that ruins an overall good piece, but it is a shame to finish with a paragraph full of clunky phrasing and weasel words. Yomanganitalk 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Paulo (Lost)[edit]

Hi there, I have worked on this article about the most hated secondary character from the television series Lost, getting rid of the in-universe perspective from this to the current version. See the short, archived peer review here. Almost every sentence has a reference. I kept the recent peer review and featured article candidacy of the Desperate Housewives' supporting character Andrew Van De Kamp in mind when writing this article. Self-nominate. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak oppose - I haven't reviewed it entirely (though I did like seeing what appears to be real world content), but the most immediate thing that caught my eye was "fan response...". Fan reaction to anything is extremely hard to measure. But in the sentence, you say "fan response was mostly negative, one journalist..." Are you calling the journalist a fan, or are you attributing fan response as a separate entity? If you are using it from the journalist's words, "I hate Nikki and Paulo sentiment that I hear from fans", then it should be made clear that the journalist feels the fans don't like him. He/she doesn't give any kind of empirical measure as to how they know fans don't like him, they just say it's something they hear. It should be written to reflect that they think fans don't like Paulo, since we cannot accurately measure something like that. With 12 million viewers, it would take a really good randomized poll to even begin to assume what fans truly think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. How is the change I made from "Fan reaction was mostly negative" to "Reaction to the character was more negative than for other Lost characters?" --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you should see about finding a professional reaction to the other characters, but by the same people that deemed his character in a negative light. We need to verify that the other characters received generally positive opinions, and I'm going to assume that this is the only LOST character article that is even close to fulfilling FA requirements. Otherwise, I would just say "Reaction to the character was generally negative." Then, I would provide 2 or so citations just for that sentence alone. Next, I'd have an equal number of positive and negative reviews of the character, because you have to keep a neutral eye. Putting the extra citations at the end of the first sentence (in my opinion) shows that they did tend to len more to the negative, but for writing purposes, we have to keep it neutral. Right now, the entire section is biased to the negative. Also, there is more "fan" talk within the section. If reliable sources are claiming this about fans, make sure it's known that it was THEM they said it. Otherwise, it could come off as original research, even if it has a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paulo is a pretty minor character. He was only in seven episodes and had only ~two lines each in six of them. I do not think there is much else on the Internet about him than what has already been cited. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The episode in which he played a major role was called a good episode by quite a few "professional" columnists, however Paulo was never specifically called a good character. Where would I cite reaction to the other characters? And you are correct in that none of the other character articles are close to FA; they are all just extremely long plot summaries. I changed the word "fan" to "viewer" in the article, as well. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't even sources for people that "loved to hate him"? Sometimes people don't like the character, but not because of anything specific of the actor or how the writers make him, but because they are into the show and they don't like what he does. I don't know, it just bugs me to have a really biased reaction section to the character. It rather violates WP:NPOV, but I understand when it comes to limited viewings. I have Aquaman (TV program) up for FAC, and I have a problem with the reviews, because it was never picked up for television, so any reviews are limited and not very professional. So, I'm kind of in the same boat you are in. Anyway, I'll try and go through the article more detailed and look for specific things (like necessary copy editing, or something).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more things that should be easier to address:

  • "History" - Since he isn't "real", and that section isn't detailing the history of the character's development (i.e. how the writers came about creating him), it should probably be titled "Appearances". "Appearances" give off more of an impression that you are talking about when he appears in the show, instead of looking like a biography of the character. I would also probably reword it to be more out-of-universe. For example, in the first sentence, I'd say (and I may episodes mixed up, so you can substitute the right one) "'Further Instructions' introduced Paulo as a Brazilian con artist..." Kind of like that, but throughout that section. You don't have to repeat the same episode, but write it so its clear that it's in the show, and not in reality.
  • I don't see how flashbacks centering on the character were meant to make him "unlikeable". That seems out of place in the sentence. Is there a better way to word, or clarify what that means?
  • A lot of the characteristics information is written as "in-universe". It should be rewritten to be "out-of-universe". Since you are using the episode to show his characteristics (even though you should be finding outside sources that explain these characters, because it could easily be seen as original research), you should write it so that it's clear "In episode X, Paul shows little concern about the heroic efforts of the other survivors...".
  • Is this: "but he is a well experienced actor in his home country, having won many awards" - part of the quote that precedes it, or a separate statement? It's written to contradict the previous statement, but that isn't what it should do. I think I understand how it's being used, to say that he may be unfamiliar in the States, but he's won several awards back home. It would probably be best to keep it as its own sentence, and clarify that although he is unfamiliar to American audiences, he is an accomplished actor in his [give actual hometown].
  • There is also a plague of run-on sentences thoroughout the article. Here is the worst: "Reaction to the character was more negative than for other Lost characters, one journalist even giving Paulo the nickname, "Paulo Poops-a-Lot," referencing a gag scene where Paulo emerges from the Pearl station bathroom and says, "the toilet still works," to Locke, Nikki, Sayid Jarrah and Desmond Hume who are attempting to communicate with the Others." - it's the first sentence in the reception section.

These are a few things that I saw while going through.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to address many of your opinions. In regard to the (now) "Appearances" section: the show is told in a non-linear fashion. Each episode features flashbacks from a character's past, which is why I cannot write that "'Further Instructions' introduced Paulo as a Brazilian con artist..." I could write "Further Instructions" introduced Paulo as a survivor as Oceanic Flight 815, but this would be lower on the page, causing it to seem out of place (and redundant because it is said in the lead). The featured article Andrew Van De Kamp, as well as the television series guidelines (if I'm not mistaken), say not to say "In the episode x, Paulo.." Instead, it says to cite the episode. Again, thanks for your help. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to say "introduced", you could say "explained" for episodes that used flashbacks, if the flashbacks occurred out of order with the fictional timelines. Keep the information in the order in which it aired, just explain that this episode expanded on his background in this way, and that episode expanded on his background in that way. The lead summarizes the entire article, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, so don't worry about redundancy in that aspect. But, if Project TV tells you to do it one way, you gotta meet their requirements first. I just looked at the Andrew article, and I can't see how that made it to FA status. 3/4's of the article is entirely in-universe information. LOL, I can fit all of the out-of-universe information onto my screen at the same time. Ah..it cites episodes by the second. That's seems more like fluff citations. Oh...anyway, I'll read through it again later and see how it looks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only problem I see is the citation of a Wiki (see WP:V). I'd happily support if this is fixed. Matthew 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have that is because they count how many episodes he has appeared in. I couldn't find any other sites that listed his appearances other than ABC Medianet, but then I would have to cite each press release. Would you still like it changed? --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could essentially cite IMDb for where he appears, as "credits" are the only thing that actually get from the shows themselves. Also, if he only appears in 7 episodes, it wouldn't be bad to use the ABC press releases, although IMDb (even though I hate to use them for anything) can be used as 1 source for all appearances.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, for some reason IMDb never crossed my mind for that. I will cite that instead. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if I support yet, but I have to say that this is an awesome improvement of the article. This is that real-world / out of universe direction that all fictional character/ element articles should take. If it's not at FA yet, then it's not far from it. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, concise, well-referenced and written straight-forwardly. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any reason this article and Nikki Fernandez are not merged into one article? The articles should be virtually identical, and I can see little reason to keep them apart. — Brian (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are two characters. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be beneficial, since this article is only 16kb (which means the readable prose is probably like 10-12kb) and Nikki's is 6kb (making her readable prose less than half of his). It might be something to consider to help the stability of the article. Both characters had short lives in the series, and they appeared together, not to mention they are bf/gf.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be beneficial, but Nikki and Paulo did have different experiences. Paulo was not an actress and Nikki did not hide the diamonds in the Pearl station. The reception section should be pretty similar. A lot more is known about Rodrigo Santoro for the casting section than is known about Kiele Sanchez. The characteristics section would be a mess because Paulo is worried that he will lose Nikki and Nikki only cares about Paulo for the diamonds. Just as Rose Henderson and Bernard Nadler are not one article, I do not think that Nikki and Paulo should be either. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just write another paragraph or two under "Characteristics" about Nikki. Rose and Bernard should probably be one article, too. In fact, arguably, all minor characters on Lost should be merged into a single Characters of Lost article, modeled after Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Separating them is a violation of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which states:

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

.
Merging Nikki and Paolo though, that should be a no-brainer. — Brian (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my above comment, the issue is now fixed. Looks brilliant! Matthew 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support - My real concern now is the fact that it's only 7kb large (of readable prose), which is really small. This is something to keep in the back of your mind for the future of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems to meet WP:WAF and other criteria very well. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is a little short for a FA, but the quality of the content is FA status. -- Wikipedical 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of merging Nikki Fernandez with Paulo (Lost), since in many ways their pairing is a character (you can't have one without the other). I think it would be great to attempt this, even if only in a sandbox. That would make the article truly perfect in my mind. That being said, even alone this article should be an example to other such articles, and I support featured status. -- Ned Scott 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to weak-support, since I don't really have an objection, but I think a Nikki merge would make it truly perfect. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written and well referenced, I can't think of any way I would improve this article beyond how it is. Tphi 00:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written and considering that Paulo is dead, this article can't get much better. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Well written, but as others have mentioned this is a relatively short article for FA status. I'm not sure there's much more to add, though. Lumaga 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think it's pretty much been revamped to the highest possible quality. The page is thorough, accurate, and unbiased, so I don't see why not. Jwebby91 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Eris (dwarf planet)[edit]

former fac

Nominating for FA status as per peer review. Serendipodous 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article looks well written and there are a few minor points.
(1) The one information lacking is the day-period on the planet. if the data doesn't exist, the same needs to be mentioned.
2. I would suggest that the earlier term - 2003 UB313 be added to the lead para.
3. Also in the references, there are a few names of professors who don't have wiki pages. i would suggest that the wiki link be removed for these people or pages created. Kalyan 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the article does mention Eris's day, but it refers to it as its "sidereal rotation period." Trying to change it just screws with the template, so it's best to leave well alone. Where they got that 8 hours figure though I have no idea, as I have yet to find a source that confirms it. Serendipodous 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh i see, it is in the template while i was looking in the article. Do you see any value in adding a sentence in the artice?. Atleast it will make it very explicit. Kalyan 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Points addressed has been stricken. Kalyan 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I haven't found any sources that explicitly mention the length of Eris's day, so I wouldn't want to make any claims. I think the best thing to do is just delete the line from the template. Serendipodous 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. just leave it un-touched. Kalyan 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks well written and precise. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc1864Cuba Libre! 08:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think that this has some potential as an FA. It is within size limits, is well referenced, has good grammar, is well written, has a standard amount of wikilinks, and is well-structured (in a sense). The only two things that I think can be improved are that perhaps the images can be given more of a balance and that perhaps the "See Also" section can be given a few more links. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Good work, with only a few minor issues that I could see:
    • A reference would be good for the sentence: "Due to its orbit, surface temperatures vary between about −232 and −248 degrees Celsius."
    • The "3000+270
      −100       km" (3000{{±|270|100}} km) notation is not displaying the values properly on my browser. Should it be 3000+270 -100 km? If so, perhaps that also needs to be explained to the reader?
The article left me a little hungry for information that would explain Eris' high eccentricity and inclination, but I could understand that might not be available. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The inclination and eccentricity are explained (somewhat) in the "Classification" section. Perhaps they could be elaborated upon? Serendipodous 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good 'nuf. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done. Is the section "Size, Mass and Density" not in sentence case for some reason? -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fulfils criteria. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks a good article, I've not checked everything but from reading the text here's a couple of points

  • consistent use of either celsius or kelvin might make sense
  • 'the surface ices' is mentioned too early. At this point there hasn't been anything about the composition of Eris.
  • 'various ices' - again this is mentioned without any explanation. Could we have something more about what we might expect these ices to consist of? Clathrate hydrate & Methane clathrate seem to be articles to link to. JMiall 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Brown's approval of the dwarf planet tag is in the wrong place. The lead should not be introducing information that isn't mentioned in the rest of the article + I'm not sure that this important enough to put in the lead anyway, can it just be moved? JMiall 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Making Waves[edit]

I've worked on this article about a short-lived TV series for a month and based much of the structure on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs guidelines as well as on other FA TV articles, particularly The Wire. A comprehensive history of the series is provided, the image has a FUR, it has been copyedited by other users and a peer review is ongoing here. WindsorFan 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Articles aren't supposed to be listed at peer review and FAC at the same time; see the instructions at PR. Why don't you finish the peer review and then approach FAC? Otherwise, you'll need to remove it from peer review, which is a shame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the only thing I overlooked. I've closed the PR; I doubt one more week will elicit a response.WindsorFan 08:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In "Episodes" section, the summary of episodes are pretty large. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs suggests "one- or two-sentence summary" and appropriate daughter article creation for episodes, if needed. I understand that since this is a short-lived series, individual episodes may not be noteworthy enough to create articles. Still, a daughter article discussing all the episodes can be created, and summary of episodes can be further summarized. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut down the summaries to three lines describing the major storylines of the particular episode. I'm hesitant to split it off into a "List of episodes" article because there were only six episodes made and they're not particularly notable for separation.WindsorFan 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Have not read the whole article yet. However, it seems perfect. Hope to comment later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see "Acronyms and abbreviations" section in WP:MOS. Accordingly explain and/or wikilink things like XO, CCMEA, LMEA, Lt Cdr, OM etc.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded/linked where appropriate. WindsorFan 08:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had a look at a few windows of prose, such as these sentences. The lead is good, but the rest could do with fresh eyes to spruce it up, but it's on the good end of the spectrum here. "Alex Ferns arrived two days earlier than the rest of the cast in order to settle in and also made a trip to Yeovilton to meet Harrier pilots while Emily Hamilton prepared for her role by shadowing Vanessa Spiller, XO of HMS Kent." better as "Alex Ferns arrived two days earlier than the rest of the cast to settle in, and made a trip to Yeovilton to meet Harrier pilots, while Emily Hamilton prepared for her role by shadowing Vanessa Spiller, XO of HMS Kent." Yes? For one thing, there's "also-itis" in evidence. Tony 23:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support—please polish the article per Tony's suggestions. Might want to audit for commas: "In August 2002<comma needed> the Royal Navy...". There's also a one sentence para in the reception section. — Deckiller 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just one minor issue: the linking. It seems to me the following deserve to be linked: Richard Maher (is linked in the infobox, but I don't think that really counts) and Portsmouth. Good work.--Carabinieri 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WindsorFan 16:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base[edit]

Respectfully self-nominate this article about a military aircraft accident as a featured article candidate. The article has been through a peer review and A-class review with WikiProject Military history. Cla68 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article needs copy-editing. Some examples from the lead:
  • "occured".
  • "aircrewmembers"? Even if allowable in someone's jargon, it's awkward.
  • "Mishap", I think, is a word reserved for less serious accidents than four people dying in an airplane crash.
If I may butt in, no it isn't. Every accident in the USAF that is recorded is refered to as a mishap. Example: a class A mishap is one that causes the loss of an airframe, more than $1 million in damage, or the loss of a life.
  • "...the chain of events leading to the accident was primarily attributable to..."—this can be worded in a much more direct way.
  • "...USAF leader's reactions to it..." Apostrophe problems: more than one leader, I assume? If not, "the USAF leader's reactions".
  • "Today, the mishap is used in both military and civilian aviation environments as a training aid in teaching crew resource management and still often used by USAF during safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behavior of anyone that violates safety procedures"—many problems, the least of which is no period. :)
You could check with the League of Copyeditors. –Outriggr § 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the constructive comments. Somehow, I always seem to do a poorer job with copyediting the intro than I do the rest of the article. I corrected "occured", "leader's", and the last sentence. "Aircrewmembers is the word used by most of the article's sources, so I'll stick with that as the appropriate wording. Also, most of the sources for aircraft accidents that I've encountered use the word "mishap" for any type of accident, no matter how severe. Plus, they usually describe each mishap as being at the end of a "chain of events". Thus, I feel that that's the appropriate phrase to use. Cla68 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Albeit as a minor contributor (and reference) to this article - Well-written, researched, and documented. Check-Six 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wandalstouring 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose until copy-edit is performed per above. — Deckiller 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still 1a issues as above:
  • in the mishap - I agree that mishap is a fairly weak word to use (and could possibly be considered POV). Used again more than once in the article.
  • Today, the mishap is used in both military and civilian aviation environments as a training aid in teaching crew resource management. - the fact that you're talking about "today" is implied, I think. It's a very vague term anyway. "Both" is redundant.
  • correcting the behavior of anyone that violates safety procedures. - probably should be "anyone who".
  • Degree is sometimes hyphenated with the number, and sometimes not.
  • I think metric conversions are needed for things like 1,000 feet.
Nothing major really, but a careful check through would be good. Trebor 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mishap" is a perfectly acceptable (and IMHO, a preferred) word for use to describle the type of event this was... I refer you to the USAF's website, where the word is used 14 times to describe their work. Check-Six 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the corrections for everything you suggest except the word "mishap" and metric conversions. Mishap is the best word for this type of incident, because using the word "accident" is problematic since it can be argued that willful violation of safety regulations resulting in a crash might not be considered as an "accident." As far as metric measures go, as long as all of the measures in the article are standardized, either metric or English, then it's ok. Cla68 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that was my problem with mishap. It's defined as "an unfortunate accident", which seems even worse than just "accident" ("unfortunate" implying that luck played a part). While USAF may consider it a "mishap", I think it would be more objective to use something else. WP:UNITS says conversions should generally be included. Trebor 12:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up in Merriam Webster [5] and you're right, "mishap" means "unfortunate accident." What word do you think is more appropriate? I still believe that "accident" has its own problems, and I can't think of another word to use except for "crash." Cla68 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't think of one which really fits either (which is why I can't oppose for this). Hopefully someone else will have an idea. Trebor 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and replaced all occurrences of "mishap" and "accident" with "crash." That appears to be the most neutral word. Cla68 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, can we please change 'aircrewmembers' to 'aircrew members?' Simply because the USAF sometimes mangles the English language in its use of jargon doesn't mean we always have to stick to their terms. Buckshot06 18:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them all to "crew members." Cla68 05:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the few articles that was actually a pleasure to read. — MichaelLinnear 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first: well-written overall. Very compelling. Second: the bad news. A few copy-edit errors: "and executed a "wing over,". The...", "...the attention of three Fairchild USAF leaders. One, Lieutenant Colonel Bullock, the current..." what is trying to be said here? It makes me question what else I'm missing. The references are atrocious. For starters it appears that there are only two references used over and over. On top of that it seems that the ref name= function is never used, so the references keep piling up, but no new source has been added, nor page numbers within the references. Check-six.com, for reference [25], doesn't have a specific page linked and the reference would be hard to find otherwise. While these are still probably pretty accurate, I'm not sure that it meets FA article status. Taking this through a Good Article review would probably catch most of these problems. — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the two syntax/grammatical errors you pointed out. I count three, not two, references used over and over, with a few others used to a smaller extent. I believe three main sources are adequate and all three are credible sources. I didn't use the ref name= function because all of the citations are at the end of the paragraphs, which means that if any of the information in any of the paragraphs is changed or a new source becomes available, then the footnotes will have to be changed and it's easier to change a regular footnote than a "ref name" footnote. I clicked on the Check-Six link in the references section and it took me directly to the sourced page, so I'm not sure what you mean by your comment about it. The article has been through a peer review and A-class review with the Military History Project. Cla68 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, three references. My point is that you don't need a new reference with each cited use.[1] Now that you have cited it,[1] you can use it over and over without having to retype the information.[1] It also renumbers automatically for you if you change the citations.[2] It also minimizes the size of the page and the references section. If the info changes and you want to change a link, then you simply insert the new citation.[1] Basically, you can cut down the bibliography from 25 lines. Some of the references are combinations of refs; please make separate references for each.[1][2] Also missing page numbers in references. Also missing link in #25, not the video clip. — BQZip01 — talk 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I combined the footnotes and added page numbers as requested. Cla68 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but I think the combination of citations is unnecessary. For example, reference 2 (Piper, Chain of Events, p. 136, Kern, Darker Shades of Blue, and USAF, AFR 110-14, p. 2-3.) is actually 3 references with little information about each book or website or whatever it is. Each one should have its own reference, like this.[1][2][3] It would also be useful (but not required) to use citation templates to make sure all relevant information is available so someone else can look up the given information and to make sure book names are italicized or bolded or whatever.
One new thing I just noticed was the images. IAW WP:MoS images should not be sized, so the sizings have to go. In addition, the captions need to be full sentences with periods or sentence fragments without periods.
Make these references more accessible and clear and fix the images and you have my blessing! Great Job! — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm not trying to be an ass, but featured articles should be pretty damn good and meet all of wikipedia guidelines. If you think I'm being a pain, check out the University of Oklahoma section. Of course, that article wasn't written nearly as well as this one... — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I appreciate the constructive feedback. In this case, however, I'm afraid that I'm going to disagree with you on the rest of your proposed changes to the article. I believe it's fine to combine citations. In fact, I did that in an article that passed FA candidacy just a couple of months ago- Actions along the Matanikau. In our peer reviews in the MilHist project, we encourage other editors to combine their citations. All of the references in the article do use citation templates. I'm usually very strict about using citation templates in the articles I edit. I tried taking all the image sizing out, but when I previewed the article, the images showed up with wildly different sizes. The guidelines say it isn't recommended to use image sizing, but doesn't prohibit it. I use image sizing to make the images appear more or less the same size throughout the article. Aren't all of the image captions in the article full sentences with periods? Cla68 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Image sizing. Then the images are probably not all thumbnails if they are not showing up as the same size. As for the combination of references, I am not that familiar with references other than to make sure they are verifiable with WP guidelines. As such, they are fine, but I still think they should be individual citations for each reference. — BQZip01 — talk 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Islam[edit]

(Self-nomination). Countless hours have been spent by many editors getting this article to GA status, and now (hopefully) to FA quality. All suggestions for improvement will be promptly and seriously considered. (Old nom.). - Merzbow 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. Thank you Merzbow for your hard work. A university professor from outside has reviewed this article [6]. He described the writing as "clinical and straightforward, but not boring."--Aminz 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise for your hard word. And the article has improved vastly even since the version the professor reviewed. - Merzbow 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think we have ironed out all the POV and citation problems, and now this seems to be a very good and encyclopediac article on wikipedia.--Sefringle 04:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I will have to to through this, but at first glance I notice two problems.
    • For the second paragraph of criticism of Islam you have "law and practice.[142][143][144][145]" which uses 4 different references in 4 different footnotes. With "Montgomery Watt and Norman Daniel dismiss [...] while Carl Ernst writes that Islamophobia has played a part.[146]" you have two references in one footnotes. I much prefer the second method; although, I know users have disagreed before. Whichever your preference this should be standardized throughout the article.
    • "Responses to the critics have come from many corners." comes off as weasley to me. I think there is a better way to integrate that into the sentence.
    • This is off of the top of my head but... "shahādatān" and then "Zakat. How we deal with long vowels should be uniform. I prefer marking them, but I don't see why we whould not do zakāt when we do it on the other. gren グレン 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I'll try to clean up the weasely sentence. And good catch in regards to "shahādatān"; I think it's better just to change it to Shahadah, which seems to be the common English rendering. In regards to the footnotes... right now I've stuck to the practice of combining simple references like "Esposito (2002b), p.1" together in one footnote with semicolons, but have avoid smushing together larger references (like cite templates) because they are harder to distinguish with just semicolons to delineate them. I admit this seems kind of arbitrary. Would you prefer we always combine adjacent footnotes? - Merzbow 08:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would argue shahadah, salah, zakat, are not English and therefore should use diacritics. Islam, jihad, etc. have made their way into English and therefore shouldn't use diacritics. But, even though I have my preference I think we should at least be consistent.
As for the footnotes, that seems arbitrary and I doubt that any referencing style manual (that uses footnotes) would accept that. Then again, I don't know of any manual that allows multiple footnotes next to each other, but I still think consistency is the biggest issue. So, I would prefer we always combine because [141][142][143][144] makes the text less readable. Footnotes are not meant to be read like prose so they do not need to be as flowing. But with the body it at least looks a lot nicer to have one note rather than three or four. gren グレン 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the five pillars words, all but sawm and shahadah are in M-W's unabridged, so I think that qualifies them for anglicization. As for those two, I think the desire to keep them in parallel form with the others comes down on the side of keeping out the diacritics. As for the refs, I'll see what I can do. - Merzbow 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an experiment I tried separating multiple refs in one footnote with bullet characters, this seems to work far better than a semicolon. See references 108 and 137 as an example. I also put them on separate lines with line breaks. I think they are easy to read now. - Merzbow 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refs are merged now using a scheme we devised on Talk. I think it looks pretty good. - Merzbow 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per POV. Before getting to that: it moves at nice pace with a rational TOC to help the reader; prose is good—short, declarative sentences; I'll leave the micro-formatting issues to greater minds, but it all seems OK; LEAD is fine, but Sunni and Shi'a need a mention there; length is fine and might even use a slight expansion. So, on to 1d:

  • "'The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm[!] that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham.'" This can mean two things: a) in broad anthropological terms the God of Islam shares the same root as the Judeo-Christian God—OK; b) Abraham was a Muslim. Insofar as the second is intended, it must at least be observed that Jews would vigorously deny it. (Thus "historians affirm" really threw me—which historians and from which angle?)
  • "He is viewed not as the founder of a new religion, but as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets — the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others." For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I'd suggest he is the founder of a new religion and should be described as such. Even if only in a clause, secular terms should come first (e.g. Brittanica: "founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God").
  • In the Jihad section, theory and practice need to be more sharply defined. "The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state." Well, OK. Were Janissaries converted by force or in the name of the "expansion and defense of the Islamic state"? Oh, wait a minute—what exactly is the difference between "by force" and "expansion and defense"? I'm sorry, but you read this and you have no inkling that Islam is a (sometimes violently) proselytizing faith. While on that subject, and while I know it's fraught, some reader or other is going to come along and expect information on contemporary terrorism in the name of jihad.
  • The criticisms section is a strawman. It's good the one sentence mentioned above was removed, but it still reads to me as a "yes, but" that gives no real time to textual criticism. "...questions the authenticity and morality of the Qu'ran..." First, I wouldn't wrap those two nouns together as they denote distinct issues. More importantly, this is the only hint of secular (rather than intra-Muslim) dispute anywhere in the piece. The article mentions disagreement over X or Y idea here and there, but never challenges to doctrines per se—polygamy and purported antisemetism come to mind. And no, we don't need polemics from answeringjihad.org; a much better section can be constructed with good sources. Marskell 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re point #1. Peters says:"The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".
Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites." --Aminz 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I've addressed the first concern and second concern, and will work on the third. However, I'm not clear on your objections to the contents of the Criticism section. There isn't enough space in such a small section to go into much detail about specific criticisms, it's there to give a very broad overview of the debate. Are you saying we should disband it and intersperse the criticism throughout the article? - Merzbow 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first two points have been addressed i believe. concerning the Jihad section, the passage you cite makes clear (IMO) that it refers to Jihad in principle. the difference between 'conversion by force' and 'expansion of the state' is that with the latter, you are instituting a new legal system and administration, and not forcing the population to accept Islam - as they still have the choice to abide by their religion in return for the jizya (as elaborated in the 'other religions' section). this is the precise point Rudolph Peters makes ("The primary aim of the jihad is not, as it was often supposed in the older European literature, the conversion by force of unbelievers, but the expansion - and also defence - of the Islamic state. Unbelievers who were brought under Islamic rule in this manner were given a choice. Either they were allowed, in return for the payment of a special tax, to abide by their own religion, or they could become converts to Islam, in which case they acquired full civil rights."). as for the criticism section, much of the modern criticism today is in the form of criticising Islamic law, the life of Muhammad, as well as the primary texts (cf. Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq). are polygyny and purported antisemitism comparitively prominent? i'm not so sure (if you have any sources i could consult then that would be v. helpful). thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in the first century of Islam conversion was discouraged for several reasons. I just saw the Rudolph Peters's quote. I have already rewritten it using Esposito.--Aminz 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made further changes to the Jihad section that hopefully address the points raised here. It now explains how expansion of the Islamic state does not necessary entail aggressive warfare (as Itaq points out), and mentions how jihad has been used to justify modern terrorism. - Merzbow 01:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have scratched one and two, and part of three (though I'm still not entirely convinced—the "although" risks another strawman). This leaves the last. Do I really need to source that purported antisemitism is a prominent criticism? Google "Jews pigs" and see what comes up first. Unfortunately, where I am sources will be censored on this (e.g. most anything from Israel) and there's no good library around. For some bizarre reason Robert Spencer isn't censored, but I suppose we don't want him in the article. I could probably dig up something in back issues of Foreign Affairs or whatnot; there was a good article on Islamic feminism a year-and-a-half ago that could be used on criticism of plural marriage. Two other notes:
  • Again, Sunni and Shi'a, their numbers, and a brief mention of doctrinal difference, belong in the LEAD; in fact, I don't think their numbers are mentioned anywhere at present. It's just the sort of info a reader will turn to the article for.
  • No mention of Wahhabism in Modern Times? Marskell 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, we have one small overview section on criticism of islam. Once we mention more specific points, we need to balance it out with specific answers and the section becomes bloated.
Wahabism is already covered as part of the fundamentalist movements. --Aminz 08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention of Wahhabism to the "Modern times" section, and put Sunni/Shia in the lead (with the 85/15 split there and also in the Demo section). We'll think further about how to better clarify that portion of the Jihad section and about how to address your concerns about the underrepresentation of certain criticisms. - Merzbow 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of a balancing current reader expectation while avoiding "recentism". I'm not asking for three paragraphs on polygyny and the status of women—three sentences will do. It's something a reader would expect to find here because it's much discussed. Part of the problem with the section is that the "Other criticism..." sentence is generic, while the reply to it is specified and mentions authors—it's a rebuttal of criticism where the criticism is never properly stated. Marskell 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when I'm home I could probably add my own sentences. Thinking about it, the status of women arguably deserves its own section, though we don't want to wander from summary style. Marskell 08:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am afraid a section on status of women would become too detailed. It should cover change in the status of women by the advent of Islam. Then the works of later jurists and addition of cultural elements to the regulations.. then we come to the modern time and its movements. it is too detailed and i am not sure if such section is relevant to this article. --Aminz 08:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Karl is suggesting below a section in Community about "family life". This seem reasonable; we can also add the mentions that Marskell is requesting to that section. - Merzbow 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed all your remaining points now... I pulled in Bernard Lewis to help clarify the Jihad section some more; added a mention of the antisemitism criticism to the Criticism section (along with other tweaks), and added sentences about the rights of women to the new "Family life" section. - Merzbow 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my oppose for now. I'll need to read it again. Marskell 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that the additions to the history section make the article sufficiently comprehensive and balanced to achieve FA status. Do not refrain from adding more crucial non-political elements in the section (if more exist). They are at least as important as the political elements. My sincere compliments to the editors.Sijo Ripa 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC) *Oppose. The history section is tremendously biased in favour of wars, conquests and empires. I would expect that an article about a religion would deal in the history section with the history of the religion, not solely with politics. I do not say that the politics cannot be relevant (for instance they are necessary to explain the spread of Islam), but the section should be about the history of Islam, not about the history of Muslim empires. What religion-related important events happened? For instance: the founding of the different branches, theological and philosophical discussions, new interpretations, notable influental imams on the religion, did the relationship with science and art change? when?, etc. PS: Some references can and should be merged.Sijo Ripa 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - i think that most texts available on the history of Islam go into discussion primarily about the history of the spread of Islam (cf. "Cambridge History of Islam", CU Press; "A Brief History of Islam", Blackwell publishing). that might be because there wasn't much in terms of significant theological codification of the religion post-Muhammad, and the fact that there isn't/wasn't an official, centralised clergy. the fundamental beliefs and practices had already been defined. other historical aspects of Islam are covered in their respective sections: the development of legal practice is covered in the Law section for example, while the history of sectarian formation could perhaps afford more mention in the denominations section if it's not already sufficient. ITAQALLAH 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it hard to believe that there aren't significant religious (local or global) changes during about 1500 years of history that can be mentioned in the history section. I doubt that there aren't reliable books or articles about this. The history section could for instance tell when and how Sufism came into existence. Sijo Ripa 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There might be some books but these are not hard facts. If we just wish to write how sufism start etc while keeping WP:NPOV then we need to give many different opinions. One can write a new article about all of those opinions and even then that article will have a tag similar to one exist on Sufism always. We just wish to touch major facts like defining Shia, Sunni and other major sects and leaving other details on those individual articles. Please ask something which is possible at least.--- A. L. M. 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know little of Islam. Can you explain why there isn't any reliable information about the history of Islam? There must at least be some reliable estimates (a century and a region?) when and where a certain denomination started, or am I wrong? There must be at least some information about new interpretations and relationships made. I mean, there were many scholars in the Muslim world, there are many academics studying the subject now, we're speaking of about 1500 years... I really doubt that only POV material is published. Sijo Ripa 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • History books usually contains similar information as described in a very excellent way in History section of article. That is about Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottomans, Mughal etc. Friend you must understand that unlike other religions, Muslim generally do not follow some Imams/pope strictly but follow Quran/Sunnah. Hence history that you are asking for is not important in Islam. We usually look at the arguments given by a person (using Quran and Sunnah) and if the arguments are good then they follow it otherwise not. Hence, we have mentioned different school of thoughts names and some other information briefly (see Denominations). I suggest we leave details in those articles because neither they are important nor very well defined. --- A. L. M. 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • any relevant information pertaining to Sufism would likely be mentioned in its own section in the article. i will try to introduce more information concerning possible dates the main sects emerged. i interpret from what you have written that the main issue of concern is that the History section says nothing about the development of sects. but as i'm seeing it, any appropriate information concerning sects and their history would be more pertinent in their relevant sub-section in the Denominations section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The concern here is about duplicating too much material discussed elsewhere in the article. However, we can certainly intersperse small mentions of important non-political developments in the History section, with the expectation that the reader who wants to know more will look to the dedicated sections in the rest of the article. Does that sound OK? (I'm also looking for guidance on the clearest way to combine references - any suggestions here - I'm feeling uneasy about just smushing together large cite templates with semicolons because it makes them hard to distinguish). - Merzbow 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • When first looking over this I saw no reference to Fazlur Rahman's Islam (and of less importance Islam and Modernity). These are relevant to this complaint because they do give a much clearer intellectual history. I need to reread the article, but if anyone is curious where to look to maybe address the intellectual rather than political history of Islam that is a good starting place. gren グレン 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't know whether you have access to the books mentioned by Grenavitar, but it sounds like what I meant. I think that there is plenty of crucial information regarding the intellectual history that isn't present in the article yet. Furthermore, the history section can deal with the circumstances (when, why, where, the reaction of other Muslims, etc.) a certain denomination was founded, while the "Denominations" section can explain what the characteristics of the denomination are and how this denomination is different from other denominations.Sijo Ripa 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • ok, i have incorporated a few things such as the origin of the sunni/shi'a split, the Abbasid mihna, and the presence of theological dispute in the area of philosophical discourse. also, the information about modern movements in Islam has been incorporated into the history section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We still should add a bit about the origins/development of Sufism (the three stages, one in each of the first three sections), and about development of Islamic law. - Merzbow 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • OK a lot has been added to the history section on a variety of topics aside from the political/military... we've consulted a number of sources to determine the most notable events in areas such as theology and Islamic law. Please take a look. - Merzbow 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. an excellent example of how controversy can be the driving force to arrive at brilliant articles. I consider the two "oppose" votes above somewhat disingenious, since they basically translate to "forget it, this article will never be granted FA status". dab (𒁳) 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, Dab. I will support the FA status once my concerns are addressed. Sijo Ripa 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, AGF. The above opposes are cogent and specific; of course this can become an FA. Marskell 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The article lack information regarding several important issues. One obvious example is that the "Other religions" sections doesn't mention anything about Islams relations with non-monotheist religions, and only discuss the status of Christians and Jews within the Islamic state. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? While I do not contribute to the article, I can imagine that it would be helpful to give a list of the important issues and what specifically lacks.Sijo Ripa 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list would be helpful. Regarding this specific objection, it should be easy enough to add information about Islam's relationship with religions other than Christianity/Judaism. I'm not sure what else we can say on Christianity/Judaism and Islam, that seems comprehensively covered. - Merzbow 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mentioned was that the section with the title "other religions" need to include information regarding Islams relations with other religions other than just the Christian and the Jewish religion. Islams view on polytheists should as a minimum also be discussed. As for the Jewish and the Christian religion, I haven't suggested that we should include more information regarding Islam's relations with these religions, as I agree that these issues are sufficiently covered. Other things, however, that are also missing is something about Islam's relations with not just other religions but also atheists and agnostics. A section that is discussing Islam's view on family, marriage and gender roles is also missing, and would properly be very suitable as a subsection to the "community" section. -- Karl Meier 16:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. - Merzbow 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Islam have had most of its contact with Christians, Zoroastrian (and Jews). When Muslims conquered India, they extended the Dhimmi laws to Hinduis, Buddists and others... --Aminz 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that Islam also came in contact with a lot of polytheists right from its most early days. -- Karl Meier 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of course. --Aminz 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section on "other religions" now includes information regarding Islam's relations with other religions other than Christianity and Judiasm. --Aminz 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a bit about relations with atheists/agnostics; I think that section is complete now. The family life section will be added by us over the next few days. - Merzbow 08:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Family life" section is done, take a look when you can. - Merzbow 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed with the latest additions to the article, and they include everything that I thought was missing regarding these issues. I have been reading the whole article again though, and I still believe there is one remaining issue that will have to be discussed in the article, if it is to be complete: Islams relations with the state. If a section that adequately discuss these issues is added to the article, I will change my vote to support. -- Karl Meier 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll make that a small sub-section of "Law", since Islamic law defines the nature of such relations (i.e. the essential lack of church/state separation). - Merzbow 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added now. - Merzbow 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported the nomination as your original version of that section sufficiently discussed the topic and was clear, neutral and straight to the point. Unfortunately though, Aminz latest editing which distort the history and facts regarding especially Islam's early relations with the state has turned the section into that is not suitable for a featured article. -- Karl Meier 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Karl please mind WP:CIVIL. --Aminz 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wasting my time with your "Please mind WP:Whatever", and remain WP:Civil yourself. Thank you. I have made valid comments about your editing of that specific section, and mentioned that your version of the article is not suitable for a featured article. You might wish that policy said something else, but fact is that criticizing your editing is not against against WP:Civility or any other policy. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop refering to my edits as distorting facts and history. --Aminz 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are allowed to discuss your specific edits and to criticizing them. What makes you believe otherwise? -- Karl Meier 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to do that using a civil language. --Aminz 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to stop your attempts to derail the discussions here with your false and pointless accusations. -- Karl Meier 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the section to include some of the information in a footnote. The way it's worded now is plausible I believe. - Merzbow 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I highly disagree with that edit. EoQ is quite clear that according to some "the qurʾānic message is not political but moral". This section further fails to mention Shia Islam that traditionally separated politics from religion holding that only Muhammad and his descendents can be the head of government. We are not supposed to write what people *like* to hear.--Aminz 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue the discussion about the specifics of this section on the article talk page. - Merzbow 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe that all my concerns has now been addressed, I have changed my vote to support. -- Karl Meier 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article seem to be very comprehensive and detailed. However, i think it may be a bit too big...Bless sins 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of material to cover it's unlikely to ever be below 80k. I hope to keep it under 85k though; just a month ago it used to be almost 115k, but we trimmed as much as seemed feasible. - Merzbow 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could reduce it right now by removing the "Arts and Sciences" and "Criticism" sections. As discussed on talk, the first is mostly irrelevant and misleading - domes, for example, are no more Islamic than are arches, courtyards, etc. - while the Criticism section is almost jarring in the awkwardness of its appendage to an article which is otherwise (with a few unfortunate exceptions) blessedly free of argument; it reads like a concession and I imagine that it probably was, from a time when the article was far less disinterested in tone than it is today (thanks also to Karl Meier's insistence on the presentation of several potentially controversial topics.)Proabivouac 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote It seems I was wrong. It seems there are a couple of POV issues that need to be sorted out first.--Sefringle 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else aside from the one sentence you edited? - Merzbow 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has yet replied to my suggestion above, and my talk page comments have not been credibly addressed. Rather than try to hold the status of this article hostage to these complaints - to be fair, most Wikipedia articles fall short of my standards in these respects, and it is indeed a very good article as they go - but these comments about domes and gunpowder are entirely irrelevant to the subject of Islam, and should be removed even if and though they don't bother any POV camp.
Since this is not a vote, my comments can be interpreted for what they are; neither a protest that this article might achieve featured status in its current state, nor an acceptance of the presence of these unnecessary components. Ideally both Arts and Sciences and Criticism sections will be removed, bringing us to exactly the recommended size. Barring this, at least we should remove the most obviously off-topic sentences.Proabivouac 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I thank you for not lodging an oppose based on this, I'll have to strongly disagree with your reasoning. We have a section called "History" of which 70% discusses political and military events in the Islamic World. This content has nothing to do with religion directly, yet you aren't arguing against it. Historical accomplishments by Muslims in areas of art and science are in no way qualitatively different than their military and political exploits. I would suggest that for consistency, if you want art, science, and philosophy to go, you also need to argue that all of this history be excised as well. My position is that all sufficiently notable events in the Muslim world are within the scope of Islam (and the content of every single introductory book on Islam I've ever read, from Esposito to Lewis to Britannica, validates this observation). As for the criticism section, if you want to make concrete proposals to address specific criticisms elsewhere in the article that you think are being marginalized here, then go ahead... as above we've already done a bit of this. - Merzbow 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The history just attained the minimum level of religious history to let me drop my oppose, but I still think that the section should more be about religious history, not politics. I think that most people add political history, arts and science, etc. in their books, is because there is no difference for the name for the civilization (Islamic civilization) and the religion (Islam), as opposed to Western civilization (politics, military, arts, science, ...) and (Western) Christianity. This confusion should however be no argument to confuse the two in an encyclopedic article. Arts and science should perhaps be limited to religion-related art, science and literature only. I mean: gunpowder, paper, medicine, etc should be removed, art and literature dedicated or related to the worshipping of Allah should stay. Sijo Ripa 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can take cues from Encyclopedia Britannica Online; the article on Islam deals exclusively with the religious history, philosophy and theology, whereas the political history is dealt with in the article "Islamic world". --Bluerain talk 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should limit it to religious history (since, political expansion is important to who = adherents and what ideas they bring to the development of religious thought) but I think we should tightly integrate the two... They aren't integrated and the history of religious thoughts often seems like mere asides with dislike ideas paired in the same sentences (see second paragraph of Golden Age). Also about that paragraph al-Shafi'i is important for codifying Usul al-fiqh... its affect on usage of hadith is important but it's not "he made it second", but he attempted to standardize usage. Also, we mention neopolatonism in Arab philosophy but not Aristotelian thought? I am not well read on Islamic philosophy but I'd like to be assured that the choice is not merely arbitrary? You also have disjuncts like §Modern times (1878–present) // In the aftermath of World War I losses. If the section starts at 1878 then so should the text. I think the modern time section is misleading because it talks about "Liberal Islam" as a means to "reconcile religious tradition with modern norms of secular governance and human rights"? Using that language would make it seems that progressive-ish Muslims are more important than the reformist movements like the Ikhwan and Jamaat-e-Islami but instead we lump these in with "fundamentalist" groups. It's especially misleading since MB and JI were very modern groups that while religious were not traditional at all (and often opposed the ulema). So, we should downplay the liberal groups but focus on the modern ones and not use Islamism as a pejorative (which we are when we call it fundamentalist). And Islamism isn't a movment. It's a label given by Western scholars. The Muslims Brotherhood is a movement. This has gotten away from my original purpose but I think a lot of it is sloppy and anecdotal. Oh, and the ending sentence "There are Muslim and non-Muslim scholars who have spoken out against it stating that the basic texts of Islam texts do not sanction these activities." just doesn't fit and looks like it was tacked on to make it look better. gren グレン 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these are good points, and the article will be improved accordingly. - Merzbow 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I appreciate all the hard work that Merzbow has invested into this article, it's not of a featured quality yet. Some points:
  • What is the Persian spelling of the word doing in this article?
Taken out, only the Arabic is necessary. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of 1.4 billion Muslims is the probably the highest estimate I've ever seen; it is particularly suspicious because it comes from a source of dubious quality. Just some more figures: Islam by country gives the total of 1.3 billion, so does [adherents.com http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]. Because the number of Muslims cannot be determined precisely, there should be at least several reliable sources giving their estimates.
Took out numbers from the lead, changed the upper estimate in the Demo section to 1.3 billion. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences "The word is given a number of meanings in the Qur'an. In some verses (ayat), the quality of Islam as an internal conviction is stressed:..." are unreferenced and sound like original research.
All material in this paragraph is supported by EoI Islam, which is the trailing footnote. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Judaism and Christianity are seen as kindred faiths because of a shared prophetic tradition..." Exceptionally POV. Who of the Muslim scholars sees Judaism and Christianity as "kindred faiths"?
Reworded this paragraph. - Merzbow 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the Qur'an is mostly devoted to textual issues, and important points are not even touched. For example, in Islam, the Qur'an is not merely the literal word of God, but also eternal and uncreated.
These attributes of the Qur'an are now mentioned (I only think a brief mention is warranted here). - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The Qur'an contains over a hundred chapters of verse on topics such as theology, morality, and matters of law." is completely unsatisfactory. First, the fact that the Qur'an is divided into suras and these into ayats is strangely missing. Secodnly, the Qur'an is in no way divided topically, though the sentence leaves the reader with precisely such an impression.
Addressed with more precise and accurate language. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It occupies a status of primacy in Islamic jurisprudence, and Muslims consider it a definitive source of guidance." Nope. The Qur'an requires commentary and commentators may differ. On the other hand, when there is a clear tradition from Muhammad, it prevails over commentary in the matters of jurisprudence.
Addressed. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To interpret the Qu'ran, Muslims use a form of exegesis known as tafsir." The sentence makes no sense: tafsir is the Islamic exegesis!
To be specific, it's the science/practice of Qur'anic exegesis. Addressed. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite his exalted status in Muslim thought, Muslims believe that Muhammad was merely human." Yes, but he was also the perfect man.
Reshuffled words and made this clear. - Merzbow 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Muslim believe that he was perfect man. -- A. L. M. 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica says Muslims believe this unconditionally, or at least it's held widely enough that the minority viewpoint isn't notable. I'm awaiting other sources on the talk page. - Merzbow 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca..." In the meantime, there was the execution of prisoners of war after the Battle of Badr, the bloody butchery of the Banu Qurayza, another slaughter during the Battle of Khaybar, and lots of other battles, assassinations and smaller raids. The realty of Muhammad's career was the opposite of the peaceful rise painted in the article, so much so that the earliest biogrpahies of Muhammad known as maghazi were devoted solely to his campaigns.
I've added two sentences that go into the specifics of Muhammad's military exploits. This will be undoubtedly be controversial to some, so keep an eye on it and see how it evolves. - Merzbow 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The authentic hadith are considered to be an authoritative source of revelation..." No, the hadith are not revelations, only reports by humans of what they saw and heard.
That sentence was redundant in context; I removed it. - Merzbow 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on, but my comments could take the whole page. Beit Or 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are appreciated, but please note all issues underlying your oppose so that they can be acted upon. If you intend to provide more after we address these, then that's fine. - Merzbow 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also because of the number of comments I'll be putting responses in-line. - Merzbow 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of your existing issues above. When you get a chance, please also comment on the rest of the article (but there's no rush, I'm out travelling until next week). - Merzbow 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will support, conditional on continuing response to Beit Or's review for as long as this FAC remains open. Beit Or has several FA's under his belt, and speaks with authority in this field; Merzbow is perhaps the fairest and most neutral writer I've seen in this space; their product I trust without reservation. I also encourage Itaqallah to remain engaged.Proabivouac 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose until fix the "Beliefs" section and the "Duties and practices" are Sunni centric, they iterate the Sunni doctrines under the general term "islam". This is not accurate, since Shi'a have other views. --Striver - talk 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly that's a fair point in principle. If you share specifics, we can address them.Proabivouac 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you consult any basic primer or introductory texts on Islam, such as the work of Caeser Farah (in Islam: Beliefs and Observances (2003) Chapter: The fundamentals of Islam: Beliefs p. 109) who says: "The principal elements of worship in Islam entail belief in God, His angels, scriptures revealed to the believers in Him, the messengers, destiny (qadar), and the Day of Judgement", Esposito etc., then that is what you will find. ITAQALLAH 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make this part more complete and NPOV by adding bliefs of Mutazilis and Shias. I also put a comment about divine decree in the talk page of the artcile.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added more info about how the Shi'a concept of "divine justice" (Adalah) differs from the Sunni conception of pre-ordainment (Qadr). The doctrine of Imamah is the other major difference in Shi'a belief according to the best source I have, but it only needs a quick mention in the Beliefs section, because it's explored in detail in the Denominations section. I think this covers it. - Merzbow 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striver might be interested in this link to moniter changes made accoring to his suggestion [7]. --- A. L. M. 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated diff is here: [8]. - Merzbow 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth, i have only limited intrest in wikipedia now compared to previous. I made my point, and im sure people understood me, i leave the implementation or the lack of it in the hands of those more intrested - To be clear: this and this are the shi'a positions, while this and this are the Sunni positions. The most NPOV way is to either just present what both agree on are noteworth enough to mention, mention all of them in just one text named "Theology" and "Practices" were differences in denominations can be explained and some minor details be... whatever, you know the drill.--Striver - talk 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically each sub-section in Beliefs is now common to the two sects (renamed if necessary). Within each section, any differences between the Sunni/Shi'a views are made explicit. (I should note that there seem to be major inaccuracies in some of your linked articles, especially "Practices", which is unsourced - the Yale University Press book on Shi'a practices lists only eight.) From my point the only remaining thing to do here is make explicit the remaining Shi'a differences in regards to the Five Pillars (some are already noted). - Merzbow 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think now it has represented Shia better.[9]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • The "Day of Resurrection" (yawm al-Qiyāmah), the "Day of Judgment" (yawm ad-dīn), and "the Last Hour" (as-sā`a) are not the same thing, but a sequence of events. First, all or most living beings are destroyed, then comes the resurrection, upon which the whole mankind will be gathered in one place, then the Day of Judgment.
  • Why mention some Islamic scholars who wrote about the qiyamah? Many more than just those three covered that subject.
fixed. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...(although some interpret this symbolically)." Who are these some? If these are Avicenna and some other philosophers influenced by the Greeks, then these were demolished and denounced as infidels by Ghazali in the twelfth century, and the philosophy in Islam quickly disappeared. Anyway, here we enter the sphere of complicated and antiquated arguments that are hardly relevant to what Muslims believe nowadays.
removed. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is better to split the second paragraph of the section on resurrection and judgment into another section on afterlife.
  • "The Qur'an list several sins that can condemn a person to hell, such as dishonesty and the exploitation of others." First and foremost, non-Muslims are condemned to hell. Then, why choose just two sins out of many?
have attempted to address this. naming a few sins as examples seems appropriate. ITAQALLAH 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muslims view paradise as a place of joy and bliss, but despite the Qur'an's descriptions of the physical pleasures to come, there are clear references to a greater joy—acceptance by God (ridwān). There is also a strong mystical tradition in Islam that places these heavenly delights in the context of an ecstatic awareness of God, stressing an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'anic verses describing heaven." These two sentences are clearly designed to play down the naturalism of Muslim paradise. This is unfair. The Qur'an abounds in graphic descriptions of the joys of paradise, including wine, beautiful women, and handsome boys. In addition, please specify what this "mystical tradition" is, why it's "strong", and how it interprets the Qur'an "allegorically".
have attempted to address this. the Encyclopedia of Islam expresses the superiority of ridwan, and more specifically the vision of God. ITAQALLAH 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muslim belief in the divine predestination is not called qadr (which means "power"), but al-qada wa'l-qadar). Beit Or 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
corrected. the other issues i intend to address soon. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. The damnation of non-Muslims is key, and the apologetics regarding sex in heaven need to go. Arrow740 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good points. Thanks for tackling these Itaqallah, I assume you're working on the two remaining issues above (making explicit that sequence of events, new section on afterlife - also, for Afterlife to be large enough for its own section it should be expanded a bit). - Merzbow 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itaqallah said on Talk:Islam: "...as with a number of Beit Or's concerns, i find the one concerning this section to be unreasonable."[10] With this kind of attitude, it is naturally a waste of my effort to continue reviewing this article. For the record, I must state that most my "unreasonable" concerns remain unaddressed; obviously, I retain my "oppose" vote and invite others to vote "oppose" as well. Beit Or 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That concern most certainly has been addressed by us - two sentences have been added that discuss exactly what you asked for. I disagreed with Itaqallah and made the change, and he seems OK with it now. Two sentences on Muhammad's warfare in a half-dozen-odd sentence paragraph on his entire life is more than reasonable. I would politely ask you to retract your statement here; if not, I would exhort the FAC coordinator, Raul654, to strike this oppose vote as being in bad-faith and unactionable. - Merzbow 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"this oppose vote as being in bad-faith and unactionable." I'm afraid you've crossed the line. Beit Or 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will allow the attitude expressed by Beit Or above towards the editors who have put in countless hours addressing his objections (including Itaqallah) stand for itself. - Merzbow 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this turn of conversation most depressing. All three of you are hard-working and good-faith editors, it makes no sense to come to blows. It is perfectly alright that there are differences in opinion about the weight that should accorded to different events.
Beit Or, I deeply appreciate your review of this article; you'd identified many unexamined shortcomings, and most have been addressed to at least some degree.
I strongly disagree that Beit Or's !vote should be struck; there can be no question that it honestly reflects his informed opinion. At the same time, I choose to support, and have done so below.Proabivouac 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the article has become better after the editions during last week. Now it's more correct, clear, complete and NPOV. Thanks for all of wikipedians who have worked on it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article, which was once such an embarrassment, is now one of the best to be found in Islam-related space. I thank and congratulate all who who worked so hard to make it so, and all those who have taken the time to review it.Proabivouac 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)[edit]

This article has undergone significant copyediting, it's now well and accurately referenced and nicely illustrated. A peer review has also been conducted during which all comments have been addressed. Predominantly a collaboration between myself and User:Dweller, please support this article's promotion to featured status, and feel free to add comments below. The Rambling Man 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Was a part of the peer review process and my concerns were addressed then. AllynJ 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A minor point or two in the "Conflict with Bradman" section; one could add a Bradman image, and you refer to Fingleton as a "trained journalist" who wasn't invited to the meeting between the Board and O'Reilly, Fleetwood-Smith et al, and then, a few lines later, state that Fingleton later became a journalist. Besides this minor quibble, I see this as an excellent article worthy of Featured Article status. --Roisterer 12:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks for pointing that out, I'll get onto this chronological misdemeanour! The Rambling Man 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rephrased that part of the section, hope it makes sense, and I've also added a Bradman image. Thanks! The Rambling Man 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Minor comment - The legacy section seems rather short, and isn't really about his legacy. Would be best to merge it with the above Later life section. Andrew nixon 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A very reasonable point, I'll get onto it. The Rambling Man 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks. The Rambling Man 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Support: A few points -
1. In the opening para, it says "In 1935, wisden ..." and the following sentence says "four years later". I checked Cricinfo and found no reference to aussie tour of england in 1939. here are the links - 1938-39 season, 1939 season, [1939-1940 season. please check the date of the tour.

Interesting. I've checked cricket archive here and found the 1938 Ashes series. The Wisden would have been published the following year, so I think the article, as it stands, is correct. Perhaps Cricinfo is missing something?! The Rambling Man 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've found it at Cricinfo too! The Rambling Man 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Para 2 in 'Youth and early career' states: "When he was three, the O'Reilly family moved to Murringo. Murringo, O'Reilly said in his autobiography "... remove the double mention or i could do it.
:Duplication removed The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. In the 'Test regular' section, the first 2 paras detail the bodyline series. it is best to merge them and make into one para.

Para's merged The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. i think it is best to leave out domestic performances out of the "internatinal career" section. para 3 of the 'Test regular section' talks about sheffield shield. best to make a section - domestic career and move it there. throughout the international career section, i find references to domestic results. i think we need to move it out to a seperate section.

This was discussed with no real consensus on the talk page. I'll attempt to rephrase to suit all parties, but for the moment it may just need the section being re-title rather than two chronologically parallel sections, which may be even more difficult to read. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the section "First-class career" and renamed teh subsections accordingly. This way the domestic and international careers are nicely merged without having the two parallel sections. Plus the heading more accurately represents the section following it. Hurrah. The Rambling Man 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is the potrait of Clarrie Grimmett and Don Bradman essential to the article? i think we can leave them out.
:I've removed Grimmett because he's not as significant. Bradman played such an important part in O'Reilly's career I don't see too much harm in keeping his image there. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. section Career rankings and ratings needs formating.
:Yes, fixed, thank you. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think that the contents of "notes" and "references" section are interchanged. can you please correct it?
:Swapped as requested. The Rambling Man 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think most of the comments (& corrections) are minor except the addition of a new section for domestic season. apologize for not participating in the peer review. will do it the next time around. once these comments are addressed, i shall remove the conditionality in the support. Kalyan 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, thanks for your many good and in-depth comments, I'll address them individually and let you know when I'm done so you can see if you find my amendments satisfactory The Rambling Man 12:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT: The only comment left on the table is that of a section on domestic season needs to be added. but that is only to ensure that all data on that front is collected in one location. it doesn't affect the FA candidature. i remove the conditionality. I have a minor point that i shall send to the author directly. Kalyan 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above, I've attended to your final issue I think. Your minor point has been addressed, thank you for your time. The Rambling Man 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Was part of the original authorship and believe that the article has been substantially improved through the editing process. Johnlp 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been <ahem> slightly distracted while at Wikipedia the last few days, so can take less credit for this than TRM implies. He's done a great job. Especially with tidying up the mess I leave. --Dweller 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellently researched and referenced article on an important figure in the sport. Nick mallory 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (and I have done a very light copyedit) but it really could do with a review by a few editors outside the cricketing fraternity. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and some comments - The article is excellent and seems FA-worthy as it stands, but I'm completely cricket-ignorant. What does "lower-order" mean? (There's no link, or article, and perhaps it should be piped and linked to Batting order (cricket)).
Superb - done. --Dweller 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I may be wrong, but shouldn't the following items have references?:

It's cited, with a quote, just a few lines below. We've usually adopted a more laissez-faire attitude to citing in the LEAD, but this one's got quite a few. Is it OK? --Dweller 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "O'Reilly was a competent left-handed lower-order batsman"
 Doing...That one's worrying - we need to do something about his batting. --Dweller 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O'Reilly's citation as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1935 has the following sentence: "He had no pretensions to grace of style or any particular merit, but he could hit tremendously hard and was always a menace to tired bowlers." Johnlp 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that he didn't have time to "attend coaching". This seems like it lacks context. In the U.S., us yanks have this thing called Little league in which kids play (and are coached in) baseball competitively. "Attending coaching" seems like it refers to one-on-one coaching, like piano lessons or personal gymnastics training, rather than team practice. In what context are kids coached in cricket? Is there a British Commonwealth or Aussie counterpart to little league? Here, we'd say "couldn't participate in little league" or "couldn't attend baseball practice like other kids his age".

 Doing... Unsure, but he wasn't British, lol. Nonetheless, your point's well made. --Dweller 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wisden citation says he "owed little or nothing to any special coaching". It also says that he was advised to alter his grip "but decided not to do so and now this is exactly the same as it always was–the first two fingers round the ball and the others folded on to the palm of his hand." Johnlp 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same paragraph, there's a comment questioning the inclusion of two bats. Were they both bats, or was one a ball? If they were both bats, then to avoid it reading like a run-on sentence, it should refer to the two bats initially. "He learned to play with his brothers, playing with two bats - one a "gum-wood bat and a piece of banksia root chiselled down to make a bat, and the other...". (and so on).

The second one should be "ball" and I've altered it now. Johnlp 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some thoughts, possibly to make the article easier to read for us yanks. The Transhumanist    16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zleitzen's oppose
  • Oppose Some poor writing. Though given the project support above, and the fact that much of the support seems to come from people who have actually worked on the article, it'll probably make little difference.
    There's no intention from the people who worked on this to rush it through as a blanket support, hopefully we can deal with your comments and gain your support. The Rambling Man 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When O'Reilly died, Sir Donald Bradman said he was the greatest bowler he had ever faced or watched." Floating quote not attributed to anyone
      Attributed The Rambling Man 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • indeed "he was asked to make up the numbers” Floating quote not attributed to anyone again
      Attributed The Rambling Man 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • “O'Reilly was selected for the New South Wales practice squad, based on his performance in a single match for North Sydney, he made his debut in the 1927–28 season, playing in three matches and taking seven wickets.” Rambling sentence. In fact much of that section reads poorly.
      Okay, the sentence in question has been rephrased thus: "O'Reilly was selected for the New South Wales practice squad based on his performance in a single match for North Sydney. He made his debut in the 1927–28 season, playing in three matches and taking seven wickets."
      I'll copyedit the remainder of the section, although our resident copyeditor has already done a job that would be infinitely superior to me, so I'm not sure what I can add. Still, I'll give it a go. The Rambling Man 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • “ Also opening the bowling in both Adelaide and Brisbane, and by a falling-off in the performance of Grimmett” …by a falling off? What?
      Yeah, in all honesty I've tried re-writing that a few times and seem to have hit writer's block each time. Anyway, I rephrased it thus: "...and by a decline in the form of Grimmett." The Rambling Man 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • “On the debit side, his figures at The Oval, where England posted the then-record Test score of 903 for seven wickets were three for 178 off 85 overs,” Sentence needs breaking down with correct punctuation.
      Rephrased & re-punc'ed The Rambling Man 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man has done a good job dealing with these comment.
  • The quotes complained of as "floating" both had inline citations already, as far as I can see (the second one had two citations), but there was no explicit recognition of who was being quoted in the text (now both fixed - Engel twice).
  • The rambling "practise squad" paragraph (should that be "practice"?) was edited after my copyediting run through (it used to say "Selected for ..., based on ..., he made his debut ...") but a new section heading was added and it acquired the opening "O'Reilly was". But it reads better broken down anyway.
  • The odd "falling off" sentence did need dealing with. And an extra comma was needed in the "903 for seven" sentence. Both mea culpa, mea culpa. Sorry. Now fixed, I hope.
Are these just examples, or are there other issues? As The Rambling Man says, there is no intention to ram this through - any reasonable objection or comment will be dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelas' support
  • YA RLY (erm.. I mean support).
  • First sentence ("...was one of the greatest cricketers of all time") sounds straightforward POV to me. Him being declared so by the press is already mentioned in the subsequent paragraph.
  • I think that someone regarded as one of the greatest of all time should have that recorded in the opening sentence. I'll review. It's not POV as it's sourced... and, as previously discussed, there's some latitude with citing in the Lead. --Dweller 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may only use NPOV sources when purely declaring claim a fact. However, as the source isn't NPOV here, it must be mentioned and quoted (e.g. Wisden reflected on Bill O'Reilly's successful 1938 Ashes tour of England: "He is emphatically one of the greatest bowlers of all time."). Please see WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work. Michaelas10 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tiger O'Reilly"/"Bill O'Reilly"/"Don Bradman" aren't descriptive image captions; where was he pictured? How old he was? Where is the picture from?
  • Fair point, I'll have to defer to someone else on this... The Rambling Man 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now descriptive. --Dweller 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'O'Reilly's later years were troubled with poor health, including the loss of a leg" - Why did he loose a leg?
  • This is from his Wisden obituary, which doesn't specify. I'm not sure it would add too much. Presumably, if it was because of a noteworthy incident (like Fred Titmus's toes) it would have been recorded. --Dweller 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He died in hospital in Sutherland in Sydney" - Remove "in Sydney", redundant.
  • "...quietly read" > "...read quietly".

Michaelas10 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Harriet Arbuthnot[edit]

The Giano featured article factory has taken this demurely-dressed country cousin of an article and, in a week, performed some alchemy to reinvent her as a perfectly formed lady of society, clad in diaphanous silks and gauzes.

She is one of the more notable of the Arbuthnot family, who have been making rather regular appearances at WP:AFD of late. A diarist in Georgian England, and a Tory political hostess, she has been decribed was the "closest woman friend" of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. I have given the article a brief copyedit, but I wish I had Giano's writing talent. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is she not written about much? Just curious if there is more information available to add, or if this article satisfies comprehensiveness - not knowing the subject I couldn't answer this. LuciferMorgan 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is short for an FAC and the subject not the most notable. A great deal that has been written about her seems to be chiefly concerned with "did she or did'nt she sleep with Wellington" and draw no definite conclusions. As no-one knows the truth I don't see that having more of that subject here is encyclopedic - An encyclopedia enjoys the luxury of being slightly different to a biography that has to put a new sensational slant on Wellington in order to sell. I wanted this biography here to be about her but there is not much more to say without repetition - she wrote a diary, was Wellington's great friend and died young. Remember a few weeks ago she had a non-notable tag stuck on her [11]. Well I think I have proved notability, but even if this page passes FAC she will never be the most notable person on the encyclopedia, but if someone wants to know: Who was Mrs Arbithnot? This page will tell them the known facts, and that the unproven speculation is entirely that, unproven. Giano 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair enough - I was just curious whether the article covered all aspects of its subject (1b) that's all. It isn't a question I would've asked if I was familiar with this person. I had a recent FA which was slightly shorter than this one (and wasn't the most notable either), but when an article meets comprehensiveness this doesn't apply. LuciferMorgan 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To amplify Giano's comments (he wrote this so he should know), I am not aware of a biography being published of her on her own, as opposed to her appearing as a bit-player in the biographies of others (principally Wellington, of course). She is more of a footnote in history than a main player. The references include a published Wellington biography (Longford), and a published account of the Arbuthnots' relationship with him (Smith). I would be surprised if any "major facts and details" (as WP:WIAFA 1(b) says) are not already included. If you are aware of any sources which could enhance this article, please let us know. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these sources were out there, I think Giano would have a better chance finding them than me. I'm unaware of any sources, and am unfamiliar with the subject. Sounds like 1b is fine (anyone disagree feel free to comment). LuciferMorgan 11:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I have looked over the article, and made some changes to reflect what the terms discussed were (including a link to her nationality and the country where this takes places, which are obligatory under the MoS guidelines). I must say part of the prose is overtly familiar, in contrast to what is expected from an encyclopedia article - they should either be turned into quotes (if that is what they were) and thus attibuted, or rephrased entirely. Examples include, from what I have seen:
  • Thus, with her country-loving parents, she and her brothers and sisters enjoyed a comfortable and reasonably affluent country childhood.
  • However, as the debate and wrangling over her dowry proved, money was tight.
  • When remarking in her diaries on other women who shared their affections with great men of the day, Arbuthnot displayed a biting wit and sarcasm.
  • Amongst those sampling the almost frenetic rounds of entertainment, in this Becky Sharpish environment, were the newly married Arbuthnots.
  • In fact, due to a bizarre series of events,...
  • Therefore it appears the presence of Arbuthnot protected the Duke from other female attention.

The editors must ask themselves: "who made these judgments"? Either quote someone making them or change to an impersonal tone. Dahn 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed my vote to support - all my previous objections have been addressed. All in all, a well-written article, clearly up to FA standards. Dahn 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and contributions, but "obligatory" under the MOS? Are you sure? It was a guideline last time I looked.
You seem to be objecting to logical deductions from the known facts. For example, it is clear that her mother had a strained financial situation, and her fiancé is even known to have complained about it. Money was tight.
Finally, you find the prose overtly (overly?) familiar; I find it warm and compelling. If you are going to require Giano to change his tone into something stony and impersonal, I will have to withdraw this nomination. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn: Some of these have been edited a bit, so it may be worth another look, if you have the time. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting the ambiguous links that I had not spotted. I don't think there are any statements or conclusions that are not substantiated by the references nor do I think the tone of the prose is overtly familiar - I hope it is easily readable modern standard English. I try to immagine I am writing for a intelligent readership of 14 years old and above. Giano 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the beautifully chosen quotes make it for me and I see nothing wrong with the tone of the writing. One odd sentence that I can't make out: Her political observations are often biased as seen from her own viewpoint - either the second part of the sentence is redundant or I've just missed the point. Ref 17 seems out of place and is a near-duplicate of 13, a straggler from an earlier draft?. Yomanganitalk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Yomangani - I've addressed your points I kept looking at that repetition and thinking I was having deja vu but could not see it for looking! Glad you like the quotes it was difficult to know which one's to choose, one of the ironies of life is that the waspish comments about people are always more fun to read than nice ones! Giano 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To elaborate on my earlier answer: there is nothing wrong with the quality of the prose, but, as I have said, there are several things I consider wrong in using an editor's evaluation of events for a fact. Expressions such as "bizarre", "Becky Sharpish", "almost frenetic", "biting wit", "country-loving parents", etc., as long as they are not quoted from someone using them, are best rephrased - otherwise, we have an intermediate writer giving us an assessment, making a deduction, comparing, and drawing his or her own conclusions. It is eloquent perhaps, but it borders on WP:OR. And if, incidentally, wikipedia does encourage "cold" writing instead of essays, the issue I raised was about attributing opinions about the facts (the only alternative to that is not reporting opinions at all). I will add that there are currently entire paragraphs without a single reference. Dahn 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed ALoan's comment about changes, so take my earlier comment in the light of that. I'll look over the article again. Dahn 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I'm afraid most of what I had objected to is still in the text. Dahn 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have the nub of the issue: to what extent should the writer of an encyclopedia article synthesise the existing materials to produce a coherent and engaging account? Clearly some editorial judgement is required in writing an encyclopedia article, otherwise we might as well just quote (or provide links to) the original materials for the reader to read for themselves. You seem to be suggesting that Giano has used the wrong sort of adjectives.
As for refereces, are you suggesting that Giano is making any of this up out of his own head? Or that any of it is not supported by the cited references? (And in relation to "paragraphs without a single reference", if we are counting footnotes as some sort of proxy for the quality of the referencing, I count one paragraph with no inline citations - the one in the middle summarising Charles Arbuthnot's life up to his marriage to Harriet.) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am actually saying is that parts of the article can be voiced without metaphors and comparisons that were not produced by sources and quoted from them. Basically, the reader currently finds out that Giano considers some events bizarre, an atmosphere to be reminiscent of a certain novel (written AFAIK, when the subject of this article was dead), some parties to be almost frenetic, her prose to be biting etc. If I were to write about, say, Victor Hugo's prose and tell you that it is "wonderful" or "reminiscent of some other guy", the information would have to be and would be erased - if I want it in there, I would have to quote a source saying it; if not, I could rephrase to something neutral and, yes, cold.
You are right about the references - while I will not object to the paragraph remaining unsourced in this FAC, I will point out that, as Giano himself commented on another entry (btw, I thank him for his comments there), unsourced portions of text, as small as they me, can turn out to be huge problems. But do please address the other issue. Dahn 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I should have realised that the on-going discussion at "another place" (here presumably?) was relevant to this FAC.
(Gosh! A Napoleonic general! How exciting! I must read the article.) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was not related in any way other than me noticing this FAC while I was answering there, and Giano intervening there after I answered here. In fact, I feel a tad guilty that I am opposing this article while Giano is endorsing that one, but I really believe the problems I pointed here are real ones (just as I believe that the sentences in question can be easily rephrased - hopefully without losing their quality). Dahn 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't feel guilty valid points I can deal with - people who rejoice in saying pages are insufficiently referenced on FARC and then come here saying just the opposite! Such as is happening to your page.... perhaps I should keep my feelings to myself - but next year those same people will nominate your page for being insufficiently referenced - so you are in trouble basically for jumping the gun.
Anyway lets keep to the matter on hand here. Regarding your points.
  1. "bizarre": - I think it is a fair and natural adjective to describe a successful 19th century man marrying a woman he last saw ten years before as bizarre. One could have said "unusual" butthat would be to week a term.
  2. "Becky Sharpish": well that character and her exploits in France at that time (yes I know it was written later) exactly describe Paris at the time the Arbuthnot's were there. Anyone who has ever read that book (and quite few have) will immediately understand the scenario the Arbuthnots found themselves in.
  3. "almost frenetic": Well again that period in Paris was frenetic, we could lose the "almost" but that would give frenetic its literal meaning which again would be too strong.
  4. "country-loving parents": There is a reference in the page somewhere before that is mentioned confirming that her father was criticised for "preferring to spend his time in the country" so to say "country-loving" is a naturally drawn inference (anyhow I think someone has already changed that.
  5. "biting wit": Yes, I could concede on that one although describing one's rival for Wellington's attentions as a "femme gallante".... well anyway I'll change it - scathing I won't give on - describing a Duke as a "common swindler" is a pretty scathing comment. Giano 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts [...]. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)."

Here are my suggestions:

  1. if it is that obviously bizarre that he had not seen his bride-to-be for 10 years, then the "bizarre" is not needed (I wouldn't, for example, need to write "bizarrely, X was born with fourteen arms and five legs"). I am not sure the adjective refers to that, though, because it stresses not that the situation was bizarre, but that the events were - meaning that the detail is superfluous here (the events are not discussed in this article, so establishing whether they were or not bizarre is of minimal importance). If Arbuthnot herself mentions the events, you could quote an adjective that is used by her in relation to them, if you feel like it. I would also like to add that, while marrying a person you hadn't seen for ten years was uncommon, it was not that uncommon (some of my ancestors married as young adults after only seeing each other as toddlers or not ever seeing each other - it is the logic of an arranged marriage, and arranged marriages were the norm in Europe back in the day).
  2. well, as exact as such adjectives may seem, they still are literary devices, not neutral reporting (I use "neutral" in the most neutral of its meanings). Just below that notion, you have the ample description of a scandal, and it is one which speaks for itself. Aside from that, there are several who will disagree that, in the history of Paris, the Restoration was especially animated (though it was certainly more so than Napoleon's day, and though it wasn't all Cossacks and White Terror). The description serves no purpose, and it is your own assessment (right or wrong as you may be in making it).
  3. as above (though this adjective is not that problematic - if you address all other issues but leave this one as is, I will change my vote).
  4. I still consider "country-loving" a superfluous belles-lettres interference between the facts and the reader, but, as per the previous point, I will remove this from among my objections.
  5. thanks Dahn 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Becky has departed and most of the other points have been addressed. I will just point out though that Wellington'e marriage was not arranged - but all of that belongs on his page not this one so I won't digress on HA's page. I hope you now feel you can change to support. Giano 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you again. Dahn 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - good luck with Sébastiani. Giano 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support qp10qp 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thank you, Giano, for rescuing this article from AfD (more "presentism" at work on wikipedia, I fear). I am very close to supporting this article. I have a few quibbles with language (not related to the intense discussion above which I do not want to enter into) and a few suggestions for expansion.

  • In the lead you suggest that her diary is only used for biographies, but then in the article you write that "However, her detailed description of the rivalry for power between the Tories and Liberals which took place between 1822 and 1830 is one of the most authoritative accounts of this struggle." - Perhaps the lead could be broadened to reflect the fact that her diary is used to describe politics and society as well as people?
addressed Giano 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The young Harriet Fane spent much of her childhood at the family home at Fulbeck Hall in Lincolnshire, which had been given to Thomas Fane by his father. Fulbeck Hall, sited high on the limestone hills above Grantham, was a not over-large modern mansion at the time of Arbuthnot's childhood, having been rebuilt following a fire in 1733. - the clauses just keep going here, don't they? could you revise?
addressed Giano 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, she and her brothers and sisters enjoyed a comfortable and reasonably affluent rural childhood. - I'm not sure that the "thus" follows from the sentence about the house.
addressed Giano 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain how the marriage settlement was resolved in the first paragraph of the "Marriage" section?
I'm not sure of the answer to that one, and can find no information. It may have to be put on hold. Giano 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Married to a politician, she was fascinated by politics and enjoyed success as a political hostess while exerting her energies to promote Tory causes. - might you mention what some of those Tory causes were for the reader not familiar with the intricacies of early nineteenth-century politics?
  • While Arbuthnot's impressions may have been less than candid, and her views of the Duchess's character and mothering skills not shared by some members of the establishment, including Wellington himself,[14] had Arbuthnot's own character been judged as less than respectable, an audience with the infant princess would not have been permitted. - This sentence can be made clearer - there are too many dependent clauses.
addressed Giano 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her political observations are often biased, clearly written from her own Tory viewpoint. - I would leave out the "biased" part and simply state that the diary is written from a Tory viewpoint.
addresed Giano 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus it seems, most likely, that in addition to assisting Wellington with his social life, Arbuthnot also acted as his door-keeper. - perhaps a more precise word than "door-keeper" could be chosen
addressed Giano 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addresed sveral of your pints above, the other will obviously take a little longer, I will endevour to do some research over the next couple of days. I don't want to have toom any quotes as I want the page to be about the person rather than her sayings. Giano 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do a separate page on the diary? If not, it would really be nice to have more quotes here since that is what makes her "notable." Awadewit Talk 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a stylish and enjoyable page. IMO it is now amply sourced. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. It's hard to believe that mere two months ago we had no article on this important subject, and just a fortnight ago it was a pitiful stub!
As for Dahn's objections, I believe it involves the difference between Anglo-Saxon encyclopaedias and those of continental Europe. In Germany, for instance, they think it superfluous for an encyclopaedia contributor to express his own opinion on the subject and present his own point of view. But a certain tinge of subjectivism is intergral to the British encyclopaedic tradition. The current edition of the Britannica has a large section "assessment" appended to every significant bio-article. The author is free to express his own view on the subject. I recall one Britannica article referring to Russian imperial administration as "unqualified fools". While an occasional descriptive epithet thrown into the text is most refreshing and welcome, Britannica "assessment" sections are sometimes really objectionable, and still nobody would impeach the Britannica as invalid on account of its excessive subjectivism. We should not become slaves to footnotes. We are not writing a monograph here. No other encyclopaedia employs a more complex system of referencing than our featured articles do. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's important to recognize that complete objectivity will never be possible. Every article will have some ideological leanings. Awadewit Talk 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Building of the World Trade Center[edit]

This article is a subarticle of the main World Trade Center article, and one of a series of articles (see my user page for a list) on the topic that I'd like to reach FA status. The article has been at peer review, with very helpful feedback. Changes and improvements have been made to the article to the point that I think it's ready for FAC. --Aude (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose: This article has a couple of red links. It has some grammar mistakes (which sometimes affect the sentence structure). It has too few external links (according to me, at least). The see also links can be improved, including putting some more relevant links. The images are not balanced. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Support:Well, on second thought, after the changes made, this article has some potential as an FA. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No longer any red links. Some external links added though we need not overdo it and let Wikipedia become a link directory. A navigation box is there now to tie this article with other "see also" articles. Other edits done to address grammar. There aren't as many construction images as I'd like, due to copyright problems, but have adjusted placement of what's there.--Aude (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Building the World Trade Center" sounds like the title of some work of fiction, not an article about the construction of a building. Peter Isotalo 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction of the World Trade Center" might be a better title. In either case, it needs to be disambiguated given new construction there. —Cuiviénen 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Construction" encompasses planning and design. "Building" encompasses all phases, including real estate development, planning, design, and construction. That said, I'm open to other suggestions for the title, but don't think "construction" is the best one. --Aude (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Building of the World Trade Center? It has the advantage of being ambiguous: if the the word building is understood as a verb, it encompasses the meanings mentioned by Aude; if as a noun (i.e. 'the building of the WTC' as another way of phrasing 'the WTC building'), it would work for article which is partly about giving an architectural description of the building. Ham 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion sounds good. --Aude (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone asks what we'll say call the new construction now underway, it can be titled "Rebuilding the World Trade Center"....I have to agree with the current title.--MONGO 06:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, that is an incredible article. Wrad 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Easily one of the best articles we have. --- RockMFR 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good read, better than the main WTC article. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 01:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article, well written, cited and seems to fit all the FA criteria. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, does anyone else think that it should be split up into References and Notes? Having complete citations repeated so many times is a waste of space. I think it would be better to split it and make the notes 2 or 3 columns wide. gren グレン 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea I think.--MONGO 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than doing that, combining the repeated refs with a <ref name => format style might be better, unless I am misunderstanding. Also, the lead probably needs citations, I just noticed. Wrad 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pontiac's Rebellion (a recent successful FAC) splits up refs and notes, but draws from a far smaller number of unique sources than this article. In this article, there are a couple books, and sections of the NIST report that are repeated as sources. However, there are numerous other newspaper articles and other sources cited just once. I don't those would be separated out of the "notes" section? Do you know of another FA example that could be followed? As for using <ref name =>, we already do that. It may appear that some sources are repeated in the refs section, but the page numbers are different. Where the page numbers are the same, or only the chapters are specified, then that format is used to reduce repetition. --Aude (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the lead, I could be wrong, but don't think the cites are needed since it's merely a summary of what's in the article and cited later. See Pontiac's Rebellion as an example of what they did. But, if you think something specific should be cited in the lead, it could be done. --Aude (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On reviewing both, I see no difference between the two article's leads, so I guess no references are needed in this lead. Wrad 15:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promote I think the article is comprehensive, well written and well referenced. No reason to to not promote it as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed
  • WP:UNITS (some missing nbsp)
  • Wikilinking needs a lot of attention per WP:CONTEXT; common words should not be linked.
  • Some of your URLs are missing last access date — they may be convenience links only (not sure), but it doesn't hurt to go ahead and provide them. (Also, you haven't identified PDFs, but I'll fix those.)

Does Outriggr (talk · contribs) know you misspelled his name? <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which URLs do you think need last access dates? Do URLs that link to publications or articles with specific publish dates (e.g. the NIST report published in September 2005) really need access dates? The NIST report is something you can order hard copies or copies of on CD-ROM. Same with articles, such as the New Yorker article... you can probably find an old hard copy of this at a library. If you still think access dates should be there, it can be done. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tried to reduce number of wikilinks, and non-breaking spaces have been added. --Aude (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Kid A[edit]

This article has been accepted as a GA, and since then, full copy-editing has taken place and the readability has improved. I think it may now be good enough for FA. - Alex valavanis 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I like the ample background and production sections, they are so critical for album articles.--Danaman5 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article. Very nice work. Nat91 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve. I don't think this article really qualifies as a Good article yet, despite being awared the status. It needs a lot of its replication taken out, an improvement in its use of language, punctuation and generally a lot of eyes passing over it before being granted such an accolade. Until this article improves a great deal, I'm firmly against its being made a feature article. Don't take my opinion here in the wrong way. I'm for the album's status being raised and becoming a feature article, but certainly not until it reaches a level of quality first. Let's put the horse before the cart. I'm doing bits and pieces here and there to improve it, but at a very brief glance, there's just too much wrong with it to be made feature before even being considered for FA. --lincalinca 10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, but can you be any more specific or at least give examples of what can be improved? Which criteria does it fail to meet? I think it compares quite favourably with Surfer Rosa and Doolittle (album), both of which are featured. - Alex valavanis 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another couple of editors have now been through the text and extensively reviewed the quality and accuracy. Is it better now? - Alex valavanis 10:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very extensive, much informations and good research imho. --SoWhy Talk 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to do a more thorough rereading of this article later (having met this article previous at Peer Review). On first glance, I'd suggest trying an tighten up the lead a little bit. Mention some basic detail like who produced it and where (I'm thinking possibly as the second sentence in the article). Is the Thom Yorke quote all that necessary for the lead? Most importantly, mention the album's estimated total sales; this can be done in the lead or somewhere else in the article. WesleyDodds 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Production and sales added to lead. - Alex valavanis 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote is now indirect. Is this better fag? - Alex valavanis 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks better. Also, you should reformat the album credits to conform to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Credits. WesleyDodds 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I've added some sub-headings as the list is rather long. - Alex valavanis 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Way, way too many blue links. From the lead: "single", "video", "marketing", "guitar", "Grammy", "2003".
    Removed excessive links per WP:CONTEXT. Better now? - Alex valavanis 10:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prose needs work in areas. Examples from the first section:
  • "particularly for singer Thom Yorke.[13] Yorke's sense of global dislocation and speed.." The word "York" is repeated in sucession. "Speed" is unexplained and unclear; was he taking amphetamines?
  • "Yorke's sense of global dislocation and speed, which inspired songs on OK Computer,[14] had intensified on the 1997-1998 "Running From Demons" world tour,[15] documented in the 1999 film Meeting People Is Easy.[8]" - This seems bolted and clunky.
    Reworded sentence and removed ambiguous words. - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fridge buzz" or innocuous background noise. - What does this mean?
    It's a quote from Thom Yorke. I've rearranged the sentence to make it clearer - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffered depression as he struggled to write new music" - Dangling modifier.
  • "feeling that "all the sounds you made, that made you happy..." - and felt that.
    Done - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the tour, the band came close to splitting up for good" - To informal.
    Made more formal - Alex valavanis 10:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very well researched and detailed, a little work on the copy and I thinks it's there. Good work so far. Ceoil 07:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were examples only; the entire text needs an audit for similar issues. Ceoil 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are several editors working on copy-editing at the moment, so hopefully we'll be there very soon. Thanks for helping out btw. - Alex valavanis 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I only caught two very minor errors while reading it, both of which I fixed myself rather than be a bother. This is excellent work; very comprehensive. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Exaustive and well sourced. Frédérick Lacasse (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has seen dramatic improvement since my last minor edit to it. Quite stunning. Just64helpin 17:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Jay Chou[edit]

Comments for the previous FA nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Chou/archive1

Reason for nomination: since February 2007, I proceeded with a major rewrite of this article (the previous FA nomination had nothing to do with me). To the best of my knowledge, the article adheres to guidelines for NPOV, style, and credibility. The article now appears to be ready for FA nomination. SeleneFN 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The lead needs to be lengthened to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size.--Danaman5 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thank you for reading. The leading paragraph has now been lengthened and split into two paragraphs. Please let me know if you feel it should be even longer. SeleneFN 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, changing to support.--Danaman5 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The article is much improved since the first FA nomination. It is very well written, fully referenced, contains all the major facts and details about the celebrity plus extra info. NPOV is maintained throughout the article, and there have been no revert wars other than vandals and minor issues concerning punctuation(mostly the m-dash etc). It has very clear headings and the table of contents is of the right size. It adheres to the Wiki Manual of Style on every level. It has appropriate images throughout the page and the article length is perfect. The overall feel of the article is neat and professional. LG-犬夜叉~ 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Comments) - Just a couple things I noticed, might be wrong about them. I don't think his quote next to note 35 should be italicized. Under "Acting", I'm also pretty sure "Xiào" should be given with Chinese and pinyin, or simply "Xiao" without tone. "Grandeur de D Major" should be either italicized or under quotes, I think it's the former. I'm not sure why Image:Jaychou novemberschopin.jpg is listed under GFDL. In fact, none of the images save those from the movie have fair use rationales, or are tagged correctly. The Discography section should format its dates. A couple sound samples couldn't hurt, but some still feel this oversteps Fair Use boundaries. ALTON .ıl 02:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, should something be said about his neologism "屌" diǎo (ref)? ALTON .ıl 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comments. Thank you for your review and very helpful comments. I have addressed each of your concerns below:
  • quote next to note 35 - there is no quoted phrase next to note 35, so I will assume you mean note 36. The quotation marks have been removed.
  • "Xiao" is now written without tone
  • "Grandeur de D Major" has now been italized
  • All images now have correct licenses and fair use rationales
  • dates in the Discography have been formatted
  • Sound samples: I have not added any to avoid overstepping Fair Use boundaries. Please let me know if you feel strongly that sound clips should be present
  • a comment about Chou's neologism "diao" has been added to the Public Image section of the article
SeleneFN 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent! I fully support this nomination. Images are handled superiorly, and I like how there is a separate 'notes' section (they don't work for me, but possibly it's just Safari). Thank you for responding so quickly, and so completely. ALTON .ıl 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This is an outstanding article that fully deserves to be featured. Well done! Zeus1234 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The Jay Chou article is an extremely informative resource. Chou is a very successful and well-known figure in Asian pop culture, but he seems to be gaining recognition in other areas of the world as well. Chou's appearances in the realms of music, fashion, and cinema are sure to increase as different nations and groups share their cultures. By this article being recognized as a FA, it is a great chance for Wikipedia's visitors, especially those who may not be familiar with his work, to learn more about him.--bakuyaku 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This article covers the subject very comprehensively. It maintains a NPOV throughout the article, is well referenced, and overall is an oustanding article. --Psychless Type words or read things! 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the notice {{ChineseText}} is needed in this article somewhere, I'm just not sure where. Except for that minor detail I am in support. HHermans 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{ChineseText}} notice has now been added. I placed it at the top of the article, following the style of several other Chinese-heavy articles (e.g. China). SeleneFN 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Verbascum thapsus (Common Mullein)[edit]

previous FAC


The original nomination had little input, but I still feel that the article is amongst our best plant work, and would like to nominate it again. I have managed to find some extra material to add since the previous nomination, too, and fixed some other elements.Circeus 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Don't you think that the "Agricultural impacts and control" has way too many red links? Maybe you should fix them. - Hairchrm 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, for an article that length, it's not exactly an inordinate amount of redlinks, although I readily admit the way they cluster in that section makes it seem so. A couple of these I can probably stubify, but my forte is not entomology...Circeus 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed 4 links the article could do without, which already looks somewhat better. I'll look in having a few of the others stubified.Circeus 04:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article needs a taxonomy section. Taxonomy section should:
    1. State that it was published by Carolus Linnaeus in his 1753 Species Plantarum.
    2. Specify type material; Linnaeus's type specification was simply Habitat in Europae..., but resumably someone has published a lectotype since then?
    3. Why "thapsus"? I had a quick look and found a reference suggesting that it might be after the Greek island.
    4. Is there no nomenclatural history to speak of? No taxa later declared synonyms of this species? No specimens initially ascribed to this species but later broken out into a separate species? IPNI suggests to me that there is at least some history there: I see entries for V. t. f. candicans, V. t. subsp. langei, V. t. subsp. litigiosum, V. t. subsp. martinezii and V. t. subsp. valentinum.
    5. The information on subspecies currently in the morphology section belongs in the taxonomy section. But who published the subspecies, when, and on the basis of what type specimens? Have they always had subspecific rank? Have any subspecies been published and later abandoned or promoted?
    6. Where is it placed within Verbascum? What are its closest relatives? Is there not an infrageneric classification of Verbascum in which this species may be placed? Maybe Benedi and Montserrat (1985) has something. Have there been any cladistic analyses of the genus, either morphological or molecular?
    7. The information on hybrids currently in the morphology section also belongs in the taxonomy section. IPNI makes mention that it is a parent of Verbascum x sybillinum, which isn't mentioned here.

Hesperian 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason it lacks a taxonomy/nomenclature section is my stupidity, because I didn't think of moving information about hybrids and subspecies there when I created the "Names" section (which was the latest to go up, with material that was in the intro)
  • 2) is covered under "names"
  • 4-5) I tried, oh how hard I tried to get taxo-nomenclatural background, but didn't uncover anything useful I could actually use. The best I have is a synonymized checklist with references.
  • 6) It seems the genus lack any monographic treatment I could find, and most cladistic studies I could find were at the family level. I can look into the Bendete and Montserrat (although Catalan is not exactly easy for me to decypher...), but my library doesn't have Collectanea botánica access. I'm not sure if I can get it via interlibrary loan.
  • 7) V. thapsus is a parent to at least a good dozen hybrids (which are listed under Flora Europae). For the most part, it didn't seem useful to list them all, although it can be done.
Circeus 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there seems to be a monographic treatment, but it's from 1933 in German (or Swedish, I can,t tell)... Circeus 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can get a few more refs and, with any luck, expand this section into a proper taxo-nomenclature section (and I just had a great idea for listing the hybrids too!). Any other suggestions? Circeus 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think failure to cite a Catalan or German or Swedish text should hold this back from achieving FA, so don't worry about that. But I do think it needs a taxonomy section, even if it is short. I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to find out who published the three current subspecies, and when. I think when you said "2)", you meant "3)"? Regarding 2), the Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project can help you - a lectotype was specified in 1971 by Huber-Morath. There's also a nice photo of the lectotype, which I would contend is public domain in the U.S. per Bridgeman v Corel. I had a quick look for information on the systematics of the genus, but all I found was "Systematic consideration of microcharacters of fruits and seeds in the genus Verbascum", which doesn't seem to have gone far enough to be useful. :-( Hesperian 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not working on it right now because I need to look up stuff in books at my Uni's library, but will work on it tomorrow. I had actually tracked a few more stuff for synonymy and another lectotypification ([12]). Do you know what "Prop. Brit.Bot." is an abbreviation of? Maybe I can locate that (possible through JSTOR if it's a journal). Being French and having had 7 years of Spanish, I wouldn't be surprised if I could understand more of the Catalan article than you'd expect, but I'm unable to access it anyway. And thanks a heap for the link to the typification project! Circeus 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[13] Hesperian 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*slaps forehead* How did I forget about IPNI? Circeus 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; my comments above have been addressed in draft form. Hesperian 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The statement that this species is "not an agricultural weed" which is mentioned three times in the article is contradicted by the information in the text and references that it is listed under the Colorado Noxious Weeds Act (Colorado Department of Agriculture), the "List of plant species designated as noxious weeds" (Hawaii Department of Agriculture), and is regionally controlled/prohibited by the Department of Primary Industries (Victoria).--Melburnian 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very complicated thing to address. Basically, most reference to it as an agricultural weeds refer to overgrazed pasture, and it's not aggressive enough to represent a problem in any other type of culture. When it is designated as a weed, it is for concern about natural ecosystems (in Hawaii and California, dry mountainlands, for example). The "contradiction" is only apparent. Circeus 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a weed on overgrazed pasture, it is an agricultural weed in that particular situation, by using the phrase "not an agricultural weed" (x3) it excludes that it is a problem in any agricultural situation (albeit one which can be overcome with better land management practices). --Melburnian 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some syntax issues need cleaning up:
2nd para - Its small, yellow flowers - I'd write The small yellow flowers as it sounds less ambiguous and removes an unnecessary comma.
Common Mullein is a weedy, but rarely invasive species is an odd sentence with two seemingly contrasting meanings. What is meant by weedy here? I guess it is adaptable and a coloniser of broken ground but so far has little invasive potential (?). Extremely difficult to rule out invasive potential as many weeds are sleepers. Maybe replace with something like - ...is adaptable and a coloniser with invasive potential..(?)
While it is not very competitive, and thus not a problem for most cultures, it hosts many insects, such as the tarnished plant bug, that can be harmful to other plants - ungainly sentence - why not Though not competitive per se, it may host many insects which may be harmful to other plants.

stem-less - stemless ?
  • No idea as to the proper spelling. changed.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:In Morphology section - sentence 1 - "only" is redundant. Sentence 2 - dm (?) should be cm (?)

*Second sentence (and all instances of "dm") was added by User:Hardyplants yesterday. Seems t be fixed now.Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: In Taxonomy and nomenclature section - this clause ..., which has long been known,.. is redundant and makes the sentence unwieldy. Optionally, you could preface the section with' The Common mullein has been known since antiquity or something similar.

  • I actually wanted to refer to the name, but I guess I should drop that reference altogether. It's better covered in "uses" anyway. Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Over the years, the species has accumulated a complex set of synonyms. - do you mean a large number only? In which case maybe just say 'alot' rather than a 'complex set'

More to come. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Life cycle subsection, I'd begin the first sentence The Common mullein..... Also produce less seeds should be produce fewer seeds
Well blow me down...interesting...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Medical uses subsection, I think ..Common Mullein (especially the flowers) contains... can be expressed better; maybe just ..the flowers of the Common Mullein... It is tricky but I don't like the parentheses, even commas I think'd be better here.
  • Added a line after: "These compounds are concentrated in the flowers." Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be nitpicky as I feel the article fulfils all other criteria. These are all readily fixable and I'll happily support once addressed. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know nitpicky: I'm usually the nitpicky one, and It's nice to get the same treatment .Circeus 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, Support. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm so super close to supporting that I'm going to, but I have just some tiny niggles.
In ecological aspects The species is considered a noxious weed in Colorado (Class C),[41] Hawaii[42] and Victoria, Australia (regionally prohibited in the West Gippsland region, and regionally controlled in several others).[43] feels like it belongs in Agricultural impacts and control.
Agricultural impacts and control has multiple short paragraphs, can some of these be merged? Useful insects are also hosted by Common Mullein.... and The plant's ability to host both pests and beneficials makes... look like they could.
The others are European.[20] in subspecies, can this be added to the last senetence?
The seeds contain several compounds (saponins, glycosides, coumarin, rotenone) that cause breathing problems in fish, and have been widely used for fishing.[1][65] An explanation of how respiratory difficulties aids fishing would be helpful, I'm somewhat at a loss. Is an asthmatic fish easier to pull in?
  • None of these bother me enough not to support, but I'd like to see them at least addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose to place them under ecology because these have more to do with the species being considered an ecological threat than an agricultural weed.
  • Funny you should say that. It was User:AshLin that split that paragraph lol. I've undone it.
  • Done. That wording was infelicitous anyway.
  • They basically act as suffocative poisons. I added a mention of piscicide there.
Thanks for the comments!Circeus 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to place them under ecology because these have more to do with the species being considered an ecological threat than an agricultural weed. Perhaps that point could be made in the text. Otherwise, excellent work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not familiar with how the FA reviews work, and I just happened on this article, to which I made two tiny improvements. At first I thought the article looked like a railway timetable, since it was so dense with information, but after I had fun pursuing several trails, I realize it's a useful article. There are three areas where my curiosity was not satisfied:
  1. Is there a wider taxonomy somewhere in Wikipedia where you can see all the cousins and aunts of this plant?
  2. There is a 'Mexican mullein' that it is sometimes confused with, Gnaphalium spp.. Are there any theories as to whether the Mexican plant also came from Europe, or is there any other idea about a common origin?
  3. A cited article (ref. 68, last item in the reference list) mentions that some settlers cultivated the plant 'in dooryards' for use as a piscicide. If so, does anyone still cultivate the plant? I mention this because the whole article reads like an entry in the farmer's almanac, and is very practically oriented. There is a lot of mention of the chemicals you can extract from it; it would be interesting to know if anyone grows mulllein deliberately to harvest anything useful from it. I don't want to send anyone off on a week's worth of research; I was hoping that whoever created the article might already know this. If not, I'm certainly happy to have it become a featured article as is. EdJohnston 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am afraid not, but if something is to be created, it will be at Verbascum (closest species) and Scrophulariaceae (related genera). I intend to write on the closest species with the help of User:Djlayton4 when he gets his hand on an elusive reference.
  2. The species is native, and the transfer of Gordolobo to it is due to similar medicinal uses. They are otherwise completely unrelated.
  3. Mullein is still grown deliberately, but this occurs only rarely (I'd assume mostly for herbal uses) AFAIK. Related species, such as V. blattaria and V. olympicum, are more commonly grown as ornamental plants, though. Circeus 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Robert Garran[edit]

(I am the main contributor so far to this article.)

In my opinion this article is a comprehensive and accurate treatment of the subject, an important "behind-the-scenes" figure in Australian politics for forty years or so around the turn of the 20th century. I believe that it meets all of the criteria; it is extensively cited, stable, and well-organised. The article only includes public domain images available on the Commons.

See also this archived peer review, and this archived WikiProject Biography peer review. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Simply a pleasure to read, which could be due to such an interesting man, the proficient prose, or both! michael talk 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an interesting and well written article. I suspect that some of the wording could be simplified a bit though, but this isn't a major issue. --Nick Dowling 07:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fulfls all criteria. I am impressed with the prose. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wonderfully and warmly written. I have a few minor suggestions for the format of the references section. On my browser (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/2007040315 Firefox/2.0.0.3 (Ubuntu-feisty)) the references come out in 3 columns (too narrow) due to the Wikimedia Commons box getting its own column; to fix this, you can change the references to single-column, or move the box. Page ranges should use endashes rather than hyphens (e.g., 420–422 rather than 420-422). The many references to Prosper the Commonwealth could be coalesced into references with a short title as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations (see Johannes Kepler for an example). Eubulides 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support brilliantly written work on a very significant fellow. Well done.--cj | talk 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - the article itself is excellent and I have no problems with it. There are some minor points, however, that need addressing. I would like the redlinks cleaned up, though, if possible - there are far too many for a Featured Article. Some of these could be removed (like Garran's sons - are they notable or am I just ignorant?; and does every Act of Parliament need a Wikipedia page?); some can be expanded upon; Secondly, the bibliography needs cleaning up with a "notes and references" section, or two separate "notes" and "References" sections, then an "external links" section as is desirable in Wikipedia. Great work though; these are just minor nitpicking points that I would like to see addressed as they will make the article even better. JRG 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put the footnotes into a "notes" section and given a bibliography type list of sources in a "references" section, as you suggest. This also happens to solve the problem with the {{Commons}} box. As to redlinks, I must say that I don't see what the problem is with having them. --bainer (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all fixed. JRG 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until properly copy-edited, preferably by fresh eyes. Here are examples, just from the lead, of why the whole text needs loving attention: "Garran was also an important figure in the development of the city of Canberra"—If "also" is used, merge the paragraphs. Otherwise, just remove "also". "German language poetry"—pipe it as "German poetry". "Several" appears twice in quick succession in the second para; make the second one "at least [number]" if you really don't know how many books he wrote. "Providing" would be more formal, and nicer, than "giving". "the first employee of the Government of Australia and the first Solicitor-General of Australia"—rationalise and pipe as "the first employee of the Government of Australia and its first Solicitor-General". "ten different Prime Ministers (from Barton to Lyons)" ... the ten of them would hardly be the same, so remove "different" as redundant; consider a comma after "Ministers" rather than the parentheses. Tony 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Tony, you raise a number of issues there:
the ten of them would hardly be the same: in the period shortly after Federation several PMs had multiple terms; Garran served under sixteen governments, but ten individual PMs. The sentence is speaking about the people he worked with. I can mention in addition that he served under sixteen governments if that would clarify things.
So we've had four PMs over the past 11 years, then? Tony 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pipe it as "German poetry": I've said "German language poetry" because although Heine and Schumann were German nationals, Schubert was Austrian, writing in the German language.
Oh, I think this is splitting hairs. GLP just seems cumbersome. At least hyphenate the double epithet, then, to make it smoother to read.
the first Solicitor-General of Australia—rationalise and pipe: I think it's important to include the full job title unpiped in the lede, even if that means that the wording becomes less than perfect.
Why is "its first Solicitor-General" not clear and formal enough?
"Providing" would be more formal, and nicer, than "giving": I agree, that sounds better.
If "also" is used, merge the paragraphs: That has become a little unwieldy as the result of earlier changes suggested at peer review. I've clarified that the first paragraph is discussing his professional career while the second is about his community and other work.
So remove "also". Tony 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--bainer (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the prose reads fine in my eyes. Seems to meet all five of the FA criteria. Daniel 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines[edit]

I've been working on this article on and off for over five months now and I think it's ready for prime time. It has undergone both a general and a military history peer review and been rated a "Good Article". In addition, it was the featured article on the Marine Corps Portal for the month of March. While there are still a few small bugs here and there, I don't see anything major standing in the way of a proper FA review. Side note: I'm preparing for a deployment to OIF sometime in the near future, so I may not be able to respond to your comments right away. My apologies. Palm_Dogg 07:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some misunderstanding; GA is not conferred by MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment — A nice piece of work. The only issues that really stood out are the inconsistent date formats (either "1942-06-01" or "June 1, 1974" formats used) and some excessively long paragraphs. (For example, the "1951–1965" section is one long paragraph.) With some judicious paragraph breaks (in those long paragraphs) I think the article would read more easily. Also I'd like to suggest inserting a chronological table of the unit's commanding officers, if that is available. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tried to fix the date formats and broke the paragraphs up. There have been something like thirty commanders of 3/3 over the last few decades and I think that would totally mess up the flow of the article. As it is, I've tried to include the more interesting ones. Palm_Dogg 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks better, and that makes sense regarding the commanders. The other issue you will likely get dinged on is the format of some of the citations: notes 11, 22, 37 and 38 are just vanilla links. It would be a good idea to replace those with cite templates so you get a consistent look. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changed to Support after most issues addressed. It is a nice piece of work, but in places it does seem to be written from a pro-Marine point of view (not too surprising, since I gather the main author is a Marine, but still). When you're writing about an active military unit, still involved in Iraq, that's a big deal. There are also a number of less important nitpicks. Fix all or almost all of these, and will support.
    • Lead says it is now based in HI, was reformed in CA, but not where it was originally formed. (NC, I gather from later.) Probably should for consistency.
    • Do we have an article that explains this process of activating/deactivating? We could use a prominent link to it. Is there any continuity from the former units besides the name? For example, are many (or any) of the same people in it, is there a continuous unit history, memorabilia, symbol etc.? When did the company motto show up? How about continuity from when it was the 5th Training Battalion?
    • "800 Marines and Sailors" - is it common to count Sailors in a Marine battalion? The United States Marine Corps article says the Navy carries the Marines around, but implies they are counted separately. Explain in a sentence or two somewhere in the article body, or wikilink to an article that has an explanation.
      • Thanks, that helps. I think you want corpsmen, the plural.
    • Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii - wikilink, we've got a perfectly fine article on it
    • Lebanon ... civil war - wikilink, we must have an article
    • Haditha Triad seems to link to the article on Haditha. That article doesn't use the word Triad, or say anything about the 3/3 Marines that I could find.
    • "The rest of India Company managed to clear the village and route the VC. However, during the fighting Captain Bruce Webb was killed when a supposedly-dead VC threw a grenade into the India Company command group. India then had to fight its way back to the rest of the battalion." - If the VC were routed, what did India have to fight its way through, and why did it have to retreat anyway?
      • A little bit better, but I wouldn't say it's completely explained yet.
    • Enemy death figures like "During the night, the Viet Cong retreated after suffering 600 casualties, versus 52 American dead." tend to give the article a pro-Marine slant, since presumably they are from only one side's reports. Unless they are highly reliable (from reports by both sides, or from a neutral source, for example), I would avoid them, as they don't add that much. Citing how many 3/3 Marines died is relevant, and reliable, same for how many 3/3 got awards, but Vietnam War officially reported enemy death figures were notoriously unreliable.
    • "during the Vietnam Years" - lower case Y, or rephrase to "during the Vietnam War".
    • 1610 days in country - explain, rephrase, or wikilink "in country", not obvious what that means. In Vietnam, perhaps?
    • IED - wikilink
    • machine guns and Forward air controllers from - lowercase F
    • "to deter further Soviet expansionism" - POV statement. Just remove those words, and the rest of the sentence should do.
    • Nintendo war - explain or wikilink
    • reconaissance -> reconnaissance
    • Our article on Khafji makes a big deal of friendly fire casualties. Any effect on 3/3?
    • February 27 - WP:DATE
    • "the enviable record of none killed and none wounded by enemy action" - that's leading the question: so how many were killed or wounded by friendly fire?
    • "first Marine serving in the Vietnam War be awarded" - to be awarded
    • "and Howard V. Lee (1959–1960) would" - comma before would
    • "Hero of the Bridge at Dong Ha" - lower case Hero and Bridge, it's not a formal title
    • Item CO; L Company; Lima Company; Company K; Kilo - be consistent in the way you refer to companies.
    • In fact, how about giving a list of constituent companies? Our article Battallion says "two to six companies" so it should be useful and not overwhelming information. Did 3/3 always have the same companies?
      • Well done! "three rifles companies" should probably be "three rifle companies" though
    • ""America's Battalion" originated in the mid-Eighties" - I'd specify 1980s. Not a big deal if you disagree.
    • "Interestingly, 3rd Battalion is only one of two " - remove Interestingly and only, just give the fact, let the reader decide if it's interesting or not. I personally think the earlier sentence about how it got the name is more interesting. :-)
    • Forward Operating Base - lowercase, perhaps?
    • "the War on Terrorism" - not an official name, and highly POV. How about Operation Enduring Freedom (Not that that's much better in terms of POV, but at least it's the official name of our article)? War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is possibly even better - less specific, but less slanted name.
    • Are the training exercises 1951-1965 that important?
    • "Luther Skaggs, Jr., was critically wounded in the leg" - what does "critically" mean here? Did he eventually die of it? Was he unable to walk?
    • "for this gallantry" - strike gallantry. The fact should speak for itself.
    • Many of the footnotes are bare links, for example "37 ^ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54880", "38 ^ http://www.duprel.com/usmcgeocitiespaid/franktejeda.html", and "35 # ^ MARADMIN 074/07 AWARDS UPDATE" isn't much better. Please expand them. "33 Sgt. Roe F. Seigle. "'America's Battalion' wraps up six-month Iraq deployment", Marine Corps News, October 6, 2006. Retrieved on April 28, 2007." is much more what they should all look like.
      • Better, but MARADMIN could still be expanded. Presumably it's some kind of Marine Administration notice about awards? Say that in English, add date of event, and a date retrieved.
    • What's the difference between the References subsection and the External links subsection? I'd combine.

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • How's that look? I tried to take most of your suggestions (which were EXTREMELY helpful). Calling my article POV cut to the bone, but I suppose it's a natural concern. If you think I'm omitting some sources, please direct me to them. Palm_Dogg 06:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much better. You got most. Opposition struck, will support when you get a few more. :-) I won't insist on all, but I do think you can get a few more of these points. I'm still slightly worried that there isn't much that could be considered critical of the US armed forces, except a single off-hand mention that they once accidentally shot at the commanding officer of a fellow battalion (whoops). No negative incidents in 60 years of service in 3+ major wars? How about more on that friendly fire bit - any info on how many were wounded, if none killed? Do we have an article on what it means when a unit is disbanded & reformed? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know there was some bad karma that went down in Vietnam and am trying to find some references on it. For Khafji, those friendly fire incidents happened way up on the Kuwaiti border, while 3/3 played only a supporting role in the battle. Regarding Iraq, even the Jihadi websites I went to didn't talk about atrocities. All they did was inflate the number of Marines killed. If there are some sources you know of, let me know and I'll try to include them. I'm trying to be as fair as I can, but there are only a limited number of resources available at my disposal. Palm_Dogg 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good enough. Supporting. --13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, attention is needed to the footnotes. Examples: An AOL personal website is not a reliable source (Otto Lehrack. 3/3/History. Retrieved on November 26, 2006), and this source is not correctly identified: Richard Duprel (1998). Frank M. Tejeda. 3/3 Web page. Retrieved on April 25, 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on getting a better source for Vietnam, so I will try to replace those with something more authoritative. Palm_Dogg 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but get someone else to run through it and polish the prose. Here are examples I picked up at the top.
    • Why are Marines and Sailors with initial caps?
    • Overlinked. Why not remove the state and country links (Lebanon is linked on second appearance rather than first, I see), so that it's less spattered with blue and the valuable ones are not diluted. Keep "Camp Lejeune", for example, but delink "North Carolina". Keep "Vietnam War" but not "Vietnam".
    • "3rd Battalion deployed off the coast"—insert "was", here and subsequently?
    • "It deployed again in 1990 as part of Operation Desert Shield and saw action at the Battle of Khafji and again during"—Remove the second "again", and the same word in the next sentence. Heck, it gets laboured.
    • "over twenty Navy Cross winners"—Don't you know exactly how many? Suggest "more than 20", anyway.
      • I thought I did, but apparently I forgot corpsmen. I'm have to go through the historical records again for Navy personnel. Palm_Dogg 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreferenced quote at the end of the lead. It must be on a website somewhere.
    • "Prior to 1956"—Why not "before"? Tony 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Taiwanese aborigines[edit]

Taiwanese aborigines is one of the most in-depth, comprehensive and thoroughly researched articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. It is currently a very strong GA. Self-nomination. Co-nomination by Maowang and Ling.Nut 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment by co-nominator: Not quite sure how to respond to the removal of two images [14] & [15] by FAC reviewer User:Ideogram. I believe this detracts significantly from the overall quality of the article. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general I don't think many images are necessary for an encyclopaedia article. People are supposed to read them, not look at the pretty pictures. In this specific case the images were longer than the sections they belonged to, always a bad sign. That said, if you decide to put them back I won't argue with you. --Ideogram 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will reinsert them. I also anticipated that many/all of the images in the article would be resized, but they seem a bit too small. Difficult to see any details. I'll have to look at the size of the imgs on some other FAs for comparison... Thanks! Ling.Nut 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MediaWiki software automatically sizes images when you don't set the size explicitly. For logged-in users, it uses the size set in your preferences, you should go and set that if you feel they are too small. And for anonymous users, it sets the size according to the resolution of their screen, which is a lot better than one fixed size for all users. --Ideogram 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Thanks, I didn't. :-) I was looking into all the ins and outs of images. Samsara resized the map. In fact, the map was precisely what I had in mind when I was commenting earlier about the reduced size of the images. I personally dislike the small image size on other pictures as well, but it seems to be standard practice... As Samsara noted in the relevant edit summary, the text of the map is actually important to the article (far more important than the details of the photos). -- Ling.Nut 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article several times on its way to getting its GA; it has been a pleasure to watch the article grow and expand and get better. The article is compelling, well referenced, uses appropriate images, is stable, and is worthy of the FA star probably more than almost any other article currently nominated. I fully support its promotion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I won't support or oppose because I'm not completely familiar with FA guidelines, but I have a few comments.

  1. Decide whether certain words need to be capitalized: Aborigines, Plains, Mountains, Tribal, and Peoples. Be consistent throughout.
  2. Spell check. I noticed a few typos.
  3. Add a citation (or two) to the 3rd paragraph of the intro.
  4. The phrase "take heads" appears before that concept is explained. This was pretty jarring.
  5. The "Surnames and identity" section starts by talking about assimilation. But what do the aborigines name themselves? What are some examples of traditional names? What are their own customs regarding naming?
  6. This is a very comprehensive article. The history section is quite long. Have you considered breaking it off into a "History of Taiwanese aborigines"?

Overall--very good job! I found the article informative and well sourced. Cheers! --Fang Aili talk 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed two typos and some grammar, commas...etc. I'll look into the names without adding an entire paragraph. Each group was different and held different naming systems. Thank you for your comments, you have a real good eye for copy editing :-)Maowang 02:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were traditionally distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains." -- hard to understand.
  • "The issue of an ethnic identity unconnected to the Asian mainland has become one thread in the discourse regarding the political identity of Taiwan." Surely you can say this in fewer words.
  • "The taxonomies colonizing forces imposed upon Taiwan's Aborigines through the centuries have become reified ..." I know what reified means, but I wouldn't assume my readers do.

Object I find this article hard to read. The language is unnecessarily complex. The best writing uses simple words and sentences. I do not believe this article is a good example of "brilliant prose". --Calde 02:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by co-nominator:
    It should be noted this reviewer above has only been a member of Wikipedia for only one full day.
  • Regarding the reviewer's concerns:
    The writing in this article is congruent with any reliable book on the topic and completely suitable for the topic. The language is specifically deliberate to ensure Taiwanese Aborigines, as a people, are given the appropriate amount of dignity and respect to their experience as humans. Another aim of this project was to decolonize the information from the traditional colonizing tropes, with regard to colonized writing as being potentially very POV. A lot of thought has gone into how to provide the best information, while being sensitive to the problem faced by many indigenous peoples of being colonized and defined by people, writers and researchers who are not indigenous. Many of the terms are specific to the decolonizing methodologies of indigenous people's writing and research, and any change in those terms may result in an unintended POV (Smith 1999).
    • Smith, Linda Tuhiwai (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies:Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York, NY: University of Otogo Press. Maowang 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite specific examples of phrases that you object to. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have given three specific examples of difficult prose. That should be enough. I have noted a tendency for FAC to favor heavy referencing over brilliant prose; certainly the FAC community and the FAC director are within their rights to do so, but I wish to make my objections known, for what they are worth. --Calde 20:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see them; the way you formatted your objections made the examples look like they belong to the previous comment. Kusma (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Overall, a highly commendable article, with impressive attention to research and referencing. There are a couple of instances where the language and complexity of the sentence structures could be simplified and made more accessible. Some that caught my eye:

  1. The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples closely related to the people of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia (from lead). What is the nature of the relationship proposed- cultural, linguistic, genetic? Also, given the Philippines has its own diversity and not all groups there are 'Austranesian', might need to qualify.
  2. ...shaping in part, today's political discourse within the framework of the Republic of China (ROC). I take this and the preceding passage to mean something akin to "the [arbitrary] division(s) into named subgroups [made by colonising forces] are a de facto reality nowadays; a reality which continues to influence modern political (territorial?) discussions". Is that interpretation correct, and if so, the nature of that influence is not all that clear, neither is the 'framework of ROC' part.
  3. The history of the Aboriginal tribes on Taiwan has often been dominated by the views and biases of foreign powers since the seventeenth century, although intertribal competition and conflict existed long before contact with non-Austronesian speakers. The 'although' conjunct does not seem to be connected with its leading proposition. It seems to me that the opening "the history of..." is trying to make the point that the documenting of the history of these peoples has been from the POV of the colonising parties, whereas the second part states just that conflict had existed before the colonisers arrived.
  4. Although each of Taiwan's successive colonizers participated in violent conflict and economic interaction with both the Plains and Mountain tribal groups, the impact on the groups changed over time.... A little difficult to parse, maybe should be broken up.
  5. The Mountain tribes were not entirely governed by these colonizing forces until the latter half of the Japanese colonial era, though the highland groups played a significant role in shaping successive colonial policies. How or what is the 'significant role in shaping...policies'? "Successive" is ambiguous here- does it mean "after the Japanese colonial era", or is it referring to the sequence of colonial powers in general?
  6. Also- perhaps there should be more on the island's precolonial/prehistory- for example, what do archaeological studies indicate took place in the millenia preceding the 17thC? Evidence of earlier occupation, modes of subsistence, that type of thing. It doesn't have to be extensive, but I think it would provide useful context.

Still, a very credible work, will probably look to support once I give it a little more of a read.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply) Thanks for your excellent comments/critique. I took the liberty of reformatting your remarks so that I could collect my replies here below yours rather than sprinkling them in between (which always confuses me)...
  1. I have altered the "closely related" wording in the lede. I know that the new wording, "seem to be.." is sort of weasel-ish. However, the science itself is unclear on the subject. There is a footnote which explains this, and offers a good starting reference to those who are interested.
  2. "shaping in part, today's political discourse" I have reworded that pair of sentences as per your comments.... hope it is more clear now...
  3. - 5. It seems that the introductory/summary section titled "History of the Aboriginal Peoples" was a locus of problems in your reading. I have retailored it as a result of your comments; please let me know if it satisfies the points you raised.
6. I'll try to research the prehistoric aspect more and insert a bit of info... Thanks! Ling.Nut 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:
I think a Pre-history section is a related, but different topic that should only be lightly discussed on this page. This page mainly deals with the post-contact period, when "Taiwanese Aborigines" were first conceived by the people who write about them and the changes since contact. The subject of Pre-history would be another large article dealing more with anthropological-archaeological and historical linguistic theories than discuss the different cultures, which nolonger exist on Taiwan (Chipen, Beinan, Tapenkeng, Nanwang...etc.

We mention the colonial POV so we can continue to discuss the topic with the baggage out on the table. Thanks again for the attention to this article, really thoughtful comments. Much appreciatedMaowang 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added 1 paragraph about prehistory.. didn't have time to smooth out the transition 'cause I got called away by real life... previously we had never considered a prehistory section for the reasons Maowang gave above (we've had a long series of email exchanges)... so I don't know whether to leave in what I just added or not.. I'll smooth it out & we can discuss... Ling.Nut 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I believe those changes and some subsequent others took care of the main points. I agree that prehistory only needs a light coverage here, but it seemed necessary to 'round out' the picture to give the unfamiliar reader some background on origins and antecedants. What's there now should do fine.

I'd made a couple of other, mainly stylistic changes. Importantly, the content and scope is excellent and informative, and the verifiability at a high standard. The prose is largely there, perhaps a couple more tweaks to tighten in some places. I may have one or two more content clarifications to ask when I've finished looking, but in case I don't get back to this in time I'd be happy for my comments to be taken as being in support of this nomination, as I see all major, and many minor, bases and topics covered and cited.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The exact meaning of the last part of the sentence "Although the KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui, they did so as an elected government rather than a ruling power that had supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups." is not clear to me. Does it mean that the KMT supported bills by the aboriginal groups back when it was a ruling power? or that it did so as an elected government? I suspect that it is the latter, but that is definately not what it currently says. Rusty Cashman 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Classic run-on sentance. With so many nested clasues, it is hard to follow. I still support this article, but maybe rephrasing the sentance into 2 or 3, like:
    • The KMT continued to hold the reins of power for another decade under President Lee Teng-hui. However, they did so as an elected government, rather than as a ruling power. This elected KMT government supported many of the bills that had been promoted by Aboriginal groups..
  • ...is appropriate. In general, a sentance should only try to express one idea. When you nest ideas inside of other ideas inside of yet more ideas, it is hard to parse the sentance for its real meaning. If a sentance has more than one connecting phrase like "that" or "which" or "rather than" it is VERY hard to figure out the relationship between the clauses. Also, if the antecedant of a pronoun is not immediately preceding the pronoun, it is best to use the proper noun rather than the pronoun.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Although I would like to see consistent use of <ref> tags. I would like to help out on it, and will ask for the nominator's opinion. User:AQu01rius 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fixed the sentenceLing.Nut 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The standard (or convention) here on Wikipedia seems to prefer footnotes ("ref" tags) over Harvard referencing system. I am strongly in favor of footnoting references. --Jiang 13:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Harvard is equally viable as per WP:CITE. Thanks for your suggestion, although I regret that it will be declined. Ling.Nut 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is one of the more comprehensive and informative articles I have ever come accross. It is rather long but it is well organized enough that it is still easy to find what you are looking for. It could be broken into two parts (contemporary and historical), but I think right now both these areas are well enought integrated and mutually supportive enough that that might not be the best thing to do. One more comment. Several comments have suggested switching to footnote references. In general I prefer them too, but this is one of the few articles that makes good use of informational footnotes, and I think mixing a few good informational footnotes with dozens of footnotes that are nothing more than citations would be a bad idea. Rusty Cashman 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article is informative and accurate as there are lots of sources. I think it meets the FA criteria.--Jerrypp772000 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Criterion 1a. Please weed out the redundant wording throughout. Here are examples from the top.
    • "The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples, with linguistic and genetic ties to other Austronesian groups such as peoples of the Philippines, and possibly alsoto some Melanesian groups.
    • "Today, the bulk of the contemporary Taiwanese Aborigine population reside ..."
    • "The total population of Aborigines on Taiwan is around 458,000 as of January 2006, (CIP 2006) which is approximately 2% of Taiwan's population."
    • "at least ten are extinct, another five are moribund (Zeitoun & Yu 2005:167) and several others are to some degree endangered"

There's a tendency to omit repetitions of key grammatical words that appear early in a sentence, and that readers would find easier if included, as with "to" above. "Taiwan's Austronesian speakers were formerly distributed over much of the island's rugged central mountain range and were concentrated in villages along the alluvial plains."

    • Ungainly repetition: "As a result of these intercultural dynamics, as well as more dispassionate economic processes, many of these tribes have been linguistically and culturally assimilated. The result has been".

And more. Fresh eyes required. Tony 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1,

I have made some changes per your comments.Thanks!Maowang 08:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also made more than a few wording changes to clarify the text in early sections of the article. I believe the earlier sections had more of the sort of problems that Tony1 described, because they were more of a summary nature. Later sections seem more straightforward. We would of course appreciate any extra eyes or further instances of redundant wording and lack of clarity. I'll continue to look... Thanks for your contributions... Ling.Nut 21:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment—The writing hasn't been improved sufficiently to meet the "professional" requirement.
  • "Plains, Mountains and Tribal definitions"—MoS says don't use title case. There are other instances, not only in titles (Barbarian Big Rent).
For this subject, most scholars prefer title case to put these groups on par with Dutch, Mainlanders, Han, Hakka etc. See comments in Talk:(Raw and Cooked).
  • Why is the text cluttered with full references that spatter blue everywhere (without, BTW, en dashes for page ranges)? For example, "The "displacement scenario" is more likely rooted in the older customs of many plains groups to withdraw into the foothills during headhunting season or when threatened by a neighboring village as observed by the Dutch during their punitive campaign of Mattou in 1636 when the bulk of the village retreated to Tevoraan (Blusse & Everts 2000:11-12; Shepherd 1993:1-6; Shepherd 1995:66-72)." It's too long a sentence anyway. And are the quotes really necessary around "displacement scenario" and similar terms?
Many of the multiple citations act in a sentence with multiple sources for stability, or for a sentence which compounds information from multiple sources into a single sentence.
  • "During the European period (1623-1662) soldiers and traders representing ...". Try this: "During the European period (1623–62) soldiers and traders representing ...". Is that easier to read?
  • "a custom of sexual division of labor"—Bit awkward grammatically. How about "a custom allocating labor on the basis of sex"?
Using terms familiar for the topic.
  • "The plains people hunted herds of spotted deer and muntjak as well as conducted light millet farming." Ungrammatical ("conducting" is required). But why not just "and conducted"?

It's a good article, and thus worth polishing. Can someone go through the whole article? Tony 03:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Princess Alice of Battenberg[edit]

Mother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Wife of Prince Andrew of Greece. Sister of Queen Louise of Sweden and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

  • Support Self-nominated. Peer-reviewed good article. DrKiernan 10:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - A couple of minor issues that I'm sure you can clean up quickly enough, followed by a bigger concern.
    • Needs a couple more references. The "Marriage" section in particular is unsourced. I'm sure all those names and dates are in the public record, but you need to cite that record, so that researchers can track down where we got the info.
    • There's awkward prose. In "Married Life", "In 1913 George V awarded her the Royal Red Cross. But..." is not only unsourced (and I've tagged it), but a really stubby sentence, followed by another sentence beginning with "But", which is occasionally acceptable prose, but not here. At any rate, I'd recommend you go through the article, possibly reading it aloud to yourself, to find any more such little bits that don't flow very well or elegantly.
      • Gone through as best I can. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, my major issue. This is a historical public figure, and we only have two sources cited? Yeah, most facts are cited, but all those cites come from the same two books. I'm concerned that relying so exclusively on just two sources could lead to potential unintentional bias, leaking in from the sources cited. Different historians have different takes on issues, after all. Could we get some more sources?
    • As a continuation of the above, as a historical public figure, is this really all there is to note about her? It may be the case, but it still seems a bit sparse on events and details of significance. Perhaps she was just boring, aside from her mental breakdown? But I don't know. I'd like more assurance that this article really is comprehensive, and the best way to do that would be to find other sources than the two currently used, and see what they have to say.
      • Expanded first half. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expanded second half and added further notes. DrKiernan 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than these points, the article seems pretty good to my inexpert eyes. Fieari 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per: Support
  • Titles section is short, makes a list of two items, and has no references.
    • The titles section is standard on royalty and nobility biographies. References added. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four sources is too few, and they're all from the UK, and three are from London, and two are by the same author.
    • See below. In addition, Vickers biography was also published elsewhere (New York edition by St. Martin's Press). DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merrh... still biased.
        • I've added about another a dozen. DrKiernan 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marriage section has no citations.
  • Lede is disproportionately long, see WP:LEAD. First paragraph focuses more on other people than on Alice herself.
  • First and fifth paragraphs of Married life are missing citations.
  • World War II ends with a one-sentence paragraph.
    • I did that deliberately for dramatic effect! DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tee hee. World War II has three paragraphs, each of totally different sizes from one another. One-sentence paragraphs, though dramatic, are inappropriate.
  • Months and dates should not be linked, see WP:MOS.
    • Fixed. DrKiernan 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite. See Marriage section.
        • I can't find any other wikilinked years that lack dates. DrKiernan 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of Widowed life has no citations.
  • "In 1930 she was diagnosed as schizophrenic and for the next six or seven years lived largely separated from her family." (from the lead) is a sucky sentence. Is it six years or is it seven? "Largely separated" is not encyclopedic. The sentence needs commas.
  • "wearing a version of her nun's habit" which version?
  • "and later, after her engagement, she learned Greek" Did she learn to lip-read it as with English and German, or did she to learn to speak it...?
    • From the top of my head, I think she did actually speak it, but with an extremely bad accent! I'd have to read through Vickers to check again. DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC) It does actually say on page 71 of Vickers "spoke it fluently", which I find hard to believe. DrKiernan 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk

I knew my run of good luck with FA nominations couldn't hold. I'm not sure how addressable these criticisms are - even the Official Web-site of the British Monarchy copies directly from Vickers. Anyway, I shall have to see what I can do. DrKiernan 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about finding more sources as much, but addressing the other concerns first. LuciferMorgan 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a quick search and I could find no real sources for Alice. Vickers only cites himself and some archives in the DNB article as well. I would just put a little note in the references section about how few references are available. See an example here. Hopefully that will stave off future problems. I will try to review the entire article in a few days (dissertation woes at the moment - anyone know a Locke expert?) Awadewit 08:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Unfortunately I am abroad now (in the German province!), and I have no access to my Greek sources. I think we can enrich it with some of these, but this will be possible from May 6 and on, after I return to Athens. The article is definitely well-written, but some more sources would definitely help. Let's give this FAC, DrKiernan, some more time and hope! I believe we can make i through! I think Christos Zampounis (an obsessed with the formal Greek royal amily guy!) has also written a book in Greek about her. I will tr to find it. My two Greek encyclopedias (Helios and Papyros-Larousse-Briannica) definitely have articles about her. Anyway! Now, some more remarks after giving the article quick look:
  • "By June 1917, the King's neutrality policy had become so unpopular and untenable that she and other members of the Greek royal family were forced into exile." Not historically accurate. Unpopular among whom? The Greek population? Not exactly. Maybe in the beginning, and until Venizelos' resignation and the creation of the Thessaloniki government, but after the Entente troops arrived in Piraeus, and imposed sanctions and military pressure on the Greek government, the sentiment of the population started to change. The public discontent towards the foreign forces had already made the King more popular. As a matter of fact, the population's reactions (or at least some of the population's reactions), as described by Karolidis, the day the King left were very emotional. Constantine was forced to leave by the English-French pressure, and not by the "dissatisfaction" of the population towards the King's policy.
    • Hmmmn. I think your points are fair, but Venizelos did win the election after all, and set up a rival government in Salonika after the King refused to support his policy. I do appreciate that my sentence is over-simplistic in summarising the entirety of Greek history in World War I, but I would prefer the emphasis of the article to be on Alice not on the political turmoil. That should be in other articles. I have removed "unpopular" but am not prepared to undertake a more extensive revision myself. (Of course, whether you do is up to you!) DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, you over wikify. You link, e.g., King Constantine I at least 3 times.
    • There were two links each to Constantine I and II. I have removed one of the links to Constantine I, but prefer to keep both to Constantine II because one is at the beginning of the article and the other at the end. DrKiernan 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alice's husband Prince Andrew, who had served as commander of the Second Army Corps during the war, was arrested." I am not sure about that. I want to check it.
  • "Several former ministers and generals arrested at the same time were shot, and British diplomats assumed that Prince Andrew was also in mortal danger." Not only former ministers. Prime minister as well!
    • Yes, I agree that could be included. DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King Constantine II of the Hellenes and Queen Anne-Marie voluntarily went into exile that December after a failed royalist counter-coup." Typically "voluntarily", but I am not sure if this adverb fits to the situation. After the failed counter-coup, the King had no other alternative but to flee.
    • Yes, I see. I shall remove "voluntarily". DrKiernan 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it looks to me as a very nice article. I'll work on it in accord to my comments above within the next days.--Yannismarou 09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article, as usual from DrKiernan, is quite good. I have just a few quibbles before I support.

  • The first paragraph of the lead needs to be spiced up. It reads too much like a family tree.
  • I still think that the first lead of the paragraph could have more punch, but I am not going to withhold my support on this alone. Awadewit Talk 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nothing more that you can include in the "Early life" section? It seems a bit short on information.
  • I still wish there were more information here. Awadewit Talk 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst Prince Andrew continued his career in the military, she became involved in charity work. - I think "whilst" sounds a bit overly formal and there are two in a row.
  • On their return to Greece, Prince and Princess Andrew found the political situation worsening, a group of dissatisfied officers formed a Military League that eventually led to Andrew's resignation from the army and the rise to power of Eleftherios Venizelos. - could you explain in a little more detail, please?
  • I think that the second paragraph in "Successive life crises" needs some sort of topic sentence to unite the disparate facts there - something about revolution and war affecting her larger family.
  • There are some repetitious links (Constantine, for example) which adds to the illusion of an overlinked page. Many of these links are probably necessary but once you link them, don't link them again - it makes the page hard to read, in my opinion.
  • That winter, she translated her husband's defence of his actions during the Greco-Turkish War into English.[20][21] However, she then began claiming that she was receiving divine messages, and that she had healing powers. - I'm not sure that the "however" logically follows.
  • Another patient there at the time was Vaslav Nijinsky. - explain why the reader would be interested to know this
  • She organised two refuges for orphaned and stray children, and a nursing circuit for the poor neighbourhoods. - "refuges" seemed like odd diction here
  • As one of Alice's sons-in-law, Christoph von Hessen, was a member of the NSDAP and the Waffen-SS, and another, Berthold von Baden, had been invalided out of the German army in 1940 after an injury in France, the occuping forces presumably assumed Alice would be pro-German. - sentence is hard to follow
  • I do think you should put in a note about why you are following one source so closely. Awadewit Talk 06:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Article amended. DrKiernan 09:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support This is a well-written, well-researched article. I cannot speak to its comprehensiveness, but it serves as a fine introduction to this particular royal. Awadewit Talk 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Object There are two references by Vickers, but you don't disambiguate them in the citations. I presume that Citation 4 is the only one from the DNB, and all of the other citations refer to the full biography, but I feel that it is worth making this explicit. E.g. changing all citations to Vickers, to Vickers (2000) Bluap 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried several variations, and selected my favourite - removing Vickers, 2004 from the "References" section and just including it in the "Notes". Other options, adding years, etc. look untidy to me. DrKiernan 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't: it's half blue, giving a very untidy appearance that's harder to read. A lot of the links are good, so why are words such as "English" blued out? And "Tegel, Berlin"—Just link "Tegel", please. Same for "Switzerland" (where the first occurrence is not linked ...). Needs a link audit to satisfy the requirement for "professional" formatting. Some of the sentences are very long, like: "During Princess Andrew's long convalescence, she and Prince Andrew drifted apart, her daughters all married German noblemen between 1930 and 1931 (she did not attend any of the weddings), and Prince Philip went to England to stay with his uncles, Lord Louis Mountbatten and George Mountbatten, 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven, and his grandmother, the Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven.[28]". Commas need attention: shift the one after "army" to after "Wars" in "With the advent of the Balkan Wars Prince Andrew was reinstated to the army, and Princess Andrew acted as a nurse, assisting at operations and setting up field hospitals, for which work George V awarded her the Royal Red Cross in 1913.[4]". Tony 03:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The formatting of the citation is determined by the editors of the citation templates. "Berlin" only occurs once in the article, and that occurrence is linked. I have corrected the Switzerland link, and re-arranged the others. I have moved the comma. DrKiernan 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Iridion 3D[edit]

Yes, its a short article about a game that wasn't really a hit, but that doesn't mean it can't be FA! Frankly there isn't much out there about the game and it had no real plot, so this is about as comprehensive as it will ever be. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, it does have some chance of passing, length isn't a defining factor. But each of the sections could surely be expanded (example: under Enemies it says The player encounters more than fifteen enemies over the course of the game, not counting the level bosses. One could go into detail, couldn't they?), and new ones could be added (are there Easter eggs? game released for other platforms? why wasn't it successful?). Other than that - seems nicely referenced, a definite GA, but if more than that - can't tell. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the reception would demonstrate why it wasn't successful; I added a little for enemies; and there aren't any easter eggs, it was never released for another platform. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are. I'll take a look later, right now I'm somewhat reluctant to support, pending other comments. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick run-through I'm inclined to support it weakly. I'm sorry my comment is not long, but I've got a bunch of other things on my mind. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments For the most part, it looks good. A few issues cropped up in the pass through I did of the article:
    • What was the game rated by the ESRB? How about PEGI and the Australian OFCL?
    • Graphics should probably be rolled into an section on the game's development, though I don't know how easily you could find stuff. Most FA-class articles for games include a development section. A cursory look revealed a preview on Gamespot which indicated there were some high hopes for the game... you might want to include that as well.
    • The Plot section seems a little thin. I know this is a shooter, but surely it should get more than four sentences. Have you covered each of the levels the player visits from a plot perspective in the plot summary?
  • Assuming those three items are handled, this has my support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the plot, added the rating. Unfortunately there isn't much for development- just not that an important game to garner pre-release attention. I already have the gamespot preview under 'Reception'. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. This FA has my support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
  • Needs copy editing — Without diving into the actual structure of the prose, I see "Iridion 3D", "Iridion 3d", and "Iridion 3-D". Also, "Game Boy Advance" and "Gameboy Advance", as well as inconsistent "3D" and "3-D" usage.
  • I believe I've standardized the usage. I agree it needs a copyedit however. CloudNine 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple bad links — There's a link that leads to a disambiguation page, links to the plural instead of singular form of a word, and links to incorrect articles. For example, you have 2-D with a plain link, which redirects to Dimension. Instead, you should point to 2D computer graphics. You also link to Starfox, the Marvel superhero, when I believe you mean to link to Star Fox (video game). Basic errors like these first two points indicate that the article needs to go to peer review.
  • The article starts "Iridion 3D is a 3D shooter game...", but the Graphics section says "Iridion 3d uses solely 2-D graphics...".
  • Insufficient lead.
I added a litte, but I think its perfectly fine. It explains what it is, the reception, what its about, etc. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this article warrants a two paragraph lead. The lead should also mention the release dates. Pagrashtak 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there really nothing to be found for a Development section? This is a major part of video game articles.
You can look yourself. I went scrounging and came up with a few lines, but if you'll look at most *portable* video game articles, you'll find that not much is said for development. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little searching and found out that Shin'en was working on an Iridion title for the Game Boy Color, but canceled it to focus on the GBA game. I also found some technical information and early plot information for the canceled game. I think there's definitely some material to be added under Development. Pagrashtak 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throw me a bone and give me the link? ;) Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I found what you were talking about, and added it in, as well as expanding the lead somewhat. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pagrashtak 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you've been putting work into this. I've skimmed it and it looks better, so I'm striking my objection for now. The user-written FAQ needs to be removed as a reference; it's not a reliable source. The lead could use a little more referencing, such as "While praised for its intensive graphics and rich sound, the game was panned by critics and gamers alike for repetitive gameplay." This most likely involves copying a reference from the article body, although the "gamer" comment may not be covered. I'll try to give it a proper read tomorrow. Pagrashtak 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The reception section could do with better sources. In terms of influence and readership, 2001 was not the year of Gamespot or All Game Guide. It's like a pop music article ignoring NME and Rolling Stone over the likes of All Music Guide. You'll be able to source some reviews through WP:CVG/M. User:X201 should have the Edge review from Issue 100 (it scored 6/10). Game Rankings suggests that the EGM review was published in 2003, which is weird, but User:Thunderbrand has all the EGM issues from 2001 - 2003 either, so that can't be hard to source if they did indeed review it. - hahnchen 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kay, I'll look at adding more (prominent) sources. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, getting the EGM review is out of the question as TB is gone, but I added in the Edge review. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just tidy the reception section up a bit, and give it some more flow. It just reads like a list of quotes, I don't know why for example, it's been split into two paragraphs when their tone, pacing and subject are largely the same. It might be worth emailing Thunderbrand for EGM, it's not like you're going to lose anything. - hahnchen 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and it'd be good to get some indication of sales figures. It's a relatively unknown game and it didn't get great reviews, but you never know, they might be floating around. - hahnchen 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the reception section now. I removed most of the scores and put them to the side, reorganized/condensed the comments, and added some more stuff. As for the sales figures, I'm hitting brick walls. I'll continue looking, but finding individual game's sales are harder then I thought. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions including, but not limited to, "In-game screenshot of Iridion 3d", suggest that the images are being used solely for decorative purposes and not for critical commentary. Are the particular game screenshots notable in any way? What commentary, previously published in reliable sources, can be made about them? In general, what strong reason suggests that we need to use these image? --Iamunknown 08:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't say I'm exactly an expert at video game articles (or what they should be, anyhow) but this one looks solid, if rather short. The only considerations I had looked to have already been addressed. Drew's Friend 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. The top provides ample evidence that a copy-edit of the whole text is required to reach a "professional" standard of writing. Don't just correct these examples.
    • "the game was panned by critics and gamers alike"—"Panned" is a colloquial reference to the pan, as in the toilet. Replace with something encyclopedic. "Alike" is a tired cliche; remove it.
    • "its release was highly anticipated for a handheld title"—no, "keenly anticipated". This clause is ambiguous, anyway.
    • "Iridion was released in North America on 29 May 2001, and subsequently in Europe on 21 September 2001."—Which word is redundant?
    • " The game ultimately performed disappointingly." What, initially it performed well, and somehow performed poorly after months?
    • Next para is good. Then "Iridion 3D allows the player to boost their weapon power"—why not pluralise to match the grammatical number: "allows players".
    • "If the player's ship is destroyed, the power level of the weapon is reduced by one, but you cannot be forced back to a previous weapon." Sudden change to second person.
    • "Each weapon has its own advantages and disadvantages." Remove the two redundant words. Tony 01:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've given the article an extensive copyedit and I believe I've handled most of the awkwardly phrased sentences. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues regarding 1a:
    • Influenced by the Commodore 64 game Uridium, Iridion features a single starship which waging war against the alien Iridion. Sentence is grammatically incorrect.
    • Iridion was released in North America on May 29, 2001 and in Europe on September 21, 2001 and performed disappointingly. Don't include more than one "and". Consider splitting the sentence, e.g. The game received mixed reviews. While reviewers praised... (don't actually use my example in the article). This would also solve my second problem with this sentence: the use of disappointingly.
    • The player encounters more than fifteen enemies... Try replacing "more than" with "over".
    • <ost bosses have weapons... <ost? I'm assuming you meant "most".
    • ...and level environments feature interesting changes... The use of "interesting" seems icky to me. How do you define "interesting". I don't find the changes from day to night interesting.
    • The developers made the levels look 3D by looping the background textures, making it a fairly graphically intensive game for the Game Boy Advance. "levels look 3d" sounds crude to me. Also, "fairly" seems like a letdown.
    • ...utilize the GAX Sound Engine,[16] which allowed realtime... You mean it doesn't allow it now?
    • Iridion 3D was recieved poorly by critics... One of, I think, the most common mistakes, "recieved" should be spelt "received".
Contrary to your statement above, I've found a few instances where the sentences don't convey the intended meaning. Might I suggest, if you haven't done so already, that you read Tony's (if I may say) excellent guides to improvement of writing and editing. The links at the bottom of the featured article criteria page are also invaluable, not only for prospective nominators, but also for anyone who wants to improve their skills in general. Harryboyles 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone through and given the article a copyedit, reordered for flow, and combined a couple of redundant parts. Tony and Harryboyles, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look. There's probably some more work to do, but it should be a lot better. Pagrashtak 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will the objectors please reassess? Pagrashtak 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've withdrawn my oppose. It's not perfect yet, though—a quick run-through and I had to make a few edits. In particular, generic male pronouns were used for players. I corrected a few, and hope there are no others. Pluralise "player", or use "his/her" or even "s/he", or reword to avoid. Tony 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

System Shock[edit]

Self-nomination. I rewrote and heavily added to this article, which is currently classified as a good article. Prior to this nomination, the article was subject to a peer review by WikiProject Video games, the suggestions of which I integrated into the article. I find the article to be worthy of featured status, but will endeavor to correct any issues that may be found over the course of this nomination. JimmyBlackwing 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per work done with nominator on Peer Review. I took one last look through, and all I see is maybe wikilink 3D in the lead.--Clyde (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All points seem to have been attended in the peer review. -凶 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose—prose looks good based on the lead. However, I noticed a few minor issues in the first section:
    • Some of the references aren't entirely formatted; namely, the magazine articles need authors and other relevant information.
    • Watch out for redundancies and misplaced formality. Generally, it's best to avoid "prior to" and say "before" instead (as Tony says, we use too much Latin as it is).
    • This sentence needs work: "The game begins as the protagonist awakens from his coma, finding that the station has been taken over by the now insane SHODAN, with all robots aboard the station reprogrammed for hostility, and the crew transformed into cyborgs and mutants." It's a snake, and doesn't flow correctly. Try "The game begins as the protagonist awakens from his coma, finding that the station has been taken over by an insane SHODAN; all robots aboard have been reprogrammed for hostility, and the crew have been transformed into cyborgs and mutants" or something along those lines.
    • "The player character is soon contacted by Rebecca Lansing, a TriOptimum counter-terrorism consultant, who claims that Citadel Station's mining laser is being charged for a strike against Earth." "Player character" should be "playable character", and you can probably remove "soon".
  • These are just a few examples. Try to give the prose a double check to remove redundancies and other issues. I recommend checking it against User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Normally, I'd do this myself, but I've been trying to take Tony's approach by pointing out examples instead (plus, I've been really pressed for time). That way, the editors learn by doing. — Deckiller 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I corrected the examples you gave, and will locate copyeditors to help me out with the rest of the prose. On the subject of your other point, not all of the references are capable of being entirely formatted; the Next Generation Magazine review does not, in fact, name its author. I'm not sure about the PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World articles, so I'll check them out. JimmyBlackwing 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can't find the references again, don't worry about it; if you have them, please double check. Articles are often slammed for not filling out references properly. — Deckiller 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a scan of the Next Generation Magazine article, courtesy of User:Mitaphane. On the scanned page, there is no listing of the author. I'm not an avid magazine reader, so I'm not sure if the author would be listed elsewhere in the issue. I do not currently have access to the other two articles, but I will attempt to find the information if it exists. It's going to take me awhile (possibly over a week), though. In the meantime, I will attend to requesting the assistance of a copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as far as I can tell: "System Shock sold 170,000 copies,[28] being outsold by its contemporaries.[5][2]" is a problem neither ref 2 nor ref 5 talk about sales figures. Side note, starting a clause with 'being' never makes a good sentence. The 3D content is not 'true' It's still a flat screen. Mention 3D modelling or something. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 2 states:

In 1993, id followed up Wolfenstein with Doom, signaling the age of first-person shooters. Though well-made, Doom and its knock-offs were relatively primitive; they were designed on a single plane, involved little actual environmental interaction, and weren't even really 3D. Building on Underworld, Looking Glass responded with its own "anti-FPS" of sorts, a first-person adventure game called System Shock. Unlike Doom, the player could pick up and throw items, or store them in a massive inventory. Since the game involved real 3D space, the player could look around, climb, duck, jump, and even lean to the side. The flip side of all this control is that the game was confusing as hell to get into. And again, you needed a monster machine to run it. Result: even fewer people really noticed the game.

    • Ref 5 states:

Van Gogh's sad tale is not unlike that of Looking Glass Studios' System Shock, which is without a doubt one of the most original, playable, and immersive computer games ever created. The trouble is, at the time of its release, no one (myself included) could be bothered to notice. System Shock came and went whilst everyone was busy killing each other in Doom II, and the title slipped off the radars of all but the most ardent gamers. But those lucky few were in for a treat -- they had unexpectedly stumbled upon what was to be the best computer game of 1994. Sure, that's a bit of a bold statement, but read on to find out why System Shock deserves nearly every accolade we can think of, and then some.

    • I do not see how these do not work as references for that statement. Both of them discuss sales. And yes, the game featured true 3D environments. As in, "not 2 and 1/2D", like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom had been. JimmyBlackwing 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok, it took me even longer than expected, but I have filled out the magazine information. With that done, the only remaining objection is prose-based. I'll put in a request with the League of Copyeditors. JimmyBlackwing 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Doesn't seem to have any problems and is well written. Though one magazine reference doesn't have any page numbers. Medvedenko 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Improved prose. Tony 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1a. Random examples such as these suggest that more precise copy-editing is required throughout.[reply]
    • "The game received critical praise,[3][4] later being hailed as a major innovator in its genre,[5] and placing on multiple hall of fame lists.[5][6][7]"—Get rid of "later being" --> "and was". It's not the innovator (a human was that) --> "innovation". The grammar of "and placing" is unclear --> "and was placed"? Why is Reference 5 cited twice in one sentence, and heavens, again in the subsequent senetence? Why does "critical praise" appear again in the very next sentence?
    • "Before the game's beginning". No, "Before the beginning of the game".
    • "a six-month long controlled healing coma"—spot the redundant word.
    • "Citadel Station's mining laser is being charged for a strike against Earth"—Does this involve a payment, or do you mean "prepared", or even "charged up"? Tony 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put in a request with the League of Copyeditors on April 27. I can't copyedit the article any further than I already have, so I'm forced to wait. I have attempted to fix the issues you cited, however. JimmyBlackwing 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finding collaborators. Go to the list of FAs. There must be 20 games ones. I looked at the first one (3D thingo), and saw copy-editing by User:BACbKA. That took 90 seconds. You might spend longer identifying a priority list of the most likely to ask. Tony 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Jihad (song)[edit]

I wish to nominate current Good Article "Jihad (song)" as a Featured Article Candidate, which is an album track by Californian heavy metal act Slayer. Editors suggestions have helped improve the article (can any of those contributors who wish to comment on this FAC and / or vote please make the fact clear they've been contributors to the article when commenting / voting?.. thanks), while copyedits from Wikipedians such as Tony have smoothened the article's prose. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The song is relatively unknown to heavy metal music audiences, and was never issued in single format. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. LuciferMorgan 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The text (describing Mumbai's CSF's reaction and aftermath) with the music sample is unneeded. Rather, a text describing the music sample would be better (a la Angel of Death).--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I have followed your recommendation and amended the description accordingly. LuciferMorgan 10:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had a pretty rough time searching for nitpicks after all this polishing.
  • Not all reviews were so negative - I don't like "so". The entire sentence appears a bit unnecessary to me, since "received mixed reviews" is already explained earlier in the section.
The word "so" has been removed, though I kept the sentence since I feel it nicely introduces the fact there were negative reviews, and always the opportunity to explore this. LuciferMorgan 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MusicOMH.com's Ian Robinson also received complaints" - He didn't receive complaints.
I can't believe I added that. That's been fixed. LuciferMorgan 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer words such as "to" and "is" outside quotations.
Could you provide an example please? Thanks.
...remarked that the song "is predictably.... Michaelas10 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any other instances you spot feel free to point out. LuciferMorgan 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the full name of the September 11, 2001 attacks before the shortcut, not after it. Also choose whether you would like to use "9/11" or "September 11" in the rest of the article. Michaelas10 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've opted for 9/11 in the rest of the article. I think that's now been addressed. LuciferMorgan 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read the article, and your vote of support. If you have any other suggestions for improvement, feel free to get in touch. I'd like it noted that Michaelas10 is a Slayer WikiProject member as I am though so that nobody feels foul play is occurring here. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support —Disclaimer as a Slayer wiki project member—
    • I'd like to see the lead expanded; eg the opening para currently of comprises three entirely unrelated statements. Maybe add text to develope the second sentence.
I've added text to develop the second sentence, though please copyedit it as it may be awkward at present. LuciferMorgan 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The third sentence in the lead and the first in the "Origins" section are near verbatim repeats. The second instance needs to be developed (is it unusual for Hanneman to be the primary author, does Araya often write lyrics etc).
I've now developed upon the sentence and added more context to the "Origins" section. LuciferMorgan 14:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article is realtively short (not a criticism), the block quotes seem to dominate the structure. For example the ""Angel of Death" comparisons" section comprises two paras cut by a block quote. The quote is near twice the length of either para. Ceoil 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement 110%, but I do not know how to address this. Do you have any suggestions? Any advice is greatly appreciated. LuciferMorgan 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto these shortly in the coming days. Thanks for your comments. LuciferMorgan 00:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, that's fair enough, it's a relatively obscure topic you've chosen to write about, and there are few sources to draw from. Nevertheless, you did a good job; there are a few minor ce issues left, but all easily fixed. Have switched to support. Ceoil 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, which is greatly appreciated. Your help and improvements to the article are also appreciated. The fact it's relatively obscure and there are few sources to draw upon is also a major problem with heavy metal music related articles, which is a shame really. If more sources come to light regarding this song in the future though, I fully intend to add their information to the article. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the block quote is not properly formatted. It uses the {{cquotetxt}} template which is supposed to be used for pull-quotes. What you might want to do, and what may help keep the quote from dominating the section would be to only use a small part of the quote in the article text. Then, use the entire quote in a pull-quote; I tried this out at Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), and it seems to have worked okay. ShadowHalo 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - I've tried it, and I feel the section looks better given your advice. Should you have any other improvement suggestions, never hesitate to get in touch. LuciferMorgan 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Jurassic Park (film)[edit]

There was no consensus either way the last time this was nominated. There were many objections, but I think most of them had been addressed, so I'm going to restart it. (old nom) Raul654 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - My concerns were addressed and satisfied in the previous FAC, as it is now, it gets my full support.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I believe the only remaining problem is that the copy-edit needs to be finished. — Deckiller 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of copyediting courtesy of Bignole and Firsfron, and I've tried my hand. None of the objectors ever bothered to list their prose problems anyway. Alientraveller 15:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a terrible copyeditor; the only things I fixed were technical problems (like the plural forms of various dinosaur genera), and I'm possibly a poor judge of what is well-written prose. Please, for the sake of your FAC, do not rely on me to tighten up prose! Also, for the record, many of the listed prose problems weren't even from the correct article, which must have been incredibly frustrating for the nominator. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok pal, I'm just thankful that you corrected dinosaur information. Alientraveller 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is in a good shape, well cited, written and illustrated, though there are things in "Release" that I usually see in separate sections (such as home video and other medias). igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that was done because there wasn't that much information to warrant subsections for the individual releases. At least, that's the way it appears.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article seems to be in top condition, and I believe that this article would make a good adition to the FA colection here. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Like I wrote in the first discussion, the "Reaction" section is US/UK-centric as it only mentions reviews from those two countries. Therefore it is not as "comprehensive" as it could be. A Wikipedia article is supposed to cover the topic from a global standpoint and should not give any country-specific aspects any priority. I understand the problem that the main editor of the article only speaks English, but I'm sure there is some newspaper article or another source giving an survey of how Jurassic Park was reviewed around the world waiting to be found. Like I also wrote in that first FAC discussion, I'll be doing my part to try to find it in the next couple of days, but until such information is included the article just doesn't satisfy the FA criteria. I certainly hope this can be corrected. Besides this aspect, everything seems to match the FA criteria (although I'm no good at copyediting and can't really judge the prose), which I would like to commend its author for, but I won't support until this issue is taken care of. --Carabinieri 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if that's a very fair comment; I haven't seen any fiction FAs with reviews in other languages. — Deckiller 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you provide some FA film articles that do this, because I haven't seen any that provide this "global" review that you are requesting. The first problem with this is that how do you distinguish what is more "foreign" that it would satisfy your opposition? We don't include release dates for films in countries that are not primarily english speaking, unless there is some notable reason for doing so (e.g. if a film series has never been released in a particular country, but for the third film it is). Second, how do you propose we translate these reviews? When does it stop? Are we to provide a review for every country a film was released in? Spider-Man 3 was released in 107 countries (the most ever), I think that may create a problem in a criticism section. Even more so, we are supposed to follow style guidelines, which tell us to use Rotten Tomatoes, and professional/well known critics; last time I checked, RT doesn't have anyone listed abroad in its "Cream of the Crop" list of most well known critics. How are to distinguish who is "well known" and most "professional" in a country whose language we cannot even translate?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Just to add my voice to the chorus: This seems like an unfair requirement. Jurassic Park was an American film created for an American audience, so certainly the reaction of American critics is more germane than that of German or French or Indian or Sudanese critics. — Brian (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're putting words in my mouth. I never even indicated that the article was supposed "to provide a review for every country a film was released in". And Jurassic Park was not "created for an American audience". According to Box Office Mojo 61% of its gross came from abroad, so the reception in these countries is just as important. I called for the article to give an overview of how the film was received - from a global standpoint. I don't believe that's an unfair requiremnt, but rather an FA level. Like I pointed out in my comment, I'm sure English-language sources have analyzed the reception in non-English-speaking countries, so knowledge of a foreign language wouldn't be required in order to write about this reception. I'm aware of the fact that most FA's currently do not reach this standard, but "two wrongs don't make a right", let's get it right here and give a true global overview before passing this. one.--Carabinieri 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Most don't? I can't think of any that do, at least not off the top of my head. The best you could probably hope for is that someone mentioned if it was generally well received in another country. Most news articles don't go into depth about foreign reviews, just general reaction. I've seen the ones for Spider-Man 3, when it was released in Japan, and they don't generally include actual critic names. Also, I didn't say you said that, I said that what you are asking is vague. I asked you what you thought was "global" enough for inclusion. What you are asking is for someone to find news about foreign reviews. And what if no one wrote anything about the foreign reception beyond how much money it made? Are you saying you can never support an article that couldn't possibly satisfy your request? A request that actually doesn't follow the rest of the FA articles for films. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, because if it was possible to be done I think it can only help the article. But, I believe that the article doesn't hinder itself by not having these "global" reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, most news articles don't go into depth about the reception abroad, that's why it's important to find the ones that do. No said finding the appropriate sources was going to be that easy. I highly doubt that the reception outside the English-speaking world hasn't been the topic of an English-language news article or some other piece of writing. I can't claim an article that has a major section which doesn't completely cover its topic meets FA criteria and therefore cannot support, even if there is plenty of precedent for such articles being passed.--Carabinieri 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find that sad that you would hold something that has yet to be done by any other article (i don't see any FA articles up for review on that requirement of yours), and not even brought up on the WikiProject films style guidelines themselves. There is such a thing as "not existing", even on the internet. If it does exist, you still run the risk of the source you finding being reliable itself. Most importantly, we do not know the professional status of foreign (non-english speaking) critics. They don't show up on Rotten Tomatoes (which is the site that the WP Films guidelines says to use), or other sites. If you believe that they exist, then please help the article out. You don't have to, but apparently others have tried and failed. But, that's your opinion about the situation, and I don't believe that it will hinder the article (speaking of the lack of foreign reviews, not about your personal opinion as everyone's opinion is valued IMO).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • Speaking as someone who has put together a comprehensive article on a recent film (The Devil Wears Prada, which will be split sometime soon per its tag), I wholeheartedly agree that this is a ridiculous request for a film article. At least one on the English Wikipedia. The international film press rarely covers foreign-language critical reaction unless it's significantly different from what gets said in the English-speaking world (the only instance where it should be covered in a Wikipedia film article). I agree with the globalization sentiment but consider the implications: good film articles inevitably tend to become overly long (as mine did). We would probably need to split off daughter articles for rather crufty lists of (probably badly-translated) quotes.

          IMO, foreign-language criticism should be included if there's some national connection to the film in question. For example, The Departed discusses Hong Kong critics' reactions to the film since it was a remake of Infernal Affairs. I would also add as an aside that, when overseas, I haven't seen critical reaction used to sell the film the way it is in the English-speaking world (i.e., no quotes on posters).

          Really, this discussion should be moved to WT:FILM. An FA nom of an article that was merely trying to follow its project criteria is not the place to force changes to those standards. Daniel Case 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • What I am demanding isn't anything new and shouldn't be controversial at all. I'm just asking a potential FA to represent a worldwide view! Currently there are several reviews mentioned in the article and it struck my that all but one were from American media, the other one being from the United Kingdom, this is what is generally known as systematic bias. If I were really obtrusive and fussy, I could slap that section with a {{Globalize/Eng}} template. I'm not expecting anyone to look through foreign-language newspapers and translate movie reviews, I don't think it's necessary to quote them directly at all. I do, however, feel that since 61% of the audience of the film seems to be from outside the US (and I'm pretty sure that's not all UK), the coverage the reaction from the critics of these countries gets should be proportionate to this. I can honestly care less about the WP:FILM standards. This is FAC, not a page of some project, so I'm just trying to apply FA and general Wikipedia standards - along with some common sense.--Carabinieri 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, you seem to be alone in your standards. Secondly, part of FA criteria is to meet your personal WikiProject's guidelines. The fact that you don't care about what WP:FILM says is irrelevant, because this article IS a film article, and thus must meet those requirements as well. Regardless, show us some "global" reviews. Show us it can be easily accomplished short of having to translate a review. Or, show where Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias applies to film articles (American films at that), and how it proposes we accomplish this the "unbias" you claim the article lacks. I would think that I would be seeing a lot of FA film articles up for review, with that template added to them. This seems more like something you should bring to the WikiProject Film community. Most aritles always try and follow previous FAs, because they know that a community of people agreed that those articles were great articles. You're asking this article to do something entirely new, instead of taking it to the WP:FILM, so that they can address the concerns and then make appropriate actions to all FA film articles (if necessary). As no two articles are exactly alike, how you handle each can be different as well. I've checked the "Countering" Project, and the only thing it says do is look for news websites in other countries that have an english version, and the sites they mention are Canadian and UK.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments as I go...
    • Are "Gerald R. Molen", "B. D. Wong" and "Dean Cundey" really that important to include in the character listings? These characters had very minor roles.
    • "trimmed much of the exposition via Spielberg's idea of a cartoon" I can't figure out what this means exactly... can this be made more clear?
    • The "Dinosaurs on screen" is great, a wonderful idea to cover a film in an encyclopedic way by explaining some of the technical/scientific information in the movie and relating it to Wikipedia articles for further reading. But it seems a bit awkward in between the related "production" and "reception" sections, perhaps the dinosaurs section should be put closer to the plot and character sections for pacing?
I think "Dinosaurs on screen" serves to supplement production: the most important thing about this film, was that it was the most realistic (at the time) depiction of dinosaurs to date. Alientraveller 15:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But really, this is a great film article that just needs some minor polishing here and there. Weak support because it still needs some tweaking, which I'm sure will occur eventually. --W.marsh 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the article meets all criteria. In addition I dont see a need to expand the reviews section.LordHarris 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't edit Jurassic Park much but I think this article needs some copyediting and removal of redundancies in accordance to the FA critera, but I am going to support this. I will copyedit this ASAP. Sjones23 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is well written, well sourced, and is comprehensive and stable - • The Giant Puffin • 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, pleasant reading. Pasi 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT! Outstanding article, excellent research, detailed, informative. Everything I would like to see on the front page of Wikipedia. MrPrada 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did some copy-editing to fix punctuation issues with quotes, but otherwise, the article is in terrific shape. I've reviewed the featured article criteria, and Jurassic Park, I'm happy to say, meets all of them. Definitely a fine article of a fine film! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Mendip Hills[edit]

This article was a previous FAC nomination & recieved some useful comments - which have all been addressed, however it didn't receive enough support within the time allowed. It remains a comprehensive and stable article supported but appropriate citations, which I believe meets the FA criteria.— Rod talk 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment Nice work Rodw. I think those pictures could be slightly larger, and alternated left and right within their sections. There are also still a few seemingly unsourced statements dotted around as well, it would be wise to add inline citations to those. (Beautiful part of the

world by the way.)-- Zleitzen(talk) 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images are autothumbed, which is recommended by the WP:MoS. You can set the thumbnail size in special:preferences =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, that map is very small on default mode, an aspect covered in the MoS. And the MoS also recommends alternating the formation of pics somewhat. Of the unsourced statements, the info in the Demographics section could do with sourcing, the info on Wookey Hole seems unsourced and the Walking section lacks citations. Given that the Monarch's Way article gives a different distance to that section for the route, it could do with being sorted out with WP:RS. -- Zleitzen(talk) 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I have rearranged the images, checked & changed the length of the Monarchs way & added citations where requested.— Rod talk 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I leave it to you whether you follow my suggestion: as you say, it may not be necessary as there are only 3 books. Congratulations on producing & maintaining an excellent article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be neater, and certainly more convenient for the reader, to split the References into two parts, as is increasingly the practice on WP:

  1. Notes: the footnotes proper; and
  2. References: alphabetical bibliography

The Notes can then refer succinctly to the bibliography whenever necessary, giving page numbers (eg "Barrington and Stanton (1977):35"). In every other respect this is a first-class article: it reads well, and it's both comprehensive and attractively presented. Rod has dealt with all my editorial comments patiently, courteously and efficiently. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response I don't quite understand your comment. All of the references are used in the article & cited with numbers as they appear. There is no seperate bibliography of other sources. Could you point me to an example or something from WP:MOS or other guidelines so that I could make the changes suggested? Otherwise thanks for the supportive comments.— Rod talk 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was being a bit cryptic! Have a look at this section of the article on footnotes (the para beginning "Consider maintaining ..."). That section in turn refers to Wikipedia:Citing sources, in which you might pay particular attention to this.
A good example of how this works in practice is the FA Johannes Kepler. Thankfully, you don't have nearly so many sources; but the same principle applies—and it makes it much easier for the reader to find the sources at a glance. But when all's said & done this isn't mandatory: it's more a question of personal taste. It's really more a matter of formatting than of substance. If you're happy with the referencing as it is, that's fine. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS My remarks may have only limited relevance to this article, because the majority of the sources are online. However, three of the books referred to (Barrington, Toulson & Coysh) are referenced twice: using the system I've described you could give specific page numbers for each separate (NB spelling!) reference. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response OK I see what you mean now. I'm not sure how useful this would be for the 3 books cited in this article, but I will be returning to the library this weekend & will try to get the relevant books again & add the page numbering as suggested. I note that in the guidelines this is generally put as "It can be helpful" & similar words rather than being a requirement.— Rod talk 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Footnotes are not formatted to a full and consistent biblio style. Sources need to specify publisher, author and publication date where available, and last access date on all websource. See WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. Also, there is every possible form of mistaken use of WP:DASH. External links should be pruned per WP:NOT (not a tour guide). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Sandy thanks for your comments. Could you give an example of where you feel the footnotes do not include a "full and consistent biblio style" as I have tried hard to use the appropriate templates and include as much information as possible. I will check the WP:DASH as these have been changed 3 or 4 times during the peer review process. I will also look at the external links (most of which have been added by others) to prevent it being a tour guide.— Rod talk 15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me know when you're finished, and I can doublecheck the dashes. I will do a few sample edits now on the footnotes, so you can see the missing info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dashes and External links look good now. Let me know when you're finished with footnotes; I left sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response Wow thank you for all your work on this. I see what you mean now. I think part of the problem was "cite web" which uses "work" rather than "publisher". You seem to have done all the format ones for me but is there a similar "format" for word documents? I've gone through & added dates of publication where they are included on the pdfs (many don't have them). I can't find ISBNs for Gough, J.W. & Johnson, Peter - both are from 1967 & there is no ISBN on the book or on Amazon. If there is anything else you feel is needed let me know & I've now realised I need to go back to some of the other articles I've written & do the same process! — Rod talk 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks pretty good; I'm striking my oppose. I did still see some instances of the "work" parameter used in place of "publisher", which causes the publisher to italicize. In most standard citation formats, book names, encyclopedia names, and newspaper names are italicized, but other publishers are not, so perhaps you can review those for consistency. Also, the text is squished between the infobox and the first image (in Geology) on my browser; maybe you can find a better way to place those images to avoid the text squeeze? If you have downloadable word docs, I think the parameter to use in the cite templates is format = doc. Thanks for the fast work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A deserving candidate for FA status. SP-KP 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support:
    • The infobox gives its length and width as 30km by 10km, which I guess means the Yeo/Chew valley is considered the northern boundary. I didn't see any mention of the valley as being the northern boundary, though, and there doesn't seem to be a reference for a definition of the area -- the AONB is officially defined, but is there any authoritative definition of the hills as a whole?
    • Following on from the first point, the Mendips are hard to define because they don't stand on their own, there are additional nearly contigious limestone hills going north: Dundry, Bristol (Avon Gorge, etc) and the Cotsworlds. Is it worth briefly mentioning these in the geology section, and saying whether they are part of the same formation, or of different ages/composition? This is just a suggestion, I'm not going to fail the article over this.
    • Infobox -> Location -> Coordinates: 1:10,000 doesn't seem an appropriate scale for an area of this size. I'd change it myself, but I'm not familiar with the template parameters. 1:100,000 is probably more like it.
Fixed. The Geobox sets the scale to 1:1,000 by default. It can easily be changed by adding an (unfortunatelly undocumented yet) additional parameter coordinates_type which can accept any parameter from Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Parameters. I chnged it to the suggested 1:100,000. – Caroig (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few very short paragraphs, which could perhaps be merged. The demographics section, for example, doesn't appear to need a paragraph break in the middle of it. Again, just a suggestion, I don't think it's a big enough issue for failing.
  • Thanks, Joe D (t) 09:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Thanks for the comments. I agree it is hard to define as it doesn't follow local authority boundaries etc & the proposal (mentioned in the article) to expand the AONB doesn't make it clear either. I have asked User:Geologyguy to comment on the limetstone hills to the north & the relationship. I have asked User:Caroig about the scale in the "geobox" as he created them & knows how to fiddle with the parameters. I have combined the short paras in the demographics section.— Rod talk 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an article I have read repeatedly and learned from. My only comment is the use of compass directions without a space e.g. southwest rather than south west, which I personally do not like. Whatever style is chosen its use should be consistent. --Cheesy Mike 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Thanks I have changed the southwest to south west (where I can spot them) & removed "-" to make it consistent but I can't find anything on this in the manual of style.— Rod talk 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A readable and informative article, with just about the right weighting given to each section. I had a quick edit of the Geology section (the only one I'm qualified to comment on...) just to tidy up the chronology of events, reduce the degree of assumed knowlege, and eradicate a touch of repetition. Pyrope 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. Needs fresh eyes to copy-edit the whole text, not just to correct these random examples from the top.
    • "The Mendip Hills (commonly called The Mendips) are a range of limestone hills (karst) situated to the south of Bristol and Bath in north Somerset, England." Remove the redundant word for a much nicer opening.
    • "The hills run east to west between Weston-super-Mare and Frome, and overlook the Somerset Levels to the south, and the Avon valley to the north." Better as this, to avoid three ands and a comma: "Running east to west between Weston-super-Mare and Frome, the Hills overlook the Somerset Levels to the south and the Avon valley to the north."
    • When I read a humdinger like this at the top, I lose interest. "The hills are largely carboniferous limestone, which is quarried at several sites. The higher western part of the Mendip Hills, have been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), measuring approximately 200 km² (80 mi²):, which gives the area the same level of protection as a national park." Why the familiar "The hills" first, and the fully rendered "the Mendip Hills" later? Remove "approximately" (see MoS on this). Fix the punctuation glitch, oh dear. Better "... (AONB); the area is 200 km² (80 mi²), which gives it the same level of protection as a national park." Tony 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response thanks for your comments, which I have acted on. I may have become too close to see the wood for the trees and would welcome any further copyediting, but I wouldn't have described the problems you identified as a "humdinger". If you culd help with your "fresh eyes" that would be great.— Rod talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.Excellent article, should definitely be a featured article Mick Knapton 06:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder—sorry, I don't copy-edit FACs. The task is to locate other people to collaborate; this is one of the most important aspects of contributing to WP. Start with the edit-history pages of similar articles, especially FAs. Identify those who've made major copy-editing contributions (by reading the edit summaries and using the compare edits function). Show them you're familiar with their work, and ask for help with this one. You need to network in this way, and expect to be asked to help on other articles if they do you a favour. Tony 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Tulsa, Oklahoma[edit]

Self nomination. This article has undergone radical improvement over the last few months, and editors have worked to fit it to all the Featured Article criteria, along with quality standards set by current featured city articles. Tulsa is an important American city and of top importance in Wikiproject Oklahoma, and due special attention has dramatically improved the article's factual viability, prose, and comprehensiveness. Therefore, it is being nominated for FA status. Okiefromokla 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed:
    • Middle paragraph of "Law and Government" needs serious copyedit.
      • Multiple capitalization errors.
      • First sentance needs works. Mayor isn't appointed, which implies that a superior picks the person to fill the position. The mayor is elected. The whole paragraph could use a copyedit for clarity.
    • Caption in Green Country map has a typo: It reads "Green County".
    • Sentance in history section has spelling errors and needs copyedit for a more encyclopedic tone: Econoimic prosperity took a break in 1982, when a national recession greatly effected the oil industry in Tulsa.
    • Image issues:
      • The 1921 Riot picture has a liscencing tag that is only valid in the U.S. Wikipedia is a multinational effort, and as such it probably needs a more inclusive licencing tag. I am not sure this tag is even used anymore. There is another licencing tag that is more universal, for images whose creator or author has been dead for more than 70 years. It may apply here. Also, the source of the image isn't specified.
      • I am still uneasy about the BOK image liscencing tag. I read the talk page, and it still feels a bit sketchy.****I agree, and I'm the uploader. I've learned a lot since then. I see if I can get another email from the city that specifically releases it under a public license as opposed to just saying that it can be used.↔NMajdan•talk 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*That's all I found right now. Fix these and I'll give it another read through.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the input. I fixed all the problems you listed except the race riot and BOK picture licences, and I will try to look into those shortly, or at least track down the licencing issue of the Race Riot picture (or just get another picture).Okiefromokla 02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, looking much better. On a second readthrough, I caught a few more issues:
  • "sleepy little town" in the history section. Ugh. Say "small town"
  • Same paragraph, a bit higher up: "...which led to the present day usage of the name Tulsa." Unneccessarily obfuscatory. Try "which later changed to Tulsa." Same idea, less words, easier to read.
  • Same paragraph, next sentance after that one: "However" implies a difference from prior sentance, but BOTH sentances deal with the same issue, oil discovery...
  • Same paragraph: Overuse of the word "boom" ... Oil boom, building boom. Try Mr. Roget...
  • Next paragraph: Two sentances start with "Known as...". Try a little variety here as well. Also, it should be noted that MANY cities, not only Tulsa, had a "Black Wall Street". Durham, NC had one as well. Probably doesn't need mentioning here, but a DAB is probably needed to explain the difference. Plus, there appears to be a double redirect here too...
  • Next paragraph: Overuse of "During..." Again, variety...:::Sorry to dig up a whole new batch of stuff. I hate to sound all nit-picky here, but "brilliant prose" is the standard we are aiming for. When the above and the images issues are fixed, you can expect my support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I fixed the problems you mentioned, including the picture issues (both mentioned pictures are now gone). Again, the input is appreciated. Okiefromokla 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Oklahoma is celebrating its centennial on 2007-11-16 and it would be great to have an Oklahoma-related article, such as this, on the Main Page on that day.↔NMajdan•talk 02:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lovely, then there's still a bit of time to get something featured. --Phoenix (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All fixes are done, I have no more reservations. Great job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks fine. --Phoenix (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Lots of polish needed; has this article been to peer review? Please read WP:MSH and fix throughout. Also, please read WP:LEAD; the lead is not at all a compelling summary of the article. Please read WP:MOSNUM; full dates should be wikilinked. Prose: the "city" witnessed murders ? See WP:LAYOUT for correct placement of templates at top of section headings. Footnotes are cluttered with the (web) parameter, which is the default and should be left out. Why is a visittulsa source identified as CNN Money ? Publications dates (example, [16]) should be given when available on sources (author as well, if one is available). Why are the Work and Publisher parameters repeated in the cite templates? The correct parameter for most of these instances is Publisher; no need to repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::These problems have now been fixed.Okiefromokla•talk 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just went through and made a large number of sample edits to show you the work still needed; please review the sample edits to understand the work needed throughout. My edits are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see my edit. The pages parameter should not be used for web refs with a single page. It is intended for citing specific pages of a multiple-page work. The date field of web refs should not be guessed at. If there is no indication of the date on the page, do not put the current year in the field (which seems to be what was done in the section I edited). Cite sources directly. You cited a web page with an article that was clearly labeled as a copy from the Tulsa World. It was a simple matter to go to the paper's web site, find the article in the archives, and reference that instead. I'm also concerned that this article may have too great a reliance on primary sources. I haven't done a thorough check, but the section I edited definitely needs more secondary sources.
I'd love to see this article reach featured status. I'm willing to help you out with the ref work and formatting if you can tackle the bulk of it. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Pagrashtak 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also go through and make sure stats are dated so that future editors will know what needs to be updated; example — things like population and ... is ranked among the best 123 Western Colleges by the Princeton Review, ... Pls ping me when you're ready for another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, solo years should not be wikilinked (see WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM). And, Pagrashtak left a reply to your query on my talk page about the problem with primary sources, that should be reviewed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All these problems are being worked on and will probably be close to done very very soon.Okiefromokla•talk 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dsmdgold's Comments[edit]

  • Comments What has been done so far is very good but a few places need some work. Note, I am a native Tulsan and many of my comments are based on my sometimes faulty memory.
    • The American's prominence seems to be excessive, given that a ground breaking has yet to be announced and the thing may ever be built. It is mentioned in the lead and at least twice in the article.
    • The Race Riot needs to be mentioned in the lead. After the discovery of oil, it is the most important event in Tulsa history. fixed.
    • Although I have no sources at hand, it is my understanding that the reason Tulsa became the big city, rather than Glenpool or Sapulpa is that the citizens of Tulsa managed to construct a bridge over the Arkansas (it considered economically impossible given the sand bottom of the river), and that Tulsa banned drilling for oil within the city limits. Most of the oil fields were on the other side of the river, and Tulsa was more pleasant place to build homes for the oil barons.
    • The Race Riot needs a fuller discussion.
    • The, still unfinished BOK center has six mentions, more that any other structure in the article. This is excessive. Much toned down, thank you
    • It is my memory that the present form of government was adopted in part under the threat of lawsuit by Civil Right groups on the the theory that the previous City Commission diluted minority votes, since all seats were elected at large. not easily sourceable.
    • The Tulsa Flood plan was developed response to a specific flood in. I believe, 1984.
    • Mention should be made of some of the specific building of architectural significance. These might include, the Mayo Hotel, the Adams Hotel, the Ambassador Hotel, the Philtower, the Tulsa Fire Alarm Building, Holy Family Cathedral, Boston Avenue Methodist Church, Westhope (Frank Lloyd Wright house), the IPE building, and the "Jetson's" architecture of ORU. Done
    • The article states "The initiative (Vision 2025) has led to a significant economic development and investment surge" and points to a reference. That reference, although it does indicate that an investment surge is happening, does not seem to support the idea that the surge is tied to the initiative. Fixed
    • The number of High Schools in Tulsa Public Schools should be mentioned.
    • The Schusterman center offers undergraduate course work, and is not therefore a "graduate campus"
    • I think that Spartan School of Aeronautics deserves some mention.
    • Vocational education in general is not discussed.
    • Gilcrease Museum has, at its core, the collection of Thomas Gilcrease. He should be mentioned, like Waite Phillips is in conjunction with Philbrook.
    • The statement "Today, Tulsa contains several permanent dance, theater, and concert groups, including ballets, an orchestra, a chorus and opera company, and several large acting guilds." should be expanded upon, mentioning the specific groups. (The ballet and opera companies are mentioned in the lead, but not specifically discusses in the article.) Both orchestras should be mentioned. The major theater groups should be mentioned.
    • The various performance venues around town should be discussed. These include the PAC, the Brady, the Convention Center, the Fairgrounds Pavilion, the Mabee Center, the PACE, the Union PAC, the River Parks amphitheater, and some of the smaller venues.
    • Mohawk park contains the Oxley Nature Center.
    • I don't think that a not finished arena should lead off the sports section.
    • Is gambling a sport? Move the casinos to entertainment.
    • The box with th Tulsa minor league teams should be converted to text. Some historical perspective would be nice as in the past Tulsa has hosted pro Soccer and Basketball.
    • Mention should be made of the now defunct Tulsa Tribune
    • Did Garth Brooks start his career in Tulsa. He lives in the area now, but I thought he started performing in Stillwater. On a similiar note, although Brooks and Dunn's first video was filmed in Tulsa, I think they started their careers together elsewhere. I don't think that Carrie Underwood has ever lived in Tulsa. She of course got her start on American Idol.
    • Leon Russell and the GAP Band did start in Tulsa.
    • Paul Harvey started his radio career in Tulsa.
    • Shouldn't the refineries be mentioned in the economy section as well as the neighborhood section?
    • Shouldn't the infrastructure section discuss rail transport?
    • Tulsa's water supply should be discussed in the infrastructure and the history section.
    • In general, this article suffers from a "presentism" bias. For example almost half of the article's history section discussed events since the 1980's. A third of that discussion is on structures that have yet to be completed. Dsmdgold 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two more thoughts. There should be a section on Religion in Tulsa (done) and a discussion of the health care infrastructure in Tulsa. Dsmdgold 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - OkiefromOkla has responded to these suggestions on Dsmdgold's talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OkiefromOkla's response from Dsmdgold's talk page:

Thanks for your input, but I have many reservations about your requests, and while some of them I agree with, such as religion, etc, I must disagree with most of them, since many of your requests are more suited for this article's daughter pages and there shouldnt be any need to make the article excessively long with every detail - it isn't a cityguide. Respectfully, I'll go point by point and say why:

  • The article is already pretty long - Most of your requests deal with adding very specific details. Since this article is an encylopedia overview, I don't think people want to read of every venue, person, or place in Tulsa, as this would be excessive. The article is meant to convey the "gist" of things, not a list of specific places or things. There should, however, be just a few examples to illustrate the "gist," but not a comprehensive listing of everything in Tulsa. Once again, it would be excessive.
  • The American's prominence is not overstated; if you take a look at the recent news coverage that is cited in the article, (dated in april 2007) the developer has recently announced that the project will break ground in 2007 and that it is definently going to be built.
  • Of the tulsa history sources cited, there is no mention of the reason Tulsa became a big city is because of the bridge, but in my opinion, we don't need to go that detailed in the history section (the history section is already the size of the other FA cities). However, it could be mentioned in the main Tulsa history article.
  • The Tulsa Race Riot has its own article which is linked to within the history section, so a more fuller discussion I do not think is required - the significance of the event is mentioned, again, I don't think the article need be overly long.
  • The BOK Center is mentioned in history to show the significance of Vision 2025; it's mentioned in architecture because it's intended to be a culmination of all architecture styles in tulsa (this is cited in the article); its mentioned in sports because its a huge development in Tulsa sporting capabilities, and will be the biggest sports venue; its mentioned in performing arts in that it will be the cities largest performing arts venue - I believe all these are neccissary and important in the article.
  • The information on the history of Tulsa's government is taken directly from the Tulsa City Council website as a source - I ave never heard about the civil rights lawsuit nor can I find it anywhere to use it as a source.
  • I don't think there is a reason to get specific with the actual flood that made the Tulsa city flood plan go into action - it isn't mentioned in any of the sources Ive seen, but I don't think its neccisary to get that specific, do you? You are talking about it being mentioned in climate - the section already says Tulsa was prone to flooding.
  • Art Deco architecture: Tulsa has one of the largest concentrations in the nation; if we started mentioning specific examples too much - well, there is a LOT. That sounds like it should be a daughter page called "Art Deco of Tulsa, Oklahoma". I can, however, mention a few that already have articles on wikipedia, like the philtower, etc.
  • The Schusterman center doesn't offer undergraduate course work.
  • The Spartan School of Aeronautics is mentioned. (look towards end of the education section).
  • Tulsa Tech is mentioned - it's a vocational school and the largest in the state. No FA City article goes very deep into the subject anyway, as it is an encyclopedia article and not a cityguide to mention every single vocational school in Tulsa would be way too excessive.
  • Gambiling is very arguably a sport, and it fits in the section with the sports betting at the race tracks. SInce there is no entertainment section and an entertainment section would overlap with other sections in culture, I think gambiling should stay in sports.
  • The sports box is a common thing, and is present in almost all city articles that are FA status - it violates no wikipedia standard.
  • Garth Brooks was born in Yukon but moved to Tulsa at a very young age and lived here most of his life. It is cited in the article (in the popular media section) that those musicians are from or got their start in Tulsa, and they were all taken directly from the source.
  • The History section's last two paragraphs are from 1982 and on and they both cover significant events - the oil bust was very important in Tulsa's history. In other words, it is not "almost half" of the history section - its about 2/10 of the history section - but remember, Tulsa was incorporated only 100 years ago - its a very young city and therfore the history is going to be less far back as most other cities.

I will work on some of the things you have stated, such as healthcare, religion, and certain other things you've mentioned that I haven't included on my list of reservations. Pending further discussion, I do not think the article should be a cityguide, but rather an encycopedic article on Tulsa giving the "gist" of things with few examples.Okiefromokla•talk 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.97.244 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC). (sorry, I forgot to sign it and I wasn't logged in - the previous comment was by me, Okiefromokla•talk 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

PS: I agree with the religion, I will include religion information and healthcare and some of yoru requests - but for the most part, I frankly feel that your requests are unneccisary for the article's quality or to meet wikipedia standards. I don't mean to offend you or to discourage you from your suggestions,as they are welcome, but I would ask you to please look at Boston, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Lexington, Kentucky, San Jose, California, Houston, Texas, Seattle, and San Francisco, as these are all Featured city articles to make sure your requests meet with the content of these articles, as many of your requests for detail should be included in Tulsa's daughter articles, and maybe not the main article.Okiefromokla•talk 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response

  • We disagree on the amount of detail needed. I haven't requested a comprehensive listing of everything in Tulsa, just the highlights.
  • We may disagree, but I still think that a statue that hasn't been built and may never been built is not material for the article, much less the lead. Once construction is underway then, perhaps, it should be discussed. (I've read the source, I read the longer article in the World when it came out, and it basically says, No really, we are working on it. When the statue was first proposed it was supposed to finished by now.)
  • For a first shot at documenting the brige look here, here, here,and here. I found these through a google search (Tulsa History Bridge Oil). More definitive sources could be found. It is important to the history because without the bridge, there would have been no easy conection between Tulsa and the oil fields. (Even the Red Fork well was on the west side of Tulsa). Without a bridge, Tulsa would have been in the position of a modern town by-passed by the interstate.
  • I think all I was looking for on the Race Riot is mention of the sparking incident. Also nobody now believes the 39 killed number, mention should be made of the much larger estimates.
  • If the article is too long to mention more detail, due we need to be told that the BOK center will have 18000 seats 4 times? Seriously, it may be intended to be a "culmination of all architecture styles in Tulsa", but it isn't yet. Let's let the thing be built, and the report the critical opinion of it. Yes it will be a major venue, but it only needs to be discussed once.
  • I will conceed that the my major source for the City Government is my own faulty memory. However, I do remember reading editorials leading up to the vote that said we should do this before we forced to do it. Of course the current city government wouldn't mention something like this on the web. Short of going to the library and looking at twenty year old newspapers, this probably can't be sourced, so never mind.
  • The only reason to mention the specific flood is because it is true. Wihtout the city wide flood, the support would not have been there for the flood plan which includes (or did) a waste water management fee on every water bill.
  • I don't think that every Art Deco building should be mentioned, or every historic building. Just some of the highlights. An Art Deco of Tulsa, or Architecture of Tulsa would a great article though. Soem of the architecture I mentioned is not Art Deco.
  • Among other undergraduate degrees the Schusterman center offers a BSN. see here
  • Neither I, nor my browser search feature, can find mention of Spartan or Tulsa Tech in the current version of the article. Were they in an earlier version and got dropped by accident?
  • Gambling is not a sport, although horse racing is. My mistake on the entertainment section. I was thinking of the pop culture section, which would not be a good place for them. Perhaps the casinos should be in the economy section then.
  • The sports box doesn't violate a wikipedia standard, it just is ugly and confusing.
  • From Garth Brooks "Later that year, Brooks began his professional singing career, singing and playing guitar in Oklahoma clubs and bars, particularly the Tumbleweed in Stillwater. After a failed 1985 twenty-four hour trip to Nashville to gain a record contract, Brooks returned to Oklahoma and in 1986 married Sandy Mahl of Owasso, Oklahoma, whom he had met while working as a bouncer at the Tumbleweed. The following year, the couple moved to Nashville, and Brooks was able to begin making contacts in the music industry." No mention of Tulsa. The source for this is a page from the Tulsa City Library of musicians from Tulsa. He is from Tulsa, now, not when he started. (BTW this is 0-2 for cited sources actually backing up statements in the article. That is troubling.)
  • You are correct, the modern section is not half it is 329 words out of 1007, or 32%. I agree that the oil bust of the 80's was very important to Tulsa's history, and its coverage is apropriate. However there 221 words (about 20% of the history section) on recent (since 2003) events. This is disproportianate. I am aware that Tulsa has a short history. I mentioned above that the water sources should be mentioned in the history section. I would like to reiterate that again. Without the tapping of Spavina, Tulsa would not have had the growth it has had. It was a vitally important part of the history.
  • In addition to the Water supply, perhaps the other major utilities should be mentioned, as they are in the Ann Arbor article. I also note that the Lexington article doesn't have a sports box. Dsmdgold 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC
In Response:
  • As you say, I must still disagree about the statue. What the article says is correct based on the news articles cited: tulsa is the selected site for the largest freestanding statue in the world and that it is anticipated by developers to be a national icon. The developers hold strong to the fact that it will be built (as said in the sources) and that it is being developed to break ground this year. I think the largest statue in the world that would be bigger than the statue of liberty is important enough to be in the lead, since something so important would be what Tulsa will be known for, since a national icon will certainly be an icon for the city was well - and, I say again, it is still promised to be completed. Anyone who thinks that the world's largest statue - a national icon - isn't important enough to be mentioned in the lead of this article should think again. If you take a look in the history section, the previous finish date of 2007 and the delayed building is explained in accordance with the sources.
  • I am willing to compromise on the bridge issue - if we can both compromise on certain things, such as the sports box.
  • About the race riot - im sorry, you were just a little vauge about expanding it in your first suggestion. I'll put a mention of the triggering event and the estimations that more like 300 people died, no problem.
  • I can also include the "18,000 seat" information about the BOK Center in only one of the mentions. About the "culmination of all architecture styles in Tulsa" - that isn't made up, it's what the city told the developer to make it. Literally, it was designed to be an architectural icon; the developer built it with that purpose, it isn't simply an evaluation of the arena. I'll double check and make sure the source reflects that. I can also shorten its mention in some parts but I have to admit I don't quite understand your opposition to it being mentioned, at least not in performing arts and sports, as it is important to those sections. I'll go through and see if I can limit it, but it absolutely has to be in those two sections hands down, as the BOK Center makes Tulsa eligable for large scale concerts and large scale sporting events such as the Big 12 tournament and events Tulsa would not be eligable for otherwise. Its very important in those regards.
  • I still don't think we have to go into specific events about the flooding issue under the climate section - I do think this is sufficient to get the jist of it across: "Due to frequent flooding in past decades, Tulsa now has one of the most extensive flood control systems in the nation. In 2000, FEMA honored Tulsa as leading the nation in flood plain management." It wasn't one specific flood that would promp such an extensive system, but the source implies that it was because of frequent flooding.
  • I'll put ORU's architecture in the cityscape section, but there are two pictures of examples of art deco architecture right besides that section - Boston Avenue Methodist Church and the Philtower - if you still want more examples I will compromise on that and add some mentions.
  • I stand corrected about OU-Tulsa
  • I also stand corrected about Tulsa Tech and Spartan. They were there, but the only thing I can think of is I accidentily deleted them when I changed the subheadings in the section a while back - I agree they should be mentioned and I will put them back, no problem.
  • Mmmm I have some friends who gamble and they consider it a sport, I also have friends who would argue NASCAR isn't a sport. I still think the best place to mention gambiling is in sports, as I really dont think it makes sense in any other section. I don't think they are that important to the economy - at least, not more so than any other sport ot entertainment would be, so I dont think economy is the right place to put it. I don't see any alternative from the sports section but if you still feel that strongly that it shouldn't be in sports, then we need another place to put them. Like I said, sports just makes the most sense.
  • "Popular music has been shaped considerably by musicians from Tulsa or people and groups that started their musical careers in Tulsa, including Garth Brooks ..etc..." Garth Brooks qualifies as "From Tulsa": [17] according to Garth brook's wikipedia article, as well as this website, He was Born in Tulsa. Therefore, the source that says he is from Tulsa (published by the Tulsa Library) is not wrong, and then the article is not wrong, as he is indeed from Tulsa.
  • About the water source - every major city needs a big reliable source of water to grow. This is not anything unique about Tulsa that should be specifically mentioned in its history section.
  • P.S. Ive already made revisions to the demographics section to include religion, and ive added a mention of the race riot in the lead.Okiefromokla•talk 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the response

  • The statue will be important once it starts to build. I may be a bit cynical, but I see the recent press as an attempt to drum up support for flagging project. I may be wrong, but to emphasize the statue before it is started seems to smack of the Crystal Ball. (Don't get me wrong I, truly hope that it gets built, am excited by the idea and like the proto-types I've seen pictures of. But I will believe it will happen when it happens.)
  • Since the bridge was important to the history of Tulsa and when you get down to it, the sports box is a stylistic issue I won't press the matter on the box, other than to say once again, I don't like it. There now I feel better.
  • I was vague about the race riot, and I apologize.
  • Limiting the mentions of the 18,000 seats would be a good thing. The "culmination of all architecture styles in Tulsa" may be what they asked for, but according to the pictures I've seen, it ain't what they got. It will be a striking building, and may become the architectural icon for Tulsa (but only if the big Indian doesn't get built), but it bears no resembalance anything else in town. I suppose a mention in the sports and arts section would be alright.
  • The problem with "Due to frequent flooding in past decades, Tulsa now has one of the most extensive flood control systems in the nation." is that it is wrong. Without the 1984 flood, the extensive flood control system would not have been implemented. It was the worst flood in Tulsa's history and overnight created a consensus that something had to be done. The city of Tulsa agrees with this assesment. (See here
  • ORU is a good addition. As for the others, people use articles in different ways. I am often text oriented and don't "see" the pictures on a first reading, so anything included in the images captions (and tables) is missed by me, so I really would like to see acouple of the more prominent Art Deco monuments included in the text. (I'll make a deal, any building you mention that doesn't have an article, I will write at least a stub article for, and if it ever stops raining get down to Tulsa and get a picture of it. I really like the Fire Alarm Building). I can let the others slide, although I really like Westhope.
  • Gambling, sad to say, needs to be mentioned, and I guess it fits just as well in sports as anywhere else, although it is not sport. (I feel better now, again)
  • Since you bring it to my attention I was misreading the opening statement on musicians. I only saw the "started their career portion" and not the "from" portion. Mea Culpa. Garth is "from" Tulsa. On Brooks and Dunn, Dunn is evidently from Tulsa, but not Brooks, so can we change it to "Ronnie Dunn of Brooks and Dunn"? Carrie Underwood is from Checotah and went to college in Tahlequah, neither of which is in the Tulsa Metroplitan Area.
  • Every city needs a water source, and Tulsa didn't have one. Without the building of the Spavinaw Reservoir and pipeline in the 1920s, Tulsa would not have grown. It was one of the most ambitious public work projects of its day and deserves mention. (See here and here.)
  • I have noted your revisions and struck the apropriate parts of my comments. Thank you. Dsmdgold 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My stance on some of the issues: 1) I'll agree that the mentions of The American should be removed until they actually break ground. According to one of the sources in the article, they aren't expecting to break ground until Feb 08 (at the earliest). I think it could be left out until the construction is a reality. 2) I think the sports table should stay. Gives a lot of information is a concise way. 3) I have no problem with the mentioning of the new arena in several parts of the article but lets try to keep a long description of it in one place and leave the other mentions to just that, a mention. Do any other reviewers have a comment?↔NMajdan•talk 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll comment. I am still keeping my support vote, as I am entirely on the fence WRT the imaginary giant statue issue. However, it should be noted that several other reviewers have objected to its inclusion with valid reason, and it would be a shame to hold up featured status on that one issue. When it becomes a reality in any sense (i.e. contruction begins) it can be put back in. This is still a great article with or without it.
I am going to keep this brief since an edit conflict destroyed my list...
  • I deleted the statue from the lead - but kept it in history (but revised that paragraph so as not to mention it "Will" be built. There at least should be some mention of the plans of it in the article.
  • No offense meant at all, but I don't think you are qualified as an architectural expert to judge if the arena really incorporates those arcitectural styles. The newspaper article says it does, so that's all I know.
  • I went ahead and put the 1984 flood in climate, as well as the spavinaw dam in history.
  • lastly, the sentence says "people or groups from tulsa"... thats why I included Brooks&Dunn and not Ronnie Brooks and etc.. Because generally they come as a group. Its not really a big deal im not going to hang on it, we can seperate them if you want.
  • Ill finish the other issues weve agreed on too. Okiefromokla•talk 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)I have struck all of preceding comments so as to consolidate the remaining discussion here.[reply]
  • The impact of the early bridges still needs to be discussed.
  • Spartan still isn't mentioned, but Tulsa Tech is. This isn't vital. However, Spartan brings students from all over the world and was important in the development of Tulsa's aerospace industry, it would be nice to mention it.
  • The new Tulsa Symphony and the Signature Symphony might be mentioned, although I am uncertain if either is full-time. (I know the TS aspires to be, but I don't know if they are there yet.) If I can find sources I will add these. Again not vital.
  • It would be good to mention the now defunct pro Soccer and Basketball teams. Again not vital.
  • Since the article does mention the Tulsa Sound, it probably should mention Leon Russell and J.J. Cale, who were vital to its development. The GAP Band can probably slide.
  • The infrastructure section still needs to discuss rail transport through Tulsa. This is a serious gap.
  • Without mentioning KVOO, I haven't thought of a way of smoothly integrating Paul Harvey into the article. Since no other specific electronic media outlet is mentioned, KVOO shouldn't be brought up. So although Harvey is probably one of the most important broadcasters in radio history, he probably can't be worked into the article. (The only opening I can see is that I believe that KVOO is oldest still operating station (early 1920's) in Tulsa, but I have been unable to confirm this.)

Two new issues have come up though:

  • The otherwise good paragraph on health care states that there are .921 hospital beds per capita. This works out to over 350K hospital beds. I am not sure what is meant, but as stated this is wrong.
  • The article also now states that "Telephone service is provided in large part by Cox Communications." Cox provides cable service and cable telephone service. Surely AT&T (formerly SWB), the traditional land line supplier is still larger. Dsmdgold 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to announce that (I believe) all the above concnerns have now been met, as well as all the changes that have been agreed upon.
  • Just one note here: I added a passing mention of the bridge in the history section, but I really don't think anything more specific on it needs to be added. That is material for the main History of Tulsa, Oklahoma article. It's there for a reason: so it can be more detailed and comprehensive than the history section on the Tulsa article... Okiefromokla•talk 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just about everything, I see that the lack of passenger rail service is mentioned now, but there is a lot freight going by rail through Tulsa. I guess I was thinking of that huge railyard on the west side of town when I mentioned rail infrastrucure. Dsmdgold 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I don't know anything about that rail center. But the major freight rail lines running through tulsa are in the article now, and I got that from a map, which I can put as a source if its felt needed. Otherwise, I wouldn't know what else to put about freight rails.Okiefromokla•talk 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been addressed or negotiated. Support Dsmdgold 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with a note. The current readable prose size is 50KB, which is the edge of the limit I'm comfortable with. If the article grows over time, you may need to spin a section like History into its own article, using summary style. Thanks for the fast work and attention to bringing the article to standard ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Ben Gurion International Airport[edit]

  • Support - The article has gone under a lot of recent work to bring the quality up, and a group of editors worked to meet featured criteria. --יהושועEric 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Likewise, I feel that the article meets the featured article criteria. A large amount of time and effort has been put into this article. Flymeoutofhere 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My concerns have been addressed. Good job! Zeus1234 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph in the terminal one section is not referenced.
Added reference--יהושועEric 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The terminal three section is a bit of a mess at the moment and has far too many paragraphs. The short paragraphs should be combined with the big ones, and each paragraph needs at least one reference, preferably at the end of the paragraph.
Fixed up terminal 3 section. --יהושועEric 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The security sections has two references, but it is unclear if the bullet points belong in those footnotes. Are they unreferenced, or are they a part of footnote 20 or 21? It is not clear at the moment. A footnote should be place at the end of the section to clarify this
I don't know what you mean by a section footnote. I added one source, and I think that the section sources at the top cover most of the claims through the bullet points. --יהושועEric 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally footnotes apply to everything written before the footnote. In the security section, there is no footnote at the bottom of the section. Because of this, it looks like the entire section is unreferenced except for the first line. Therefore, you should add a reference at the bottom of the section (even if it is the same as the one at the top).User:Zeus1234|Zeus1234]] 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Done- added a new reference to end of paragraph, although it now look as if the ref belongs to the last bulleted item Derwig 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it does look a bit silly. I think that it would be better if you put the same reference at the end of each bullet point, but use the single reference method, so as not to clutter up the footnote section. Zeus1234 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reference in the Short Runway Section
Done --יהושועEric 22:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paragraph one of the rail section needs a reference.
      • Done Derwig 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second line in this section also needs a reference. Where do you get the figure of 1 million passengers? Zeus1234 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found relevant source for section. --יהושועEric 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There needs to be at least one reference for the destination section. Hopefully the airport website has a page that lists all the destinations.
    • The lead does not mention anything about the transportation options (rail, train, etc.), the runways, or the security situation. As these are important parts ofthe article, they should be mentioned in the lead. Zeus1234 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been expanded to address these concerns. --יהושועEric 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we covered all of your issues Zeus. Care to change your mind? --יהושועEric 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a very nice, informative article that's great for a world traveler. --GHcool 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1) Source for Airlines and destinations section?2) I think there should be a more visually interesting way to have that section's info than a very long list. 3) I question the use of level 3 headlines for very short sections. I am sure any objections on this page can be overcome, though, and will be excited when this article reaches FA status. nadav 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I'm also surprised that with all the pictures, there is no picture of the arrival area, which has all those interesting ancient looking decorations. nadav 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have had a look at other airports articles, all use the same list. Also look at WP:AIRPORT, this seems to be the convention, and there are guidelines for that list. Derwig 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that according to the project, only one airport is FA, and it is up for review. Also the airport guideline is somewhat incomplete. The item on airline lists doesn't discuss the visual presentation, only the content. BTW, citation for the Ben gurion airline list isn't there. nadav 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The airline and destination list is sourced at the top. Zeus1234 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The list of airlines is sourced, but not the destinations. I see now some people are adding more destination cities to the airline list without adding any more refs. Are the sources for the destinations the individual sites of each of the companies? If so, there should be some sort of note that points to the right place for verification. nadav 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just two things:
  1. Under the runways section, I'm not a fan of (Direction 12) and (Direction 21). To people that are unfamiliar with aviation, that means absolutely nothing. The former could be changed to something like "southeasterly" departures, and something similar with the latter. Same thing under the "Quiet runway" section. If it remains, it has to be explained.
  2. There's an image of the duty-free down below (regrettably in a gallery section), so one probably isn't needed in the lead. It looks ugly lef-aligned, but I suppose it has to be because of the infobox. --Phoenix (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The direction is a runway's name, and in an encyclopedia the name should appear. However, in every one of the 3 runways there is a mention of a direction (e.g Main- from West to East), and even a reader with no aviation knowledge can figure out that the other direction of a runway is the exact opposite. To address your concerns, I have wikified the word "runway" where it is first mentioned, the runway article contains an explanation of the naming conventions.
    • My point was that "Direction 12", though the orientation of the runway is mentioned, doesn't indicate which direction said event takes place. I just happen to be a plane nut and know that 12 is 120 degrees or to the southeast, but that probably eludes most people. Forgive my nitpicking, forget that. --Phoenix (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Which image in the gallery do you mean? The image in the lead is of the main duty free hall , the most impressive hall in the departure area. The other 2 images I see are of a different shopping area immediately adjacent to the departure gates (1 row, Rt), and another of the duty free dining area (2 row). Those are different areas of the departure hall, and I dont see a problem with that. Derwig 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: "It is the largest international airport in Israel, operated by the Israeli Airports Authority, a government-owned corporation that manages all public airports and border crossings in the State of Israel." Apart from the fact I can't find a reference for this in the lead, or further down in the article, the sentence is ambiguous. Is it the largest international aiport which happens to be operated by the IAA, or is it the largest aiport operated by the IAA (but there may be larger ones not handled by them). I think the largest bit should be put further up in the lead and the IAA part should be made into its own sentence to avoid confusion as to which parts of the sentence belong together. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Flymeoutofhere 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC), reference added Derwig 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference doesn't back up the claim. It doesn't say the airport is the largest in the country. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the reference. --יהושועEric 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Guinea pig[edit]

Reached GA status a few weeks ago. Almost completely rewritten/sourced/expanded by a team of dedicated editors, who transformed it from a pet owner's list of do's and dont's into its current form, including much better coverage of the animal's place in science and medicine and its use in the culture of the Andes. Self BITCH-nom. Chubbles 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With, I might add, 117 inline citations from reliable published sources. VanTucky 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Need a source for the entire business of "Because the guinea pig has a stout, compact body, the animal more easily tolerates excessive cold than excessive heat ... " Last month, when my niece accused me of murdering her darling pig, I, of course, went first to Wikipedia to find temperature info. Your information disagrees with everything she stuck in my face, as she accused me of freezing her rat to death (60 degrees, power outage, snowstorm - my fault?). The pet store, and every book and website we checked agreed with her. Please clarify and provide a source. They ALL said the rodent froze at 60 degrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Wikipedia ref is correct in my understanding. Mine (who is not unique in any fashion, i.e. size) has been in my room when the heat was at least 10-15 degrees below 60 many times and was completely fine. Of course, cold temps can be much more serious for very young/small guinea pigs. Think of it logically as well...not only did they come from the Andean region they were first imported to Western Europe (Netherlands, England) where it isnt exactly tropical. VanTucky 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from The Biology of the Guinea Pig (Academic Press, 1976): "The compact body of the guinea pig conserves heat well but dissipates it poorly. Thus the guinea pig is more likely to tolerate cold than heat." The temp ranges cited in the article then follow. I've added an inline cite directly to the sentence questioned above; I can add this quotation to the footnote, if that is desired. Chubbles 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 11-yo wiz-kid got on the internet to make me feel bad, and found a lot of 65-75 info, like [18], [19], and [20], so it would be good for your article to address the whole issue of temperature changes, drafts, etc. The pet store told her any change (I made her take it out of the room where I was sleeping, *and* then we lost power in an ice storm) or draft could have killed it, and she found several books at the pet store that said same. I'd love for your article to let me off the rat-killer hook :-) Several sources said they don't tolerate change or drafts. Otherwise, the article looks quite sound, and is greatly improved since my murderous days last month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you might keep in mind that resources for pet owners (especially those with a financial interest) tend to play it safe when it comes to that sort of advice. They sometimes advise more conseratively than is supported by evidence. That is one of the reasons one or our goals in improving the article was shying away from using websites by/for pet owners for citations. VanTucky 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but do you have any well-sourced info on temperature changes or drafts, since that was the direction other sources took? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence has been added on this. Chubbles 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good structurally. I'll be a support after some of the animal folks have been through (you might check with KPBotany, Joelr31, PDH, or Yomangani). Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, structure and prose look good, and none of the Wiki "animal experts" have weighed in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—nice. There are a few (mostly subjective) microissues remaining, but not enough to oppose. Some examples include hyphens: I think there are a few instances where they are unnecessary, based on what I've seen from other copy-editors (hyphens aren't really my forte). Not a big issue. I left a couple random queries, but again, nothing to oppose over. Please write more featured articles. — Deckiller 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The sourcing is to be admired. the_undertow talk 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thorough, well written and sourced. Better than most of the crappy books I got from the pet store when I had a GP. -Ravedave 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - I'm sorry I didn't notice this nomination a week ago but I have some issues. On its own I would give this article a support, though I think it is borderline on 2 (b) Hierarchical headings. However there are quite a few Featured animals whose headings and heading order/hierarchy differ substantially to this one. Obviously there are different emphases in each case but I still get an overall sense you can see the origins of this article from a 'pet' view. I get a sense the subject material is not well categorised, eg material on domestication is spread thourgh several sections from history, domestic habitat onwards.

I would recommend:

Rename Name, Taxonomy (plus/minus name) as per the FA whale articles.
Move History and place under a domestication section as a subsection.
Remove Traits and environment' as a section - para one should be beginning of a Description section (which I can't actually find and seems to be a necessary part of many bio articles)
Para 2 of Traits and environment' should go into taxonomy
Breeding and Diet go as subesctions under Behaviour
Domestic habitat goes under Domestication as a subesction.
GP as pets froms intro to Domestication section, GP as food is subsection.

To sum up, I really believe you've done a great job with the article so far, but I do like to see some sort of order or conformity in the bio articles. You've got strong support so far and I'll alert some other wiki-animal buffs. They may all disagree with me. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree most emphatically on one point: the name section should more technically be Etymology and Taxonomy. The history of the colloquial name Guinea pig is of vital importance to the article (even more so than taxonomy in my opinion) and is a distinct subject from simple scientific categorization. Otherwise, absolutely. We've been muddling over sectioning work for quite some time. so thanks! VanTucky 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about a name' section (for common name and variants) that has a taxonomy subsection and this to go under the lead..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have left some messages on a few other wiki-biology buffs in the hope that they will weigh in. I might be a bit busy later this weekend but will get back when I get the chance. Good luckcheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, a , uh, wiki-biology buff here, recruited by Cas to come have a look. The layout Casliber suggested is perhaps desirable but not to my mind required, particularly as this is about the domesticated species only, not the domesticated species and the wild ancestor. I do agree that some work needs to be done on the hierarchies though - you could have a Human uses section with pets, science and food as subheadings, for example. I am also puzzled that the wild ancestor is not known, given its importance to science this is in fact mystifying. I am also really really concerned by the line Wild cavies are found on grassy plains and occupy an ecological niche similar to that of the cow. I very much doubt that an animal you can fit in the hand and one that weighs more than several grown men occupy anything like similar niches. They might both graze on grass but that isn't the same as saying they have the same niche. As for the rest of the article at first glance it looks good and I'll review it later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely understand the nervousness about that statement, but here's a couple points of clarification: Remember it's referring to wild cavy species, and only is included to put in context what is surmised about the animal according to study of it's domestic social interaction and dietary/behaviorial similarity to wild cousins. It may sound a little silly to the reader at first, but it's not suggesting there are feral herds of domestic guinea pigs roving the pampas like mini cows. It's just a good comparison for context. You're right that the niche involves more than just diet, but just dismissing it bc of size comparison (however funny) is a little hasty. They are both herd-forming, grazing species that naturally inhabit similar environments and have a similar impact on that environment. Of course, the measurable amount of that impact is vastly different, and there are differences related to size (erosion for example). If to be in the ecological niche requires a comparable impact/importance as far as vegetation and predation goes, then feel free to edit away. But if only what the animals do is considered, then in my opinion they are without a doubt in the same niche. On the whole however they are extremely similar in terms of the ecological role they play. As far as the sectioning goes, that seems just perfect Cas. I'm not nit-picky about how it's structured, but ignoring that etymology is the central subject (or at least the more debated one) seemed odd. VanTucky 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—article has been promoted. Just figured I'd save everyone time :) — Deckiller 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Toronto Raptors[edit]

Per Sandy's suggestion, I've restarted this nom. (old nom) Raul654 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Chensiyuan 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Manderiko 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as before. --Phoenix (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I'm confident any remaining issues will be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as on previous page :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Prose still needs a little work. If this passes, which looks likely, I'd keep it on the LOCE list and move it from the FAR/FAC section to the section for proofreading. Quadzilla99 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support igordebraga ≠ 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ô 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -凶 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Just needs some copyediting, which is relatively minor. Zodiiak 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Random Say it here! 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks fantastic. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks great now, and recentiism is also a non-issue now because the Raps have been eliminated from the playoffs :X. Prose is not perfect yet, but a sure FA imho. Onomatopoeia 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without wanting to be a stick in the mud amid all these supports, the List of TV commentators seems trivial. Plus, I would have thought many NBA games are shown internationally, presumably with different commentators. Oldelpaso 12:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are included presumably because they represent the official commentators for the Raptors franchise. If one lives in Canada for e.g., Swirsky does the commentary for the Raptors games shown on the Raptors network. Whereas someone like Martin Tyler for e.g. in the soccer context is more associated with a tv network than a football club. That's what I think at least. Chensiyuan 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would assume that anyone who simply supported here did so at the old nom, or at least had a look at it to see if anything they saw as important was addressed. --Phoenix (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support already supported the first time. Kaiser matias 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not concise. The history section is longer than the one for the Chicago Bears (FA), even though that franchise has been around 75 years longer (I'm not necessarily saying that article length should be proportional to age; I'm saying that this article goes into unnecessary detail). Recentism still abounds. The writing quality is still poor in many places. The article confusingly alternates between Raptors and Toronto. I am troubled that all of the references are websites—with a strong emphasis towards nba.com—especially when Amazon says there are a few books available on the subject. Punctured Bicycle 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t think the history section isn’t concise. The Chicago Bears article’s section is shorter because it lacks detail, not because it is concise. It also has its own history article, History of the Chicago Bears, which is actually longer than the Raptors article. If you see recentism in the article, can you please point out where you found it? Having books as references is nice, but I prefer Internet references because they are instantly verifiable and viewable. I’d think there’s a strong emphasis towards nba.com because it is the official league’s site, and therefore it is the most credible and preferable. —LOL 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not mainly concerned with the question "would this article be better if it used books instead of websites?" I'm concerned with the question "has someone taken the time to research the subject properly?" I am very troubled, for example, that the article used to say "The team was named as a result of a nationwide 'Name Game' contest instituted to name the team and develop their colours and logo" when NBA.com says "It instituted a nationwide 'Name Game' contest to name the team and develop team colors and a logo." It looks like the article is just regurgitating what NBA.com says, and in this case not even making the effort to reword it (plagiarism). I am skeptical of this article's integrity. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution" - my opinion is that it's clear that the history section heavily attributes the information to nba.com/raptors via the footnotes. Chensiyuan 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Footnotes attribute the source of the information; quotation marks attribute the source of the language. Failure to use quotation marks when duplicating the words of others—closely or exactly—is plagiarism. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • i entered "Toronto Raptors" into the amazon.com search field and none of the books that came up looked very likely to add value to this article. And yes, I would read the book if I could get my hands on it but I live in Asia, so help me there (that is why if a website is credible, using it a thousand times does not dilute its credibility. What is fundamentally creditable can't possibly lose its credibility for no good reason. In any event, this article does not simply use nba.com, nor does it use it a thousand times.) Chensiyuan 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Official does not automatically equate to credible (bias can play role for example). But there's also the issue of information breadth. The article is limited in perspective when it mostly just summarizes what nba.com felt was important to say; what Toronto newspapers, sports magazines, books, etc. felt was important to say is largely ignored. A more diverse survey of sources would increase the depth of the information and allow more flexibility in writing. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But it is clear the article uses more than nba.com. It simply uses nba.com a lot, but newspapers and electronic sports magazines are in the mix. Chensiyuan 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To address your last point, alternating between the Raptors and Toronto is a way of avoiding repetitive noun use. If every sentence talked about the raptors, the prose would be bad. Given the title of this article, I find it *HIGHLY* unlikely that anyone is going to be confused by it. Raul654 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. See elegant variation. Punctured Bicycle 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just googled for the raptors and guess what? The first two articles I came by - [21][22] - do exactly what you are objecting to. With sports teams, it's *quite* common (in fact, almost expected) to use the team and name city interchangeably. Raul654 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sports journalists don't write for an international audience in the clear, formal quality expected of an encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Riiiight. The NY times does it. [23] The Washingotn Post does. [24]I guess they're not professional enough or international enough, right? This objection is patently ridiculous. Raul654 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd have to say I agree with LOL and Raul654 on this one. About the only thing I'd support in this oppose is the comment about the books and even that is minor, and I certainly don't think it's worth opposing this FA for. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose awaiting the following fixes:
    • The history section does seem a bit excessive. Like the Bears article, I would recommend a fork to History of the Toronto Raptors, which given the amount of detail and referencing could itself one day be featured. The History section could then be pared down to the basic details, say about 1 paragraph per season does not seem unreasonable.
    • There is a better way to deal with repetitive sentance beginnings that simply blind alternation between Toronto and The Raptors; in most cases the use of pronouns would be advised. There is nothing wrong with "they"... Especially when the antecedant in most cases would be clear. I have copyedited the lead to show how this can be done better. Tell me what you think.
    • The lead does not summarize the whole article. Some attention in the lead should given to the non-history stuff. Basically, if it is worth having an entire section about, it is worth at least a mention in the lead. Such things as greatest players, current head coach, current all stars, most recent season results are ALL germaine to include in the lead.
      • but those things you pointed out are in the lead. Chensiyuan 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? Because I do NOT see the following statements mentioned at ALL in the lead:
          • The current head coach (Sam Mitchell) is not mentioned in the lead.
          • The most recent seasons record, and playoff results are not in the lead.
          • Team superlatives, such as all-time scorer, most games played, are not in the lead.
          • Summaries of the Fanbase and Community Service sections (which need expanding themselves) are not in the lead.
          • All-stars from the most recent season are not in the lead.
        • The above all go to my point that this is an excellent HISTORY article about the Toronto Raptors. The HISTORY of the team is comprehensivly covered, but all aspects of the team are not. The lead reflects the inadequacies of this article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes really. You said "such things" and I merely pointed out that those "such things" you mentioned have been mentioned. The exception is Sam Mitchell. Chensiyuan 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't hold up my support for this one issue, but do we really need 3 pictures taken from the upper deck showing the team playing? All three are largely identical. Though, if the history section is pared down, this will be taken care of on its own.
    • The Fanbase section seems to need some expansion and clean up. This paragraph especially: On game day, the fans are usually entertained by the Raptor mascot, the Raptors Dance Pak, and the 4 Korners Raptors Soundcrew during pre-game, time-outs, and intervals. Giveaways are usually bundled with tickets to encourage attendance. Does the mascot have a name? Does he make appearence elsewhere? What is this Dance Pak and Soundcrew of which you speak? Expand on those... Also, every sports franchise for the past 20 years, from NFL teams to every single-A baseball team gives away free merchandise to encourage attendance. Why does it bother mentioning here? Are there some notable giveaways that are worth mentioning and expanding on to make this statement more relevent?
    • The Community service section could use expansion as well. You mention 3 arms of the franchise involved in community relations. Specific examples for each of community work would really help here.

That's it. For the record, the History section is very good, but it dominates the article. Fork it to a new article and expand the other sections, and you have the makings of an FA here.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a matter of "expanding" the other sections because, if the history section is forked away, I'm not sure there's enough material to have a decent article here. --Phoenix 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fine then, but the article will continue to fail the comprehensiveness criteria until the Fanbase and Community Service sections are expanded. I can't imagine that the name of the mascot, or expanded descriptions of the Dance Pak and Soundcrew aren't printed somewhere to use as a reference to expand that section. Also, the community service section could be expanded with specific examples of community involvement of all 3 of the branches of the Raptors organization listed in the article. Right now, the article is all history and little else. If shrinking the history section isn't a worthwhile venture (and I still think it is) then the other sections need to be expanded greatly for balance.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it would be nice to have a section on the franchise as a business: Home attendance figures, revenues, expenditures, salaries, that sort of thing... The article gives little mention of that stuff.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think there's that much more to say about the Fanbase and the Community service. But while we're on the subject, I noticed that the Community service section reads a lot like something you'd find in an official Raptors publication. Could someone re-write it to make it a little less... PRish in tone? (I hope someone gets what I'm saying, since I'm not sure how to articulate my concern.) Zagalejo 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a heck of an article you got here. One funny thing that I didn't see mentioned though was that Raptors fans had to be told that noise-making was customary for opposing teams' foul shots, and not their own, during the beginning of the franchise. Just a funny thing I remembered. Sportskido8 09:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan[edit]

previous FAC

Remoninating article after previous FAC about a month ago. Objections to previous nomination have been dealt with. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Image problems. Including images of the back cover of the DVD and the disc negatively affects the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Having access to the full artwork is an incentive for customers to buy the DVD; when Wikipedia provides significant excerpts of the artwork, that incentive is weakened. Additionally, our non-free content policy says "If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a 'fair use' defense." The information conveyed by these images can be transformed into text (as has already been done in the article). Punctured Bicycle 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess those could be removed, but before I do it I would like to know if this old verison of the DVD might fit the criteria for a free image, and thus be kept. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's probably a derivative work and is therefore non-free. Punctured Bicycle
        • There's a similar picture on Halo 2, which recently passed FA. I was going to bring it up before you replied. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • All due respect, but do people really buy DVD's for the cover artwork? But if this is standing in the way of the article getting FA status, I guess we will slash it I should note however, that images of both sides of the DVD case are available on amazon.com. Would we be safe if we go no higher resolution than those? And I think Lenin's comment about Halo is germane, we need to be sure the standard of judgment for FA is consistant, not just the likes and dislikes of whatever editors happen to be weighing in.User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with the notion that Wikipedia's use of the DVD cover reduces the incentive to buy the DVD. It's incredibly low resolution and the artwork is freely available and displayed by nearly every retailer selling the DVD. I'd recommend adding it back in if you want to do so. --- RockMFR 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In addition to the image objections listed above, which I fully endorse (it should be noted that the existance of problems in other articles, regardless of their status, does not excuse this one. Simply because Johnny's parents let him stay out past curfew doesn't mean we're going to as well...), there are numerous other issues:
    • Organization:
      • Why is plot synopsis and deleted scenes and DVD release so far apart? They would do better together.
      • Why does the controversy section exist at all? Why aren't these section part of the reception section? Aren't these just examples of negative reception?
        • Then that section would probably be too long. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. I personally dislike the use of "controversy" or "criticism" section in articles, as usually these could be renamed or folded into other sections. Not a huge issue here however.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cast section consists solely of a table, with no explanatory text. It is jarring and interrupts the flow of the article. It is also fully explained in the next section, so why is it there in the first place?
        • It was added during the last FAC. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, regardless of when it was added, it sucks. A discussion of the cast may be appropriate, perhaps a discussion of the casting procedure even. However, a simple table without comment interrupts the flow of the article. The information could be better conveyed in prose than a table.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better organization scheme MIGHT be: Production->Screenings and release->Reception->plot synopsis->DVD release->deleted scenes->soundtrack.
        • I know of no article where the plot summary is placed so far down in the article. Putting it there would leave it seriously out of place with the rest. I agree, it might work better with some degree of rearrangement, but not that far. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, but the deleted scenes should definately follow EITHER the DVD release (where they were included) or the Plot Synopsis (where they seem to follow). Either way, they need to be moved from where they are now, as the whole order of the article needs clean-up. Perhaps: Plot Synopsis -> Production -> Release -> Reception -> DVD Release -> Deleted Scenes -> Soundtrack is better.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comprehensiveness problems:
      • Production doesn't actually deal with the production of the film, except as a precursor to the later controversy section. What about the prominent crew? Casting? Pre-production? Filming start and wrap dates? Editing process? Rating process? Also, the film is largely unscripted, but it was staged. How were the "rubes" in the film chosen? They weren't random people on the street... Why were they chosen? How were the scenes staged? etc, etc,
        • There isn't a lot of information avaible on the film's production. Sorry, I'm just trying to work with what is known. And the DVD release was practically useless in this aspect. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the DVD isn't the only source for this information. Somewhere there must be interviews with the director/producer/Cohen discussing these things? IMDB or Allmovies doesn't have anything to help flesh this section out? The problem is that the section deals ONLY with issues related to the film's controversy, and doesn't really deal with production of the film at all.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article speaks very little of the development of the Borat character, except as a brief mention in the lead. This is inadequate. For much of the audience, this was the first exposure to Borat, a character with a long history. Some treatment of the character and the history of his development is probably appropriate, as well as the development of the Azamat character.
        • I guess an expanded Cast section in prose could deal with that. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shouldn't that be in the article on the Borat character, which does exist.--Wehwalt 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The soundtrack section should probably be expanded some. Maybe some sales figures?
    • Copyediting problems:
      • Most scenes in the film were unscripted, although the end credits do credit a "Naked Fight Coordinator", and in most cases the film's participants were given no warning on what they would be taking part in except for being asked to sign release forms agreeing not to take legal action against the film's producers - run on sentance, needs to be broken up.
      • the all persons fictitious disclaimer. - awkward wording.
      • Dan Mazer confirmed in an interview that there was a scene cut from the film, which he then expected to be featured in the DVD as a bonus feature, in which Borat took part in the shooting of an actual pornographic film. The middle clause in this sentance makes it hard to follow. Break this up into two sentances.
      • In late October 2006, less than two weeks before the film's debut, Twentieth Century Fox scaled back its American release from about 2,000 to 837 cinemas after marketing-survey data showed unexpectedly poor levels of audience awareness, with only 27% of respondents being aware of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan compared with percentages as high as 81% for the film's opening-weekend competitors. - run on sentance.
      • In an article for Slate, writer Christopher Hitchens offered a counter-argument to suggestion of anti-Americanism in the film, claiming instead that the film actually demonstrated amazing tolerance on the part of the film's unknowing subjects, especially citing the reactions of the guests in the Southern dinner scene to Borat's behavior. - Run on sentance
      • The usual disclaimer included at the end of the film's credits stating that all characters in the film were fictitious also noted that "No real person depicted or appearing in the film has sponsored or otherwise endorsed its contents." A comma maybe? Something is needed here.
      • The feminists from Veteran Feminists of America (VFA) also felt that they had been duped, having "sensed something odd was going on" before and during the interview with Borat, although according to the Guardian, at least one of the women felt that the film was worth going to see at the cinema - Run on sentance
      • The New York Post had reported in November 2006 that Pamela Anderson filed for divorce from her husband Kid Rock after he reacted unfavorably to the movie during a screening, claiming he had said on her role in the film, "You're nothing but a whore! You're a slut! How could you do that movie?" - Run on sentance
      • While Cohen himself is Jewish and has stated that he uses Borat to expose the prejudices felt or tolerated by others,[86] the organization remained concerned that some audiences might remain oblivious to this aspect of the film's humor, noting "some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry." - Run on sentance.
      • Yousuf Abdul Hamid, a film censor for the United Arab Emirates commented on the film “It’s vile, gross and extremely ridiculous, wholly unsuitable for UAE audiences"; while noting that the censors had actually walked out on their screening before it had ended, claiming “We all left because the film was extremely offensive and void of any story, substance or even comedy". - Run on sentance.
    • As can be seen above, the article is rife with run-ons. Look, there is no need to cram 4 clauses into one sentance where 4 sentances would be easier to parse. Consider the Kid Rock sentance above. It could be reworded as such to avoid problems: The New York Post reported in November 2006 that Pamela Anderson had filed for divorce from her husband, Kid Rock, after he reacted unfavorably to her performance. She claimed that he said, of her role in the film, "You're nothing but a whore! You're a slut! How could you do that movie?" In the original version of this sentance, there are no less than 5 action verbs in a single sentance, not to mention misused case (the Post reported that she had filed is the correct order. The reporting came after the filing, not before). As a whole, this article needs some real copyedit help, perhaps from The League of Copyeditors. I am not a great copyeditor myself, and I caught all of the above "less than brilliant" prose. This article needs a LOT of work to get to featured status.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changing my vote from above. The article has been extensively copyedited, and the run-on sentance problem has been fixed. Images have been fixed, and the cast section has been expanded. Maybe a sentance in the "cast" section indicating that all other persons in the movie were not "in" on the joke, but not really needed. All-in-all this is a great article, and deserves to be promoted now. Great job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, excellent work. --יהושועEric 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This articles covers the huge controversy this film had superbly. Buc 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Manos: The Hands of Fate[edit]

Self Nomination. Article I managed to get GA'd back in November on what has been described as one of the worst films ever made. I realize that I haven't gotten any replies to Peer Review yet, but I'm feeling a bit lucky and don't know how much more can be done on this article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has got to be my favorite MST3K ever, and possibly one of my favorite "bad" films, so i'm glad to see this so close. My concern is with the structure - the MST3K issue (which is really the only reason anyone knows this flick) is causing the prose to jump all over the place. Is there a reason the production is before the plot? How about in reaction? Again, the MST3K thing makes some issues, but is there a reason for how you decided to handle it that way, as opposed to noting the MST3K stuff following it? I'm positive you'll get my support, but I'm just curious for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm fairly certain that this is breaking ground as far as articles about films and TV episodes are concerned (i.e. I am unaware of any other MST3K articles this far in development.) I guess I was treating it primarly as a film article, and I left the production section there at the top...erm...because it seemed to fit. The same form is used on the Star Wars films, as well as a few others. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess you're right - this is an unprecedented FAC in terms of what this article has to mention and deal with. Support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks pretty good. Appropriate length, very readable, meets all the criteria. --- RockMFR 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Excellent article, but I don't see the reason for the bottom two images (the master and the hal warren pic)- they don't explain anything relevant concerning the article. If you're claiming fair use, they have to be in the article for something other than decoration. Borisblue 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried rewriting the fair use rationales for the pictures you wanted removed. If the problem is with the images themselves, do you have any suggestions for alternatives that would be considered fitting for the article or do you think the poster and the clapboard shot are enough? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think a shot of Torgo's "knees" would be valid. It is criticized in the article as an example of the film's amatuerishness. Borisblue 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there was a good shot of Torgo's knees in the film, but I have found a rather small picture of him walking from behind from the MST cut. [25] You think maybe this pic of him and the Master might work better?
          • There's one of him walking on this page, but it's a bit faded. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The second picture is perfect! (the quality looks OK to me given it's an oldish (and poorly made) film: the pictures already on the article aren't much better)- it nicely illustrates a point criticized on the article- that is, the way they tried to portray Torgo as a satyr by giving him weird pants. I would still want the master and the hal warren pictures removed before I give my support however. The foundation resolution here permits fair use for this type of thing only within "narrow limits". The Torgo and clapboard pics are necessary to illustrate points given in the article: the Hal Warren pic isn't needed. (There is nothing special about his appearance, or of that particular shot that requires a picture to illustrate. Borisblue 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Excellent article. The retrieval dates of citations—should not they be linked (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), to allow readers' date preferences to work)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comment. A good article with just a few issues before I can give support. The "Plot" section is under-cited. I couldn't figure out which source the plot details were drawn from. Looking at another FA movie article (Dog Day Afternoon) it seems that the article outline should be: intro, plot, production, cast, reaction/response, aftermath/legacy (after Manos). I think the "make-out couple" image should be moved down further in the article so that it won't crowd the text around the infobox. By the way, I saw this "film" when it was originally aired on MST3K. The film was so excruciatingly painful to watch I almost turned it off in spite of the accompanying MST3K jokes. Cla68 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I rewrote the article, I was modeling it mostly on the Star Wars films, and felt that the story of the film's production was interesting enough to be placed up front as in their model. From what I can tell, there is no established model for film article section arrangement (my other recent nomination, Borat!, has a plot section first.) Also, few film articles have extensive citations within their plot summaries. I don't know about where else the "make out" image could go. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, A New Hope does follow the same pattern as this article. I moved the image down. Cla68 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Kate Bush[edit]

This has recently become a Good Article and I can't see there being much more needed for it to become a Featured Article. It seems to pass all the criteria. Epbr123 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per:
    • Image:Kateivy.jpg is tagged fair use but of a living subject, in contravention of policy.
    • Unsourced commentary - "incredibly literate" and "technical ability is shown to full effect"
Addhoc 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image and unsourced commentary have now been removed from the article. Epbr123 17:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, however there still appears to be a significant amount of unsourced commentary, for example "creative manifesto issued by Kate in response to criticisms" and "musical style was far more simple and direct". Addhoc 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two examples have now been removed. Epbr123 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - however there are few more areas that I would appreciate if you could review:
    • "perhaps prophesised the internet addiction that would surface by the end of the following decade"
    • "talking to their computers to the point of obsession"
Addhoc 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A few stylistic comments:
  • <small> tags for the image captions are unnecessary, and makes it a little harder to read.
  • With the {{cite web}} references, you don't need the '|'; the reason there's 'publisher=' and 'author=' is to link data to certain parameters.
I'll provide a more thorough review later. CloudNine 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Those have now been corrected. Epbr123 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think the article needs more work to reach FA status. Some comments:
    • I'm not convinced that NNDB is a reliable source and it is heavily relied upon for biographical and album information. It says it is in "Beta" but not much else information is available. Who are its editors and what are their sources? As it stands, it is unacceptable.
    • The photo in the infobox is too small. If you must use it, it needs to be a fixed size so preferences don't resize it and thus pixalate it.
    • Stylistic but grammatically incorrect comma usage such as (please check for others):
      • "Her eclectic and meticulous musical style, and idiosyncratic and literary lyrics..."
      • "Because of her age, in the first two years of her contract, Bush did not begin working on an album, but instead continued her time at school."
    • Some use of passive voice where the subject of the sentence is relevant but omitted. Examples:
      • "Bush's talents as a singer/songwriter were brought to the attention of David Gilmour of Pink Floyd."
      • "Following the album's release, she was required to undertake heavy promotional work..."
    • This sounds like original research; I think you need a source: "In the past, stories of weight gain or mental instability have been disproven by Bush's periodic reappearances."
    • A general edit for tone is needed by a neutral party - there are too many adorations like "strong-willed Bush" and "lush orchestral arrangements".
    • General copyedit needed for grammar, as there are many incorrect and non-standards constructions.
--Mus Musculus (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have corrected the points you made above and would be grateful if you could re-evaluate the article. Thanks. Epbr123 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Epbr123, thank you for your prompt action. Most of my concerns have been addressed but I would still like to see a neutral third party edit the article for tone. I will not list more examples here; the entire article needs a once-over by an unfamiliar party. Possibly you can approach the League of Copyeditors. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article has now been proof-read by League of Copyeditors. Epbr123 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Excellent work, thank you for addressing my concerns. Change to support. --Mus Musculus (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Mus Musculus above, I definately do not believe NNDB is a reliable source either. Also, in the External Links section, Gaffaweb [26], katebushnews.com [27]; Dongrays.com [28] all look like fansites; and Ezboard.com [29] is a fan forum -- all no-nos per WP:EL Cricket02 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the Dongrays.com and Ezboard.com links but I think Gaffaweb and Katebushnews.com are too good to get rid of. They are by far the best and most reliable Kate Bush 'fansites'. They provide a lot more sourced info than any official sites. Where does it say on WP:EL that fansites aren't allowed? Epbr123 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, guess I may stand corrected at the moment. There used to be guidelines for fansites at WP:EL but I see they have been removed without consensus per the talk page (Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Fansites) Cricket02 06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The majority of the material referenced on Gaffaweb is from print publications and transcribed radio and television interviews that pre-date the web. Many of these publications are no longer around, or have never made their old articles available on their web sites. K8 fan 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WAY too many problematic sources; doesn't look like a reliable article, and certainly not for a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources are problematic? Epbr123 10:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As just a few samples (there are more), a whole lot of IMdB, and a fan site — http://gaffa.org/intro/intro.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As K8 fan said, Gaffaweb houses interviews and other publications not found anywhere else, so it is actually a useful repository of information. --Jitterro 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No information has been written based on fansites. Gaffa.org has been included in the footnotes merely so people can read the source newspaper and magazine articles online. I'll try to replace the IMdB refs. Epbr123 09:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck; thanks for the speedy resolution! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I just have one bit of nitpicking: it's grammatically incorrect to place commas and periods outside quotation marks. I can fix all these myself, of course, so it isn't that big a deal. I recall there being many instances of POV tone when I first read the article, but it seems they've been removed by now. Nice work. As for the image, it would certainly help if a larger and clearer photo could be located, but the current one is fine otherwise. Another thing; I've browsed Gaffaweb a few times, and some of it appears to be posts from a very old forum of sorts. I'm unsure of whether these can be counted as credible information. On the other hand, the website contains many useful interviews, so I think it ought to be kept. --Jitterro 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No info was based on the forum. It all came from the newspaper and magazine articles. Epbr123 09:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Homer's Enemy[edit]

The article is modelled after Cape Feare and Homer's Phobia. Any problems people have can be fixed. I know some will raise issue over the image GrimesInsanity.png, but I feel that it illustrates an important plot point in the episode. But, I would be willing to remove it should anyone have any large objections to it. -- Scorpion 04:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I love the episode but the prose in this article is deficient. The paragraph right before the lengthy Weinstein quote sounds particularly bad. Also, "Azaria felt that William H. Macy but in the end, Azaria provided the voice of Grimes," -- what? There is some repetitive language throughout that hampers the writing. Andrew Levine 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one word in that sentence. It is now fixed. Can you point out some examples of repetition? -- Scorpion 12:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we need the second picture? The first already gives us the idea of what the characters look like, so we can imagine how the one would have looked like when he went insane. Abyssinia, Henry and Homer's Phobia both have one picture. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fair use rationales aren't specific enough. They just say the image aides commentary of the episode. It should explain how the image aides in commmentary. Jay32183 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)  Done Jay32183 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed and I removed the second image. -- Scorpion 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — good work finding a notable episode to FA push (the Pokemon WikiProject needs to do that with their pokemon articles). Off topic, this is one of my favorite episodes of the Simpsong — if not the favorite. More later. — Deckiller 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support — 1a. Few examples:
    • "Frank Grimes, who makes his only appearance in this episode, would later be named one of the Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters by IGN." "would later be" should just be "was".
    • "One of the goals of the Oakley/Weinstein era was to include a couple episodes each season that "pushed the envelope conceptually"[4] and the idea of Homer's Enemy was first thought of by then-showrunner Bill Oakley who thought that Homer should have an enemy." a snake that should be chopped into two sentences, or separated by a semicolon. I'm a comma happy person, so I feel a comma should be inserted between "Oakley" and "who". Does the reference state "a couple"? If so, it the prose should say "two".
    • "Chief Wiggum's quote, "Ralphie, get off the stage sweetheart" is used as the chorus in the song "Ralph Wiggum" by the Bloodhound Gang." Missing a comma.
    • Most of these are minor glitches, but I highly recommend tweaking it up a bit more. — Deckiller 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not the best of copyediters as I tend to miss a lot of little things, but I have gone through and corrected your suggestions and some other things. Thanks for the input. -- Scorpion 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those were just examples. Please try to enlist two or three copy-editors to give it a runthrough; each person will find different things to fix. — Deckiller 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a few issues:
      • "The result was Grimes, a man who had to work hard for everything and can't believe that Homer has so much yet does so little." Please avoid contractions.
      • "Declaring that he doesn't need safety gloves, he grabs some high voltage wires and is electrocuted to death." another use of contractions.
      • Still some sentences that could use commas.
      • "This then evolved into the concept of a "real world" character working alongside Homer, who he would either love or be driven crazy by." might read better as "This evolved into the concept of a "real world" character working alongside Homer, who he would either love or hate."
      • Some of the quotes use "s'" and not "s's", so it's best to go with the former (plus, it's more commonly used).
        • In the original GA review for this article, the reviewer suggested that all instances of Grimes' be changed to Grimes's. -- Scorpion 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly disagree that reviewer, but it's a minor issue. — Deckiller 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Formatting issues; no real need for a separate subsection for Frank Grimes.
      • "was named one of the Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters." Shouldn't "Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral character" be in italics or quotes?
      • I'll go ahead and give it a look. — Deckiller 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's looking much better; however, the synopsis section needs a bit more work. Is uses a bit too many adjectives (our plot summaries should be terse), and has a bit of excessive wikilinking. I'll go ahead and take a runthrough. — Deckiller 00:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added some inline queries. It's getting fairly close in my opinion. — Deckiller 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed to support, but the synopsis section has too many colorful words for my taste (summaries should be terse). — Deckiller 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as well Support. Needs copyediting.
  • The immediate plot description in the lead is a bit out-of-place, perhaps style it somewhat like here?
  • Link the production staff.
  • Everybody in attendance > The attendants.
  • ...acting like Homer Simpson - No point in adding his last name.
  • One reference can cover the entire first paragraph from "Production".
  • The producers had felt... - Doesn't flow with the subsequent sentence, change to The producers decided....
  • In 2006, IGN.com released a list of "The Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters". Grimes was ranked 17th and was the only one-time character to make the list - Combine the sentences.
  • ...the part should go to William H. Macy - change "part" to "role" per the previous sentence. Add "instead" for clarity. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Requirement for professional formatting. Why on earth are common dictionary terms linked? We do speak English. Foreclosure, pencils, salary.
    • With such little intellectual content, the writing had better be flash. Why, then, do I find things like: "Grimes's casket slowly lowers into the grave"—"is slowly lowered"? "electrocuted to death"—hello? "then-showrunner"—why a hyphen? "can not"? Better fix the whole thing, not just these examples. Tony 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Electrocuted to death" is important because simply being electructed eoesn't mean one is dead and is important to note that he was killed. -- Scorpion 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does say "he grabs some high voltage wires and is electrocuted to death", which is sloppily worded. Why not "he grabs some high voltage wires and dies." or "he grabs some high voltage wires, which causes his death." or something along the of "died by electocution" rather than "electrocuted to death"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 April 2007.
  • Support Oppose - Lead is an insufficent summary of the article. Also why does the statement "During the resulting funeral, Homer falls asleep, and in a drowsy state demands Marge change the TV channel, causing everyone laugh as the casket is lowered into the earth" require four inline cites, when the preceding passage has none. Ceoil 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a standard for Simpsons episode pages to have the summary citations at the very end of the synopsis. In other words, the citations are for the entire synopsis but are simply put at the end. As for the lead, I'll try to expand it. -- Scorpion 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take you point re the cites and good work on the lead. The prose are improved, and I've switched to support. Ceoil 11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good copyediting from people, greatly improving the article that otherwise was finished. A good job from all, so I support. Gran2 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. So many people have improved the prose and I can’t think of anything missing. --Maitch 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I have removed my support vote, because some people thinks it is part of some master plan from the Simpson Wikiproject. --Maitch 16:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as in previous Simpson articles. TV.com is not a reliable source, and IMO, neither is The Simpsons Archive. I know "fan consensus" will prevail, but still believe featured articles should be based on reliable sources, not "whatever we can find" that is written by fans and has no editorial oversight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? We only use TV.com as a source to show the fan response. Since it is a fan site, it only makes sense to use it. Same with the Simpsons Archive, although it is cited for the main plot. I will remove the source for the main site then. Either way, none of the production section or anything that needs sources comes from TV.com, IMDB or the Simpsons Archive only fan response. -- Scorpion 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the rationale for using those sources is fair enough to include them. — Deckiller 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectfully, I disagree. There are/can be other *reliable* sources for reporting critical response (for example, the EW article). We don't have to accept fan sites because that's all we have.
        • And, 1a, while I was reviewing again, I saw
          • In 2006, IGN.com released a list of "The Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral characters", in which they ranked Grimes at number 17; making him the only one-time character to appear in that list.[7]
        • Why the semi-colon? Has the article been copyedited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. Several times. The links are not being used "because there's nothing else", they are being used because we want to show fan response. Why do you need a reliable source for something as simple as use of a poll? Would a poll from EW or IGN be more reliable or something? IMDB and TV.com are good sites, they are just known for having some incorrect info, but I think citing polls is fine. -- Scorpion 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article's short, but to the point. Darrik2 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. Well-written and well-cited. An enjoyable read. One comment/question. I looked at the IMBD link, and the score is 8.4/10, where in the article it is 8.3/10. I wonder if this is because people can still vote on that site, so the score will continually be changed. Is there some way to correct that, maybe putting "as of this date the score is ..."? Nathanalex 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's really not much exposition or coherence in Reception section: Instead of a discussion of the importance of the episode, or even an organized exposition of critical and popular reaction, it looks and feels a lot like a trivia section in paragraph form. At least make a little more of the sources you have, if you can't find others: The EW.com quote can be expanded (and expanded upon): "...If someone comes into this world, they leave it the same as it was before. It's just perfect." Academic resources you might be able to track down are mentioned here (paras. 8 and 9). I'm surprised that you're not mentioning how Groening and other staffers view of the episode as a line of demarcation between older viewers (who disliked) and newer ones (who loved it). Other issues:

    • Reply What? It's mentioned in the reception section. It was originally discussed at greater length, but somebody removed it. -- Scorpion 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm troubled by the referencing of the DVD commentary, which I mentioned in the peer review of Homer's Phobia. There is only one commentary, so why is it listed multiple times with different attributions? In all honesty, I'm unsure what the MOS says on the matter, but this doesn't seem quite right.
    • Reply It's not, its simply listing the different commentators -- Scorpion 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oughtn't episode titles be in quotation marks instead of italics?
  • A separate subsection for casting is unnecessary, considering it consists of three sentences. You can smooth those sentences into perhaps any of the other in that section.
    • Reply Its simply following the format of the other Simpsons articles -- Scorpion 21:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also be prudent to add IMDB as a citation for the plot summary, since it's a secondary sources, it's online but (I think) avoids the risk of being labeled a fansite.
    • Reply IMDB doesn't offer any sort of plot synopsis, so we can't cite it for that. Besides, some people don't think its a reliable source. -- Scorpion 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to support this article, but as it stands, I can't.--Monocrat 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • The source for the plot summary, if it contains no analysis, should be the episode itself. Jay32183 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and taking care of the quotation marks. I've taken a closer look, and yes, the generation gap is mentioned. I had thought Groening was the one who mentioned it, so that slipped by me. My apologies. Your stance on plot summaries is new to me, but in either case it can't hurt to have a reliable secondary source when one is available. The reliability of IMDB is a more fundamental issue that I can't address, but it does indeed have a plot synopsis. Proceeding: the text of the article for the most part specifies whose views are what from the commentary. Why is the thus superfluous material then made to disrupt the referencing of a single source? (In general I think the current practice is a poor one. It seems to me that you should cite all of the commentary speakers in the References, or preferably cite none. An important book in my field was written by two authors who, in the introduction, apportion out roughly who wrote what chapters. I would never cite "Tullock (1962)" or "Buchanan (1962)" in text let alone something similar in the bibliography, even if drawing from only an apportioned chapter.) Also, there's no casting section in Homer's Phobia, and article structure should be flexible; my reading of the MOS is that sections (and articles a fortiori) proceed from actual content.--Monocrat 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With a plot summary that contains no analysis, the work of fiction itself is the most reliable source. Don't push for secondary sources for a rehashing of facts, and don't push for internet sources just because they're online. As a rule, go with the most reliable source that can be found, which, in this case, is the episode itself. Jay32183 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for Books and DVD commentaries is a little different. In a DVD commentary, you know exactly who is speaking and thus you can cite it. And there's no casting section in Homer's Phobia because there was no casting information to report. -- Scorpion 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a DVD commentary, you know who's speaking, yes. And as I said, I know who wrote what chapters in that book. What's the difference? They're both collaborative efforts, and should be treated as such. Just because I can attribute specifically doesn't mean I should. Note the speaker in the text, where that information is relevant, but make the citation general to the overall commentary. If you can provide more compelling reasons why the current practice is best-practice, I'll defer. Otherwise... At the very least, cut the duplicate information (can we agree it's duplicate?); and the best place to cut would be in the References. Regarding the plot synopsis: I don't think asking for the citation (which already exists in the article) is unreasonable or unactionable. Would it really be a burden or a weakness. Wikipedia in general favors secondary over primary sources, and past FACs have demanded and received citations to secondary sources for plot summaries. And IMDB cite doesn't have replace what you've got; a simple addition would suffice for me. An online citation is verifiable (provided the link works) and more convenient than watching the whole episode to fact-check. Regarding a Casting subsection: it's too short, in my estimation, to be a proper subsection, and Homer's Phobia arguably should have such a section if this article does: there's a guest star, and some discussion in the article and the commentaries of the guest star and his performance. Simply removing the heading would be fine. Ultimately, we're arguing over relative minutiae: the Reception section is still too weak.--Monocrat 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that we are following policy on the DVD citations, right? So in other words, your partially failing the article because we followed policy. If you read a few paragraphs above in this very FAC, you will read some complaints that we rely too heavily on sites like IMDB, IGN and The Simpsons Archive. -- Scorpion 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm objecting inappropriately, Raul will most likely pass you anyway. Besides, as I wrote before, we're arguing about minutiae, not the substantive complaint. I'm not questioning the reliability of IMDB in a plot summary; it's reliable as far as I'm concerned. If someone can make a case otherwise, that'd be different. It's really not a big deal: I just think it would make verification easier. Anyway, please provide a link for the DVD commentary policy; if it's policy, it's policy, and I'll probably have to defer, but it just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.--Monocrat 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It seems well written and well referenced and is a great article on arguably one of the most important and legendary episodes of the Simpsons. --Valley2city₪‽ 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, once you take out the plot and the direct quotations, there's so little there. Easy way to get a gold star .... Tony 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your point? It took a lot of work to get the article to the stage it is in right now. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't see how it could have been a lot of work, compared with that required for a more substantive article. Summarising a plot is kind of ... clerical—of questionable use to those who have seen the episode; those who haven't seen it will either not want to read the plot summary for fear of spoiling it for themselves, or will derive little from it, since there's no intellectual content to the summary - by that, I mean that it's purely factual: this happened then that happened then ..., rather than something more thoughtful that shows why it's "one of the darkest and most famous episodes", as claimed in the lead. There's no relating of the episode to the overall story arc/development throughout the series, and for those who know nothing of it, no explanation of the characters and settings. Are there deeper meanings? If so, we're still in the dark. I oppose the nomination on the basis that it doesn't exemply "our very best work", as required, and has trouble meeting 1c (not comprehensive) and 2a (inadequate lead—totally inadequate). Tony 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can only add as much as the sources allow and for us to add some of the content you suggested, ie. "deeper meanings" or an analysis would be from our interpretations and thus OR. -- Scorpion0422 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to build on Tony's comment about how this ep fits into the arc - a later episode featured Grimes's son, who, motivated by Grimes's death in this episode, attempts to kill homer. This should be mentioned in the article. Have there been any other in-series references to Grimes? (I haven't been watching the newest seasons so I can't say) Raul654 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There have been and the later show references to Grimes was mentioned in the article, but it was later deemed to be trivia and was removed. I could readd information about Grimes's legacy, but that ground is already covered in the Frank Grimes article. -- Scorpion0422 04:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Axl 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It doesn't help the article if you don't add any reasons as to why you support it. -- Scorpion0422 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A user supporting an FAC without an explanation means he generally agrees with the nominator and/or has found the article to adhere the criteria. Also, as this user has edited the article prior to the support, I can assume he reviewed it and preferred to make the change himself rather than adding a precedent. Michaelas10 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we at The Simpsons Wikiproject have been accused of trying to rig FACs, so I just wanted to make sure that he had some sort of rationale. -- Scorpion0422 18:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

1998 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

I did this one not too long ago, and I think it's featured quality. I've been wrong before, however, and I'd love to hear your opinions. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can an ACE table chart please be included, before anything else happens? Other than that, I have no problems with the article. Thanks. RaNdOm26 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I don't know how I forgot about that. OK, I added it in. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Jumps up and down to see if anyone is watching this* Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Joins with Tito in hope that someone else will comment on it* Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the intro it says Hurricane Lester and Tropical Storm Frank were also deadly which I presume means they caused fatalities. If so why is Hurricane Madeline not mentioned if it caused 31 people to die; were they indirect deaths due to the flooding? For that matter do indirect deaths contribute to a hurricanes fatality rating? Could probably also do with a light copy edit (I fixed one typo in the intro). Thanks. CheekyMonkey 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hadn't really thought of including Madeline in the lede, as the deaths were indirect, but I suppose it warrants inclusion. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Improved. 1a. The density of problems in the lead indicates that a good copy-edit throughout is essential to attain the required "professional" standard of writing.
    • "Isis caused over $5 million in damage (1998 USD, $6.2 million 2006 USD) in the country which included over 300 destroyed homes, and later affected the southwestern United States by producing light rainfall and dozens of traffic accidents." Why not insert "US" on first appearance, before "$5"? After this, we assume they're all US dollars, so the clutter can be reduced. Remove "1998", which is obvious. Why not just "(~ $6.2M in 2006)"? "Country" is ambiguous: = rural area or nation? A comma after "country" is absolutely mandatory, since what follows is not a subset. BTW, five million bucks seems like chicken feed - five expensive houses; so what?
    • "These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the northeastern Pacific Ocean." Remove "of each year". Similarly: " The most notable tropical cyclone during the year was Hurricane Isis"—remove "during the year".
    • MoS says don't use numerals at the start of a sentence; best to spell out single-digits, anyway: "The season saw 13 named storms form, slightly below average. 9 storms attained hurricane status, of which 6 became major hurricanes." Then the very next sentence, even though separated by a subheading: "With 13 tropical storms, activity during the season was slightly below the average of 16 named storms,". Tony 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed up the lede some more. However, I don't think it is fair to assess the lead as indicative of the rest of the article. Hurricane articles are fairly bland and basic, and generally the most problems occur in the lead and summary sections. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to pass it off that way; so why, when I choose at random a small section below, do I find problems such as these:

  • "the center became sufficiently associated with the convection for the National Hurricane Center to classify it as Tropical Depression One-E while located about 460 miles (765 km) south-southwest of Acapulco, Mexico.[4]". Was the NHC on a ship? Spot the two redundant words.
  • "in the days subsequent to its formation"—what about some plain English, such as "after its formation". Please audit the whole text for this kind of thing.
  • Non-experts will not know what "organization trend" means.
  • "it intensified into Tropical Storm Agatha while located about 650 miles (1050 km) south-southeast of Cabo San Lucas." Spot the double redundancy.
  • "forecasters predicted it would quickly weaken without strengthening due to passing over cooler waters." You may know what it means, but to us, it's ambiguous. (Is it the strengthening or the quick weakening without strengthening that was caused by passing over cooler waters?)
  • "Agatha quickly strengthened, developing a curved band of convection wrapping around the center,[6] and early on 11 June the storm attained a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h) while located about 615 miles". Perhaps "its centre"? Remove "the storm" and "while located". Audit the entire text for such redundant wordings.
  • Remove "Agatha" from the second-last sentence.

Thus, please take seriously my earlier comment that the whole text needs attention. Tony 11:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of those seem fairly minor. I don't see what is wrong to subsequent to its formation. You said that you want to avoid redundancies, and I'd rather change up the wording a bit than use after again. The non-expert, I would hope, would know that a trend is defined as a general tendency, and thus that a strengthening and organization trend would be a be a general tendency toward more strengthening and organization. However, if you don't think they would get that, what would you suggest? I removed most of the "while located"s in the article. Given that I don't know where to find the mistakes throughout the entire article, could someone possibly copyedit the article? It is often better for someone unfamiliar with the work to copyedit it. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder—It's like saying that a whole lot of little editing glitches in a Hollywood film are "fairly minor": they'd kill it. Good writing requires a scrupulous attitude to detail, and on WP, an enthusiasm for teamwork; that's why I'm pleased when people to correct my own prose. Just issuing an open invitation here for copy-editors will do nothing. You need to actively woo collaborators; start with the edit-history pages of similar articles (even articles on topics further afield but not unrelated). Nothing like fresh eyes to find opportunities for improvement. "Subsequent to", like "prior to", should be binned unless there's a very good reason to use them. After and before. Only the first part of the article has been worked on since my previous comment. It's an otherwise good article, so it's worth fixing up. Tony 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I've asked users to copyedit the article (and who are not familiar with the contents) but I can't hold a gun to their head... so I don't know what to do, sadly. Any suggestions? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full copyedit by a non-topic specialist finished... is there anything else sticking out like a sore thumb? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in spite of the very minor problems, this meets the FA criteria. A lot of the objections are nit-picking or trivial (which there seems to be quite a history of). --Coredesat 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic article. Nice read...I didn't find any issues with it in my read through. JHMM13 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor oppose for now. Just a few problems:
  • The purpose of the lead section is "establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Then what's the point of the "season summary" section? Why not move the important parts of that summary into the lead and delete the rest, since that's repeeated in the main of the article anyway.
  • I might be wrong on this one, but isn't the purpose of the "Retrieved on XXXX-XX-XX" at the end of footnotes to tell, when the information was extracted from the internet (!). If all sources cited in the footnotes do in fact come from the internet, then hyperlinks should be included in the footnotes, else what's the point of the "Retrieved ...".
  • "See also" sections generally do not help articles at all: if it ain't worth being mentioned in the article, it ain't worth being linked either and advertisement for portals in the main article namespace is highly inappropriate as well in my opionion. So, why not simply remove that section?--Carabinieri 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you said something about the season summary. I was basing it off of another featured season article of the basin (2003 Pacific hurricane season), though there is an obvious redundancy. I changed it. I'm not sure what the problem is with the sources. I did template:Cite web formatting for all online sources, and template:Cite news formating for all newspaper sources. Lastly, the see also section is to point the reader to other seasons in the same year, which I think is rather useful. Do you still oppose? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, portals are usually considered part of Wikipedia's content. For certain, all 50+ of the Tropical cyclone tropical cyclone featured articles and lists would require removing the template link. However, this issue is not restricted just to hurricanes; it is also done frequently on various other subjects, like War, Weather, Sexuality, Architecture, Food, Literature and Photography, to name a few. Removing the portal link is something way beyond the scope of a particular FAC. See also sections are also considered appropriate by the Guide to Layout, so I'm not sure what's wrong with that one either. The links don't seem inappropriate or excessive, either, and it is quite standard to link to similar simultaneous occurrences of the same phenomenon in a different part of the world. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, I wasn't really sure about the question of whether the accesdate is necessary on print sources, it just seems a little pointless to me to include it since print sources don't change. As far as the portal link goes, I doubt we'll find anything we could agree on here, I think it's tacky and adds nothing to the article, but I doubt I'll find a consensus for this position in this discussion or in Wikipedia as a whole. For the see also links I'd propose creating a navigation bar-type template - something like 1998 hurricane/cyclone/typhoon season that links all those articles. I think that would look better and wouldn't seem like the article is just trying to advertise other articles. This article fulfills pretty much everything I expect of an FA and my main concern was that summary section (good work!). So I'll support though I'd like to note that I'd prefer removing that portal link.--Carabinieri 09:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Turkish language[edit]

This was nominated by User:Uannis, but I will try to add some context to this nomination. Turkish Language is already a Good Article, User:AtilimGunesBaydin and a number of other editors have undertaken a signficant rewrite and expansion up to its current state. I have not been involved in this article, but I believe it is very well written, informative and well referenced. Unfortunately, it seems Atilim is on a break at the moment, so I have left note on WP:Turkey for people to deal with any suggestions raised here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Beatiful article:)--Uannis 15:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Excellent quality and well referenced. Makes an amazing read -- Ka34 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Uannis 10:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Ozculer 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a really great article Wax69 17:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reluctant objection One of the best, if not the best language articles I've seen in this encyclopedia. The rest of wikipedia should be taking notes here. I especially like the three column comparison of Turkish-IPA-English. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) After seeing all of the things which need to be ironed out, I am withdrawing my support. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support And congratulations to Atilim for his persistent and consistent efforts at improving this article, as well as other editors. Since Atilim seems to be on a break, I will also be on hand to try to deal with any points which can be raised. Baristarim 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Must.T C 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and congragulations. I recall that there was a debate over the official status of Turkish in Prizren, Kosovo. I will try to look at it again as well as the different dialects, which can be very briefly detailed on principal distinctive points ("da!" at the end of sentences and "k" to "ç" along Black Sea coast, "te!" in Thrace, "b" to "p" in Cyprus, "k" to "ç" and "c" to "z" among old Cretan Turks et cetera.) Cretanforever 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, such a long and detailed article for Turkish language... It deserves everything. Take care, Deliogul 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Congratulations to all editors. As a native Turkish speaker, I learned many new things. The article is pretty good, except for the font of the original poem near the end (Example section). Can't we use another font? (Times New Roman is boring, serious and ugly :)) This is a little puzzling. I know that data comes from TDK, but it doesn't seem to be right, considering that the origins listed in my TDK dictionary (the largest available) are more than 40-50% of foreign origin with more Persian origins than Arabic and French. Should be checked again, I think. --Scientia Potentia 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, remarkable article. Khutuck 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could those supporting the article please do so in chronological order? We're supposed to give constructive praise or criticism, not form clearly separated camps of supporters and objectors. And while this is an overall good article, it looks really when all but two of the supporters are ethnic Turks. :-| Peter Isotalo 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Some remarks:
  • Please, fix your inline citations from section "Vocabulary" and on. You are inconsistent. Until this section you correctly put inline citations after the pm per WP:MoS. But then, you do exactly the opposite.
  • "A great many of these new words, particularly IT terms, received widespread acceptance, but the association is occasionally criticized for coining words that obviously seem or sound like "invented"." Citicized by whom? Please cite.
  • "It is also worthy of note that ..." Uncyclopedic. Please, check this.
  • "It is critical to note that ..." Again words to avoid. I tend to believe that an overall massaging of the prose in the article is needed. Maybe some help for the League of Copyeditors would be very useful here.
  • "Turkish is characterized by vowel harmony". "The most distinguishing characteristics of Turkish in comparison to most other languages are vowel harmony" I read almost the same sentence 2 times in the text, and then comes the section about "vowel harmony" itself. Personally, I get a sense of repetitive prose. But again it may be a personal preference...
  • "having exactly the same literal meaning are used to express slightly different meanings". Here, the prose could also be a bit better.
  • "The effect of Atatürk's introduction of the adapted Roman alphabet was a dramatic increase in literacy from Third World levels to nearly one hundred percent." Cite please. We need sources for such statistics.
  • "Therefore, the preferred vocabulary, to some degree, is also indicative of the adoption of or resistance to Atatürk's Reforms which took place more than 70 years ago." I would also like to have a citation for this assertion as well.
As a conclusion, I would say that it is a very nice article, but there are some minor flaws (which would have probably been fixed if a peer-review had taken place prior to the FA nom - unless such a peer-review took place, and I just miss it). In any case, I do not yet object, because the article is indeed well-written and well-worked, and I believe that most problems can be fixed during this FAC's live.--Yannismarou 08:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have sent an email to Atilim about this, but I will also try to take a look as soon as I can to fix the outstanding problems. Baristarim 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. Don't mean to be mean, but this is very table-ish and listy, many subsections are extremely short (the article is somewhat too segmented) and should be joined together, and to be honest I don't find the level of referencing sufficient — you need more in-line citations and more main references. It could be just me, of course, but I've got somewhat higher citation standards. Also, there are some minor formatting issues, e.g. the way a hyphen is used instead of an m-dash throughout, linked years, incorrect italicization, citations before punctuation (should be after), etc., plus all things Yannismarou mentioned. Don't get me wrong, it's a good article, but I believe it needs just a little more work to be up to FA standards. Todor→Bozhinov 09:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "X Language" articles tend to be that way - having tables for different cases and declensions. I don't think this article is unusual in that respect. Raul654 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's perfectly normal, yes. But to be an FA, it shouldn't be usual, it should be our best work — you know that better than me :) Anyway, if it being somewhat table-ish really is the only problem, I'd support, but there's a lot else to do. Todor→Bozhinov 15:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree with Todor on this one. Most of the content we have on grammar is presented as endless lists of declensions, bone-dry, technical jargon and crufty tables. That doesn't mean we should deal with it in FACs. A tad more prose would be preferable. Peter Isotalo 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; the "Grammar" section is completely unsourced. The section on dialects is really sparse too, especially considering there's no article Turkish dialects where they're covered. How do the dialects differ from the standard and from each other? There could be more discussion of Turkish phonology, too, again especially in the absence of an article Turkish phonology. In addition to the phoneme inventory and vowel harmony, for example, there could be a discussion of final devoicing, which plays by quite unusual rules in Turkish; and a discussion of stress, which is unusual in having different rules for proper nouns than for the rest of the lexicon; and a discussion of the alternation between k and ğ that's found only in words of a certain number of syllables (I can't remember the details now -- either it occurs in monosyllabic words but not polysyllabic ones, or vice versa). Also, while Yannismarou didn't technically object because of the prose problems he noted, I do also object on those grounds as well as the ones I just mentioned. —Angr 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the article is a bit too sparse in terms of citations, but saying that the grammar section is "completely unsourced" is just churlish. I mean, it presents only the most basic of facts and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the source is Lewis' Turkish Grammar. Most of the grammar info can be extrapolated even from the simplests of textbooks on general grammar. I've never read any work that is specific to Turkish, Turkic languages or even Altaic languages, but still found nothing I hadn't seen many times before. Peter Isotalo 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's irrelevant. Everything has to be sourced. If a featured article candidate were going to claim that English plurals are most commonly formed by adding -s, I'd want to see a source for it. —Angr 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simply saying that it's irrelevant whether the sources are blatantly obvious without dinky footnotes or not isn't going to make anyone the wiser. Try to actually limit your footnote demands for stuff that really matters. The way you present your case, makes it seem like a shrubbery-demand. Peter Isotalo 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Angr's objection is actionable, since he refers to specific sections and adequately specifies the problems he finds. And arguments like "Try to actually limit your footnote demands for stuff that really matters" are not convincing enough as previous FAC and FARC discussions have indicated. Angr provides examples of what he regards as an article flaw and explains why this "stuff really matters".--Yannismarou 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The example given by Angr, that the statement "English plurals are most commonly formed by adding -s" would make him demand a footnote, pretty much speaks for itself. He'd most likely get laughed at if he suggested this anywhere else. I can't think of any context where this kind of extremely basic (or base, even) information would be questioned, except by vandals, trolls or children. It's on about the same level as "the Moon revolves around the Earth". Peter Isotalo 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps, but we aren't anywhere else. We're at Wikipedia, which has to fight twice as hard as any other encyclopedia to be taken half as seriously. No matter how blindingly obvious something seems to you (like the fact that foods rich people ate in the Middle Ages were forbidden to the poor), we have to be able to verifiably prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can anonymously edit or vandalize. —Angr 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The more we focus on these kind of piffling trivialities, which has never stopped a single vandal or a Siegenthaler from doing their thang, the more time we'll take from doing what we're supposed to be doing; writing good, accurate articles. I've added a citation to the beginning of the grammar section, and while I agree that there are sections that needs a little extra reference bolstering, we should at least agree that extremely basic facts can only merit extremely basic citation. Peter Isotalo 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object A very good language article overall, but it's not quite of FA standard:
  • The intro is a bit too short; not a word on history, and an extremely brief summary of what characterizes Turkish.
  • "Classification" is extremely minimal. It was two tiny paragraphs, one of which obviously belonged in the lead (I moved it there). There needs to be more information on how Turkish relates to the other Turkic languages, what they have in common and what makes Turkish unique.
  • There are a few difficult passages that need some work:
    • They can be made negative or impotential; they can also be made potential. – Huh? What does "(im)potential" actually mean here? Indulge us a bit here
    • Turkish spelling is highly phonetic, and the sounds of the individual letters exhibit few surprises, even for English speakers. Following International Phonetic Alphabet conventions on phonetic transcription, angle brackets < > here are used to enclose written letters, and brackets [ ] are used to enclose symbols that represent the sounds. Most writing-sound correspondences can be predicted by English speakers, with the following exceptions. The <c> denotes /dʒ/, like <j> in English jail. The <ç> denotes /tʃ/ like the <ch> in English church. The <j> represents /ʒ/ like the <g> in rouge, it is identical to French <j> and is mainly used in loanwords of French and Persian origin. The <ş> represents /ʃ/ like the <sh> in sheet. The <ı> represents /ɨ/, a sound which does not exist in English. The <ğ> denotes /ɣ/ which may be manifested by lengthening the precedent vowel and assimilating any subsequent vowel (e.g., soğuk ("cold") is pronounced [souk]). – This is really tedious. There's no need for this many examples in an overview article. Could we reduce this to one or two examples?
    • Turkish allows most adjectives to be used as nouns, in which case they are declined. – There might be an explanation for this in the text that follows, but it's very difficult to comprehend. Could the author of this explain the intent of that paragraph?
  • Where examples are given, these should be limited to at most two or three. Too many easily will dull the reader.
  • When constructions are explained, it would be better to use the type of notation used by linguists. See for example Gbe languages. Things like "hava ("air) + -da (locative suffix) = havada" just don't fit well in normal prose.
  • Does Turkish have a definite article? I can't tell from the current contents, yet the list of cases translates the various declensions of gün as "the day".
  • There's a rather unusual division of references into "specific" (for footnotes) and "general". What this means is unclear. What, if anything, have the "general" references been used for? How, for example, do the print references in the "specific" section differ from the print references in the "general" section? Both cite entire books, for example (which is fine, but it's just a bit odd as to why some have been classified as just "general". I would like to see a list of sources separate from the footnotes, and that goes for online sources as well. With that many sources, the reader needs to be able to get an overview of the inidividual works without having to go through the notes.
  • Not really an objection per se, but the article would really be great if someone could make a recording of Dostlar Beni Hatırlasın.
  • Please don't break up this post when replying to the individual criticisms.

Peter Isotalo 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I found this Youtube clip: [30]. Aşık Veysel first reads the poem and then sings the song. Should we have it as an external link? denizTC 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems the article has had some extensive changes made since these objections (referring to all objectors). Can people please look again therefore to see if their objection still stands. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is potential/impotential common linguistic terminology? I can't recall right now, but I think I've seen a different term for it. Disregard comment this if it's used in the sources.
    • "Classification" is still just two sentences, which is very meager. It doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to add more information.
    • The lack of a definite article was cleared up, but the example using gün doesn't work very well when translated. Could it be exchanged for a word that would make more sense as "of/to/from the XXX" in English?
    • Any chance of seeing grammar notation in a style similar to the one used in Gbe languages?
    • I would still like to see the notes and the sources clearly separated. What I mean is a separate list of the sources so that one can get a quick overview of which ones that have been used, including the websites. Peter Isotalo 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that "potential" & "impotential" are standard terms, & are used by Lewis in his Turkish Grammar (p 151 of the 1967 1st ed). In any case I've glossed them as "can" & "cannot" respectively. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article gives a good introduction to the Turkish language for its intended audience - non-Turkish speakers curious about the language. The section on grammar does a good job of presenting the specifics of Turkish grammar without going too much into details that would be only relevant to the linguist or student of the language. The article compares favorably with other X language articles. I believe the issues raised on this page can be answered within the FAC process and will also help cover some of the points. --Free smyrnan 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good job! will use it to improve the Hungarian version of it. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of the reviewers' objections are fixed. Therefore, I'll give the article my reluctant support, and I say reluctant, because 1) most but not all the issues Angr and Peter raised are adressed, 2) sections like "Language reform and Modern Turkish" could be better cited (though I know that Peter who regards me as an incompetent editor does not agree with me on this issue! Wrong estimation of Peter's stance per his comment in my talk page). The prose is definitely improved, but as a non-native English speaker I'm not sure if I can regard it as "brilliant" and "compelling". Anyway, for the next hope I'll not have the chance to comment again on the article; I hope that, until I return from my trip, it will be worthy of a full support vote (if not yet already promoted!).--Yannismarou 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Goodness, please clean up the external links per WP:EL, WP:NOT; Wiki is not a guide page to language courses. Should Modern Turkish be capitalized ? And it's not necessary to clutter the references with (HTML), which is the default (it is helpful to indicate non-standard formats like PDFs). Is there no language icon for Kurdish (there is inconstent usage of language icons in the refs). Can't any of those See also's be worked into the text? Overall, the presentation of this article is just listy and somewhat unprofessional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, is the problem having too many links to language courses? I think there should be links to language courses, (Swedish language has them, too), but maybe not this many. There is a language icon for Kurdish ({{ku icon}})), but I don't see how this is any relevant. Three of the see also's are lists. The article is not small, we should not work Turkish alphabet into tex, imo. The other See also's are relevant. I am going to remove some external links now. Do you any more specific suggestions to the other parts of the article? Thanks a lot. DenizTC 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never quite understood this obsession with cleansing the See also-sections from links that can be found in the article. As long as the links are relevant and the section doesn't grow to unmanageable amounts, I can't for the life of me see what the problem is. Not everyone reads the entire article before moving on the to the see also-section, and they might not necessarily notice some of those very relevant links. Peter Isotalo 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy! I changed "Modern Turkish" into "modern Turkish" throughout the article for consistency. I don't agree with you that the external links section is in a situation requiring cleanup: Three links to highly relevant language profile sites (Rosetta Project, the Ethnologue and the Language Museum) required by the Wikiproject Languages guideline; an online dictionary link; one respectable media link to BBC Turkish (for a demonstration of what the language looks and sounds like); three links to language learning sources; and links to Turkish editions of Wikimedia projects. All are justified and relevant, and the amount of links is reasonable. The "(Turkish)" entries in the references list are not language icons, they mark the cited sources in Turkish via the "language" parameter of the used WP:CITE templates. I don't understand why you are asking about a Kurdish notice: the article does not currently cite a Kurdish source. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that there was an inconsistency in the Turkish language marks in the list of references (some sources in Turkish were marked with parameter "language=Turkish" while some were not), which I fixed. I hope this was the inconsistency you were referring to. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the citations and removed the "language=Turkish" tags, which are treated differently in different citation templates and replaced them with the {{tr icon}}. I think this takes care of the inconsistency in language icons. There is no Kurdish source used in the article, the reference containing the word Kurdish is an English source, the chapter/section on Kurdish is mentioned. Also removed the redundant format=HTML tags. Free smyrnan 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Free smyrnan. DenizTC 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—1a. I have to swim against the tide above in which reviewers are gushing about the writing. Here are random examples of problems.
    • "The language traces its roots to Central Asia as a part of the Turkic language family, the first written records of which—Old Turkic engravings dicovered in the Orkhon Valley in Mongolia—date back nearly 1,200 years." Clumsy positioning of nested phrase.
    • "a drive to reform the language was undertaken"—Raises an important issue (centralised control of the language?), so at least change passive to active and reveal the agent (the government? an academy with the power to do so?). Even in the lead.
    • No noun classes? I'm sure it does, in a broad sense; you just need to speak to the right grammarians to determine the subtle grammatical treatment of certain types of noun. I can say this because it's true of just about every language. I'm not referring to gender/case/number here. Might be safer to provide more precise info here, or to remove it (retaining "grammatical gender") and deal with it in the body of the article.
    • "also includes"—"also" is redundant.
    • "About 40% of all Turkic language speakers"—Remove "all".
    • "The characteristic features of Turkish, like vowel harmony, agglutination, and lack of grammatical gender, are universal within the Turkic family as well as the Altaic languages." "Such as" is better in this formal register. "Within" and "as well as" are grammatically marked forms of "in" and "and". Unnecessary here, and the prose will be bleached by continued amplifications.
    • "between Turkish and other Oghuz languages"—Insert "the" before "Oghuz", since I think you mean all of them.
    • Would look better (and accord with some of the major style guide recommendations) to use en dashes without spaces for numerical ranges ("65 – 73.5 million" --> "65–73.5 million"); infobox too. BTW, please use consistent decimal places; here, "65.0" is required, or you can make them 65 and 74.

That's just at the top. Please find a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with the text to sift though it. This is particularly important in an article about language. People will disrespect it, otherwise. Tony 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I just want to let you know that I implemented the changes you proposed except the following: 1. I don't get what's wrong or clumsy with the "traces its roots to Central Asia" sentence, possibly because my knowledge of English isn't good enough. 2. Turkish really has no noun classes even if this is somehow strange to you (please see the list of "languages without noun classes or grammatical genders" in noun class for others). I understand that these were just from the lead and the first section and the rest of the article is in need of attention for similar changes. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a copy-edit request at the League of Copyeditors. Hopefully some fresh eyes will take a look at the prose. Free smyrnan 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The world map would be more useful if it is precisely indicated where are the areas of concentration of Turkish speakers in countries of Turkish diaspora. Check the maps for German language and French language. The current map might lead the reader to think that Turkish is spoken all over the US and Canada and Russia... CG 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my tongue-in-cheek comment on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the only data we currently have on Wikipedia is a (very well referenced) list of Turkish minority populations within countries (see Turkish diaspora), which forms the basis of the existing map. I'll be very happy to work on an improved map, but first we need a source, or several sources, detailing where these populations are concentrated within mentioned countries. I'll see what I can come up with. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

The Bus Uncle[edit]

Archive 1: Link

Self nomination: As it stands, the article about the Bus Uncle, Roger Chan Yuet Tung is a Good Article. Last year, it was nominated for FA status, but failed. The major reason was the lack of citations. Anyway, I started improving the article over the last month, in an attempt to reach that level.

I have improved the grammar, rearranged the layout, separated important points into different subsections, added fair use rationales to all 4 pictures and added citations to many paragraphs made in the article (through newspapar articles, magazine articles, radio programs, news reports and even a TV drama episode). I checked the article several times, and couldn't find any flaws. I believe that all criteria are met. Perhaps you can leave some comments on the article.--Kylohk 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is written well, but the problem is in the images. If you look closely at the images (Roger's one and Elvis' one) they have been drawn on them. Somehow I think they are edited in Microsoft Paint. New pictures should be replaced, and cameraman's photo must be put in the article. --Jacklau96 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Had you not told me, I'd never noticed those odd scribbles at the bottom of the images. I have played some free online videos involving the 3 people, and used PrintScreen to take screenshots of them. Those shots are cropped down to size, and uploaded. Now, they appear to the right hand side of the "Persons Involved" section.--Kylohk 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the videos on Youtube is free or not. You said on the images it is public domain and you made them, but actually the videos are not uploaded by you. This may be a copyright problem. --Jacklau96 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have changed the copyright tag to that of the screenshot to a film. I have to admit that the definitions can be confusing.--Kylohk 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well referenced, covers almost everything one needs to know about the incident. Completely different from the last failed nom. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but please fix this unnecessary intensification in the lead: Marked: "Not only did the video become a cultural sensation in Hong Kong, it inspired vigourous debate and discussion on lifestyle, etiquette and media ethics." Unmarked: "The video become a cultural sensation in Hong Kong, and inspired vigourous debate and discussion on lifestyle, etiquette and media ethics."
  • Plus:
    • "ise" or "ize"? It's inconsistent. My personal preference is for the s, and in Hong Kong, you have a choice.
  • "Fong also stated that the reason for the recording"—Remove redundant "also". Same for "The catch phrases also appear on Internet forums,", which shouldn't be a new paragraph.
  • Consider "was" rather than "consituted" (x 2).
  • "The video clip, though subtitled in English erroneously in parts,"—No, make it "The video clip, although subtitled in English (erroneously in parts),".

Really interesting topic! Tony 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ideas and support. I've standardized the article with British spellings, and removed many "also"s and "not only" redundant words. "Consituted" was replaced by "was" and "be", depending on the position. Brackets have been added to that sentence you mentioned. Cheers.--Kylohk 09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments in the article's peer review in WP:Biography.--Yannismarou 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Fighting in ice hockey[edit]

Self nomination. I have put a lot of work into the article, and think it is ready for FA status. The article had a peer review here, and I also solicited feedback on the WikiProject Ice Hockey project page and from some individual editors who have brought hockey articles to FA status. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support, very informative, and liked to read it. However having said that I do have a few objections. Namely in the second paragraph where it says "... to protect star players, who are generally less tough," sounds sort of like a 4th-grader sentece. I would recommend trying to write it some way else. Also in the same paragraph, where it lists historical players, I would object to who was listed. When mentioned are Clark Gillies, Terry O'Reilly, Wayne Cashman and Nick Fotiu, the one that doesn't seem to belong in any list of those four fighters is Fotiu, and he was primarily an enforcer, whereas all the others offered a consistent scoring threat, and I would argue that Cashman and Gillies aren't remembered for their fighting. I would also say that that list is very 1980's heavy when it says "historical". It is very important to mention pioneers like Lou Fontinato and John Ferguson (or even Red Horner), and then say Dave Schultz and Tiger Williams to get that feel of the Wild 70's. Just some suggestions but keep up the good work. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think I changed these issues and it now has my full support. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I also have some minor issues with the article. In the thrid paragraph, it mentions that most players, administrators, and fans favor fighting, but there is no source to it. Also when it mentions Gordie Howe gaining respect by beating Lou Fontinato, it makes no mention of who Fontinato is; that will confuse people not familiar with hockey, as it did with me for a minute, and I do follow hockey. Another point, more of a comment really, is that you have several references listed, but only use a handful for citations. It might not be a bad idea to use the references as citations, but again that is more of a comment than a opposing point. Although it might be necessary to change the way the citations are written, but again it's more of a comment. So in conclusion, find a source stating most players, fans, etc. support fighting, and include a blurb about who Fontinato was and I'll give full support. Kaiser matias 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything I said is fixed now, excellent article. Kaiser matias 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome feedback, thanks. In the third paragraph, the sentences that follow the first go into more detail about the statement made at the beginning of the paragraph. Those are cited. If you can think of a way to make that relation more clear, we can edit it. I added more information about Fontinato along with a source - I was mistaken in thinking his article would provide the necessary context (it is a stub). I'm not sure what you mean about the references and citations - I only provided references for the citations used in the article. There should not be any citations without references or vice versa. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over it again, and there is no sources explaining that many people support fighting, which is good. And what I was talking about references and sourcing is more of a personal issue I find with it, but like I said, is not anything worth using to oppose. Excellent work on a highly controersial topic. Kaiser matias 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Aside from the things that Croat Canuck and Kaiser matias mentioned above, the article is very informative, well-sourced and well-written. It should not be too hard to fix those things. Sportskido8 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastic Support I love the article. It's very well written and the topic will be a great addition to the List of Wikipedia Featured Articles that will never be covered in Encyclopædia Britannica. -- Y not? 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Contains images tagged as Cc-by-2.0, but the Flickr page does not support this. Pagrashtak 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean; could you be more specific? The images' Flickr pages specify that they are licensed under CC 2.0. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. You might not be aware that there are several variants of the CC 2.0 license. Look at the flickr page for Image:Norton Peters fight.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/davegroth/353859529/). See the symbols under additional information? The first one requires attribution (fine), the second one indicates non-commercial use only (bad), and the third prohibits derivatives (also bad). These are referred to as "by", "nc", and "nd", respectively. So the proper license is {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}. Hope that helps. Pagrashtak 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the offending images and moved a public domain image to the lead section. Thanks for the clarification - I admittedly find the Creative Commons rules to be a bit confusing. --Mus Musculus (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would a CC 2.0 licence that does alow derivatives but prohibits commercial use be acceptable in the article? --Krm500 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Such as {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}? That's also not permissible. This article could use a few more images, now that the copyvios have been removed. If you can't find any freely licensed images, you could ask the copyright owner of the images on Flickr if he or she is willing to use a more free license for an image or two, such as {{cc-by-2.0}}. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission may be of use if you pursue that. Pagrashtak 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am the copyright holder of one of those images, but I have a problem with wikipedias image policy. --Krm500 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Prose/Comprehensiveness. A couple sections read awkward to me, particularly the "Reasons for Fighting" area in general. I feel those sections lack encyclopedic tone, instead using a more journalistic tone, which is understandable, given the sources cited. Still, rephrasing might be helpful. But the main issue I have is the "Notable Fights" section, which is practically a trivia section. Bullet points are always a warning sign in my eyes, and I hate seeing them in articles... brilliant prose should be brilliant prose, and lists don't cut it there. It seems to me that the events described in that section could be given more justice than a bare list, and could be expanded into full paragraphs with more details. This 2007 fight in particular could use some detail, since it says that it's garnered a lot of attention and a call for banning fights. That sounds pretty notable and important to me! Worth more than a mere list item! The rest of the fights could also be given some fairer treatment. I would recommend the entire section be moved up into the "History" section, and expanded upon, in full paragraphs instead of bullet points. Fieari 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I will look at the Reasons for Fighting subheading tomorrow. Are there any passages in particular that you feel lack encyclopedic tone, to give me an example to work with? I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the Notable Fights section. Lists have a purpose in technical rhetoric, which an encyclopedia article is. The rhetorical purpose is to succinctly convey a number of items that share the same format and purpose. I feel that trying to turn them into prose would result in something that feels contrived - like, "This happened. And then this happened. And then this happened." when really a list would be more suitable. The article is not really about fights per se, it is about the artifact of fighting. Does that make sense? --Mus Musculus (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Pending these points I've picked up, note some of them maybe due to terminology I don't understand. If they are just explain them to me and I'll disregard them:
    • Why are hockey games referred to as games in places and matches in others, just pick one. There's an instance of "matches" in the second or third sentence. I think this combines International and American usage perhaps.
    • Legal and illegal are used in a court of law, referring to rules of a sport that way is confusing. Maybe "allowed techniques" instead of "illegal techniques".
    • "High sticking" and "cross-checking" and all that stuff in the lead should be linked if it can be. You can link it to the sections in the Hockey article if possible, linking directly to the section covering them.
    • This whole portion of the lead is unnecessary: "this concept is articulated and illustrated by the history of fighting, the reasons behind fighting, and the description of the informal rules of fighting that follow" It's a self reference anyways. Maybe you could word it differently.
    • " games has been ongoing for many years," many is redundant, years is plural also could use a more specific number like more than 90 years etc.
    • The second sentence in "Reasons for fighting might need a source/sources.
    • "The NHL averaged twice as many fights during Gretzky's prime with the Edmonton Oilers than it did during the 1970s. [28]" This sentence seems to indicate that simply Gretzky existed fights doubled, even if true it's impossible to prove. Myabe word it different saying is often credited, is partially credited, etc.
    • "There are also times when players and even entire teams just dislike each other enough that fights frequently occur for no other reason. [29] " This isn't written in a very formal tone.
    • Maybe I'm wrong but the first time a "major penalty" is introduced it's not even explained or linked.
    • Of course there' never been any deaths right? At any level?
    • "Another important aspect of fighting etiquette is simply fighting fairly, cleanly, and gracefully." Could be more formal, and what does gracefully even mean? Aaron Bowen 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the awesome comments - they definitely helped polish up the article a bit more. I believe I have addressed all of your items, except for the bullet about the second sentence in "Reasons for fighting". The footnote at the end of that paragraph covers the second sentence, and according to Wikipedia's footnote policy, a footnote is not required on each sentence if that is the case. Thanks again! --Mus Musculus (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I haven't looked it all over yet but this:"Of the many reasons, the foremost is for retaliation." opening to a section needs to be fixed. It's not even a complete sentence. Reasons for what? This appears to have been an isolated error though. Aaron Bowen 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Mus Musculus (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My concerns were addressed. Aaron Bowen 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's interesting and novel, but the article relies enormously on just one reference source (the Bernstein book) which appears to be largely a repeated discussion by fighters of why fighting should remain in the game. The article needs more sources and more points of view. Also, with just one main source so often cited, the possibility of (inadvertent) plagiarism seems likely, particularly given that the Bernstein book is not mentioned in the article itself. Finally, some of the content just doesn't seem correct even to a layperson such as myself. The section on 'Fighting etiquette' states that "Fair fighting is maintained by not wearing equipment that could injure the opposing fighter, like face shields or masks." Last night I saw an advertisement for a video featuring hockey fights and noticed that about 80% of the clips showed players fighting while wearing masks, often when just one player was wearing a mask. Count Caspian 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback! Replies:
      • I'm not convinced that the article relying heavily on one source is a problem - in this case, the Bernstein book is really the only comprehensive reference available on the subject. No one else has researched and written about hockey fighting at this level of detail. I feel that both the book and this article are well-balanced. Neither are intended to be an argument "for" fighting, but an explanation of why fighting exists in hockey and how it is governed and carried out. This ideology governed my entire writing process for this article.
      • Saying that there is a possibility of inadvertent plagiarism is not actionable feedback; you would need get the book, evaluate the possibility, and post examples.
      • Ditto for suggesting that content doesn't "seem correct". I wrote the article based on the sources I cited; if I surmised content based on what I see in hockey clips, that would be original research, which is prohibited. Your comment doesn't even really make sense since the vast majority of hockey players in the NHL, where most fighting occurs, do not wear facial protection. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting article. Well written and referenced. Well done! --Phill talk Edits 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, well-referenced, fun article. · jersyko talk 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very ready for FA status. Good luck! Evilclown93 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Almost every section heading violates WP:MSH. Notable fights section is listy and should be prosified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sandy I read WP:MSH and I don't understand how it does. Maybe I'm not getting it, could you explain it to me? Aaron Bowen 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to repeat the word "Fighting" in almost every section heading. For example, History or Critism alone suffice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I had high hopes for this as it seemed a quirky topic. I'd like to see more references used but it isn't crucial (sometimes there aren't more references) and the list of notable fights seems like a reasonable way to handle the information in this case, but the structure and writing are poor and some parts don't make sense. If you can sort out these problems, I'll support as the core of the article isn't bad. Some examples in no particular order:
    • Jargon is used before it is explained: "dropping the gloves" for example.
      • Fixed.
    • Protection of star players is quoted as a personal reason for starting a fight. How is that personal? More explanation is needed at the very least.
      • That was a mistake - I moved it to game-related reasons. Nice catch. :)
    • Enforcers are said to typically fight only among themselves yet numerous examples of possible fight combinations involving other players are given.
      • Clarified. Anything other than enforcer vs. enforcer is a a rare exception.
    • European fights are said to be more violent because the penalties are stiffer. Those two facts wouldn't seem to be obviously connected, so further explanation is needed.
      • I did clarify, but reread - it reads that European games are more violent because fighting doesn't keep the players in check.
    • Averages are given as if they are straight statistics: "the decline of fighting in the NHL to .61 fights per game". Also, the reference used to support these statistics doesn't seem to quote them unless I'm missing something.
      • Revised for clarification. The source supports the statistics.
    • "Third Man In" rule is reintroduced after it has been explained.
      • Fixed.
    • "enforcer" and "fighting" are repeated when pronouns or synonyms would make for easier reading. I've cut a few of these.
      • I didn't find any more that I would change. Generally, specific terms are preferable to pronouns when any possibility of being unclear exists.
    • The second paragraph of "Tactics" covers rules, not tactics, so should have been in the earlier rules section.
      • Moved to the correct section.
    • Enforcers apparently respect other enforcers who refuse a fight because they are injured. Why would that be? They respect their level-headed approach to the risk of further injury? Or perhaps they respect their wishes rather than the players themselves?
      • Clarified this.
    • "Finally, whatever the outcome of the fight, etiquette dictates that enforcers win and lose gracefully." - are other players allowed to be bad losers? Much of the article uses enforcers interchangeably with players which makes it hard work out when something applies only to enforcers.
      • Clarified where I found examples of this.
    • I'd like to know more about the role of enforcer. I know it has its own article, but a one liner here seems too little. It seems as if their only purpose is to roam the ice looking for trouble. Do they have role to play in the team other than instigating fights, or is it enough for them to be able to stand up on the ice and punch somebody? Do coaches employ them tactically? Yomanganitalk 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Introduced a summary section of the enforcer article.
    Thanks for all your great feedback - hopefully this allowed us to close the gap a bit more. I believe I have addressed all of your points. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All my objections seem to have been comprehensively addressed (even those I where I was mistaken). Yomanganitalk 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am British and I know very little about ice hockey. I am surprised to read the disambiguation as the first sentences: "This article is about condoned fighting in ice hockey. For disallowed violent acts, see Violence in ice hockey." It is not obvious to me from the titles of these two pages that they describe different aspects of the game. Does the ice hockey community really consider "fighting" tacitly acceptable while "violence" is clearly illegal? Perhaps the title of the article should be changed to a more obvious description of the article's content? Axl 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes in general fighting in ice hockey is accepted. I think there was a discussion in the peer review about Fighting/Violence. But violence referces to illegal acts such as using your stick as a weapon and etc. --Krm500 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, that is the precise reason for the disambiguation notice. --Mus Musculus (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Good article, well referenced, looks like a winner. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the obligatory mention of the broad street bullies? :) Raul654 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! I've actually been looking for a great source to add something about them. My books and articles only have passing mentions. If you know of one, please let me know. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Bart King[edit]

John Barton King is the greatest cricketer in the history of the United States. Of course, this is my opinion, but also the opinion of many of the greatest cricketers of his generation and later generations. This article has gone through quite a bit of work since I got my hands on it. I tried to do everything systematically with the help of the folks at WP:CRIC. After some initial improvements and edits, it was put up for Peer Review before being listed as a Good Article Candidate. After its promotion to good status, I went to the League of Copyeditors and had someone give it a thorough copy edit. Following this, I put it up for Peer Review Again. After a few more great suggestions from various places, I think that it is now ready to be featured. I've addressed all the concerns that have come up in Peer Reviews and on the talk page save a call for a chart of batting performances. In the cricket wikiproject this task generally falls to Raven4x4x and he has assured me that it's on the way. He's been inactive for a couple weeks, but I don't believe it changes the quality of the article a great deal. It will be a nice addition when it arrives. The CC Morris Cricket Library has been most helpful in scanning images of King (and other Philadelphian cricketers) from their collection for use on Wikipedia. All of this being said, I am hereby nominating Bart King as a Featured Article Candidate.--Eva bd 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It was pretty good when I copyedited it a few weeks ago, and it is even better now. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this is a very interesting and well referenced article, I can't help thinking that it could benefit from some more information about his post-cricket life and career? There's about fifty years there on which the article has barely a word. Angmering 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I suspect that most of the reviewers and contributors thus far have been interested in the cricket aspect of things so this has not come up. I'll look into that a bit more. Thanks for the helpful criticism.--Eva bd 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information available on his death, the causes and where he died? LuciferMorgan 19:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can put the general date and location of death on the page. I've also shot off an e-mail to the CC Morris Library to see if they've got any more information on his post-cricket life. That being said, I do not think that this information is essential. This article still meets the comprehensiveness FA criterion because it comprehensively covers that part of his life that makes him notable (his cricket career). My inclination is that he continued in the insurance industry later in life, but that is hardly what makes him notable. If I can find a source that notes this, I'll include it, but I'm not sure much more than that is needed. Thanks so much for your continued suggestions.--Eva bd 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly his obituary in The Times isn't very helpful on the later life front, simply saying that he died in a Philadelphia nursing home. Angmering 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's better than nothing. It supports the "old age" theory. Do you have a citation on that so it can be included at the end of the article?--Eva bd 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a mention, with the citation. Angmering 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fairly well referred and the fact that he's like the first American cricketer going for FA! Although, I would like a little section about his post life as noted above.--THUGCHILDz 05:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe all of the criteria are met by this article. Reads nicely, and is well (but not overly) referenced. Is comprehensible to the non-cricketing reader. As a minor aside, the link for AM Wood's XI in the table needs correcting, as discussed on the article talk page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the same reasons already mentioned. Andrew nixon 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Pontiac's Rebellion[edit]

Self-nomination: Here's a topic you read about in history class but have probably forgotten what the hell was all about. I've been working on this on-and-off for about 2.5 years, taking extra time because important books on the topic were published as I wrote. I think it's ready now. A recent WikiProject Military history review is here; an old peer review, written back when God was a boy, is here. I thank those who have helped copyedit the article over the years, and User:WBardwin, who has essentially been the Executive Producer. Hope you like the article; I look forward to your comments. —Kevin Myers 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support They certainly never taught this topic in any history lesson I attended, so I can't agree or disagree with the tone of the content, but the formatting and writing meets FA guidelines as far as I can tell.-- Zleitzen(talk) 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, thoroughly excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article Orbitalwow 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As mentioned in its A-Class nomination page, spectacular article. Incredibly well written. I've no problem with this being a feature article.
    Cam 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is so good, it makes me embarassed about every article I have ever worked on. If there were a category higher than "Featured Article" this one would be the first in it. I cannot stop gushing. Really, this was an enjoyable read, well referenced, I mean, really. This is just too good. Congrats!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Really, a great article indeed. DS 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support. A lovely article, but one thing has stopped me supporting it wholeheartedly. There doesn't seem to be an inline citation for the following quote, in the Small forts taken section: "they were Obliged to do it by the other Nations." -- Avenue 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known that 98 footnotes weren't quite enough. ;-) The cite for that quote was in the next sentence; I've moved it to the proper place. Thanks for catching that. —Kevin Myers 13:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'm now happy to support it. -- Avenue 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Orbitalwow and DS; the format of the notes is different than what I tend to see, but I suppose that's arbitrary to some extent. Cliff smith 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! For the sake of simplicity and for what I hope is a professional look, I always follow the Chicago Manual of Style for footnotes, which is (mostly) standard for published professional history. Sometimes I think I'm the one of the few Wikipedians who doesn't have a personalized, idiosyncratic footnoting style. ;-) —Kevin Myers 00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brilliant article deserves FA class. Kyriakos 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, might even slide into the brilliant prose category. --Phoenix (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well-written article, great job guys! Zelmerszoetrop 23:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very nice article, and it's good to see some Chicago-style referencing where it's appropriate. Most articles don't do it because in 98 refs they'll use 70+ sources, but when the balance is a little better it looks much more professional to do it like this. --PresN 04:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Eye (cyclone)[edit]

Yes, yet another article by WikiProject Tropical cyclones. However, this is not your typical FAC, as this isn't a storm article, but rather deals with the meteorological background information behind the "eye of the storm". It currently is a GA, it had an archived peer review, and a WikiProject review. While you can "blame" Runningonbrains the most for the article, as he is the primary contributor, I've worked a fair bit on it as well, so this can be called a self-nom. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good in places, but a couple of points. The opening line contradicts the last three subsections regarding the idea that tropical cyclones are the only storms with eyes. Perhaps 'Hazards' and 'Other Storms' could be expanded a little. All the citations seem to be from good sources and are well put together technically, but in my own (humble) opinion one citation for two whole paragraphs isn't enough, and there are a couple of these in this article. Even if both paragraphs are form the same source, I think you should still put it in to make it clear, otherwise a reader may wonder where you got the info from. Great images and image captions (oft overlooked). SGGH 08:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with some strings attached. Does Other storms need so have all of the subsections? An example for Project Stormfury might be good, though it's not necessary. The first paragraph of formation could use a source. Also, has there been any papers released in the last year with any better information regarding the formation of the eye? How it forms is pretty important, and the source provided is from 2006. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. -- as a scientific article, I still maintain that metric units should be the primary one. (primary oppose)
  2. September 12, 2001 --> wikify
  3. Hurricane Hunters is interesting, is there something similar in other parts of the world?
  4. "2.1 Detection" -- single section is bad style.
  5. 8:22 a.m. CDT --> 08:22 CDT (Add UTC too)
  6. I'm curious, the eye is much lower in pressure as compared to the rest of the cyclone. Does that constitute to a temperature drop too?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment More than willing to share the "blame" with you, Titoxd, as well as Thegreatdr, who also helped quite a bit. As the FAC on Tornado just closed, I suppose I'll get to work on satisfying these demands... -RunningOnBrains 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do that on the units. (I see that WP:MOSNUM has the "SI for science" a line above the "source first" recommendation, which was what why I put Imperial first). I'll fix the date and time, and give me a chance to figure out if temperature has anything to do with the eye (my gut feeling says no, but I'll double-check that). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the units should be corrected now, except one, which originally was in nautical miles, and was not 100% sure whether to modify or not. (It is listed in nmi (km, mi) format, with kilometers first, though.) As for the temperature in the eye - no, it actually is warmer; most cyclones have a cold-core structure, which means that their strongest winds are in the higher layers of the troposphere. Tropical cyclones, on the other hand, have a warm-core structure, as their engine is completely different (latent heat of condensation), and their inner structure is warmer than the surroundings.[31] Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the Hurricane Hunters are only used in the Eastern Pacific and Atlantic tropical cyclone basins. There's no equivalent program in other places, AFAIK. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the fixes. Could the temperature thing be mentioned in the article too (if it's there, sorry I couldn't find it)? And secondly, that gif image needs to be converted to png (svg if possible). =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      What is the reasoning for converting a gif to a png?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. It's the recommened format for diagrams. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Further discussion on this is off-topic for the FAC, taking to talk pages.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just did the first one. I'll try to see whether I can do the second one as well, but I'm not 100% sure about how to do so. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should have a PNG now, as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the png by an svg version I just created. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've run into a bit of a snag: It seems that Image:Typhoon Amber concentric eyewalls.gif is not free after all, and will probably be deleted soon. I am trying to find a suitable replacement, but it is proving difficult.-RunningOnBrains 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's Image:Cyclone Olaf 2005.jpg. The moat is very visible there as well, and it is a MODIS pic, so it is {{PD-NASA}}. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can barely see it myself. I was hoping to get another one like Amber where it is obvious what the article is talking about. Maybe the image should just be omitted.-RunningOnBrains 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good news Discussion at Commons has led to the discovery that the Typhoon Amber image is free for use in Wikipedia, so no replacement is needed
  • Comment—Quite good, but a few things to fix. This otherwise deserves promotion, so a final copy-edit of the whole text by an unfamiliar WPian would do the trick. Here are examples I easily picked up at the top.
    • "outside OF"? Remove redundant word.
    • "roughly-circular"—Remove hyphen.
    • "Which" occurs four times in two adjacent sentences in the lead; reword to avoid some of them.
  • "the eye, as well as the air directly above it, are warmer than their surroundings."—Plurality of the subject is questionable, so "are" is uncomfortable. Try just "and".
  • "three km (2 mi)"—Need to use a numeral when attached to a measurement.
  • "While it is very uncommon for storms with large eyes to become very intense, it does occur, especially in annular hurricanes. Hurricane Isabel was the eleventh most powerful Atlantic hurricane of all time, and sustained a large, 65–80 km (40–50 mi)-wide eye for a period of several days.[9]" Two instances of "very" in one sentence; remove at least the first, and possibly both. Here, "11th", as a two-digit number, might be better as a numeral. Remove "a period of" as redundant. Can "several" be replaced with the number of days? Tony 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think I got all of those, except for the bit about how many days Isabel was a major hurricane with a large eye...I honestly don't know. Then again, I agree that the article needs fresh eyes for a copyedit, as I've been looking at this page for too long to notice the little things that are wrong. -RunningOnBrains 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more concerns with the article? It has been two weeks since anyone has commented here... -RunningOnBrains 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There seems to be maybe one too many images in the article. The entire right side is filled with images. Perhaps removing one? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced the bulky Emily image with a more appropriate one. I also moved some around, I hope that is sufficient. -RunningOnBrains 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any references for the diameter of the eye? - SpLoT // 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (But I don't like to see mathmatical notation in non-math articles. Can you change this to prose? ... (≥ 51 km/h, 32 mph). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Conatus[edit]

Self-nom: I brought this article up from nothing with the great help of Lacatosias (see the peer review), and now I think it is ready to be promoted from a GA (the review) to a Featured Article. If you have any objections that are even theoretically fixable, I shall of course do my best to address them. Thank you for reading it: we need more philosophy FAs. -- Rmrfstar 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just some initial comments here that are not necessarily objectionable. Please don't hide the table of contents: if a user chooses to hide it, he has the option to do so. Is there any reason you prefer the Harvard citation style over the ref style? I would say that 99% of FAs these days are done using the ref style and I personally think it is not only much easier but decreases the general clutter during a read. Your "Related terms" section needs to be fixed: the images conflict with the text. JHMM13 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. I was going to mention that myself. But I thought that this Harv thing (which I loathe) had become the new standard or something.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't hide the table of contents, it was aligned to the right... I thought it looked better that way, but someone undid that. I have plenty of reasons that I used the Harvard style, the most important of which is this article is heavily referenced with page numbers for almost all citations. I also really don't like giant whitespace created by the ref style; I think this one is far easier (I've used both)! And Lacatosias seems to have removed the probematic images. -- Rmrfstar 01:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use page citations in the ref style. Almost all recent FAs have them. I'll abstain from the "vote" then. JHMM13 05:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article looks more cohesive and professional without that huge list at the bottom. And according to a number of pages of citation policy and guidelines, this style should be accepted alongside the ref/note one. Perhaps this is no longer true because practically everyone that I've ever seen uses the latter. -- Rmrfstar 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I disagree with your reasons, I respect your right to abstain from "voting". -- Rmrfstar 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the ref system is in, I find nothing else wrong with this article pending fixing of the current issues by other users. Support.

: "In ancient Greece, Cicero, Laertius and Aristotle each alluded". Maybe I am not so familiar with the orology here but "ancient Greece" and "Cicero" together? Is he another Cicero who lived in ancient Greece? And IMO "Related terms" should be prose; it looks listy to me, but again this may be a personal preference. Apart from these issues, very nice indeed.--Yannismarou 11:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh! And avoid disamb links (e.g. Louis Dumont, you want me to go to the sociologist or the political writer?). The same with will.--Yannismarou 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the ancient Greece section and disambiguated those two links... I don't think the "related terms" are interrelated enough to put them in one section, nor significant enough to put them in separate ones. I'll play around with it though... -- Rmrfstar 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the related usages section. you can flip back if you like, expand or whatever.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely not change it back; it's very much improved! -- Rmrfstar 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Yannismarou 08:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref style and Harv style can be merged, please see the article Rabindranath Tagore which also is heavily referenced with page numbers for almost all citations. The style which this article (Conatus) uses at present is causing a general clutter during a read. This can be decreased. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am familiar with alternatives to the Harvard style, including a combination of Harvard and Ref/Note: please see the Featured Articles Sylvia (ballet), Roman Vishniac, Atomic line filter (this uses the combination mentioned above) and Hippocrates (this one too), all of which I worked on. I do not like the way these look. The ref/note style creates huge, ugly whitespaces and makes multiple references of the same source difficult, redundant and/or uninformative. It also stops working on many mirrors of Wikipdedia. It also looks less professional IMHO.
Second: The Harvard referencing page and a few significant other ones describe the Harvard reference style as "recommended" along with the more common footnotes. I prefer the current version, yet recognize it is atypical. If the general consensus is against me, and against current guidelines, then the combo can be implemented. However, then, I think, the matter should be brought up with the larger Wikipedia community whether the Harvard style is ever acceptable or preferable. Our encyclopedia's guidelines and FAC criteria should be descriptive, and its readers shouldn't be encouraged to spend time following them if they are not. Notably, the FAC criterium 1c does not specify that only the ref/note style is accepted; but, it instead cites WP:CITE (sorry) as the place for recommendations for styles. This page, of course, lists Embedded Links, Harvard Style and Footnote systems all as acceptable. If the second (and maybe the first, too) is not (or is only acceptable when used in conjuction with footnotes), then we must change the guidelines or the criterium. *phew* -- Rmrfstar 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I liked the *phew* at the end :) Yes, of course the style in the article is acceptable per WP:CITE, otherwise people would have objected in stead of writing comments. It's just that the style appears rather less aesthetic (to me). It's a matter of personal choice. Anyway, this cannot be a ground for objection.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's hideously ugly (links "light up" and so on) and cumbersome to use. It seems obvious that most people seem to agree with me on this. You don't WP:OWN the article, of course, so I will change to cites.php style. This will also give me a better idea of what is lacking in the article in terms of content and references. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine... but then the encyclopedia guidelines and FA critera must be fixed... -- Rmrfstar 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UT


Support: there are a few awkward phrasings here and there. Otherwise, the article is comprehensive, factually accurate and very well-referenced. It's about as well as one can possibly do with an article of this nature (i.e on a single, relatively abstruse, metaphysical term). Doesn't seem over-technical to me (but non-philosophers may differ). Nice work.---Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a good article on a difficult topic. I have a few comments, most of which are on the prose. I certainly feel that I am close to supporting.

  • The history of the term conatus is the story of a gradual evolution. - vague - from what to what? Since its meaning disintegrates, perhaps "evolution" is not the best term.
    • Evolution just means change, but the process was not gradual now that you mention it.Revised and precisified. FF
  • I would link your use of "vulgar" to wiktionary since your usage is not what the lay reader would recognize as the common definition.
    • Done.FF
  • Today, conatus is rarely used in the technical sense, since modern physics and evolutionary biology use concepts that have superseded it. - such as?
    • Fixed. FF
  • but the concept of the conatus was first developed in the Greek language by the Stoics before the Common Era. - can you develop a concept in a language? the diction seems odd to me here
    • Fixed. FF
  • expanded this principle to include a repulsion from destruction - "repulsion from destruction" sounds odd as well - a "fear of destruction" perhaps?
    • aversion to destruction. Fixed. FF
  • extended the primitive Greek notions and applied them to all objects, animate and inanimate - why are Greek notions "primitive"?
    • Changed to ancient. FF
  • In other words, the cause for human desire is our conatus, and the natural inclination for a body to augment itself in accordance with its principles. - last clause is missing something, I'm not sure what, though - I couldn't quite follow this sentence; the "and" suggests both of these clauses are reasons for human desire but that doesn't seem right
    • I think I've taken care of this. I've removed the ambiguity, but let me know if I have distorted the meaning intended in some way. FF
  • noting the inconsistency between Aristotle's discussion of projectiles, where the medium keeps projectiles going, and his discussion of the void, where the medium would hinder a body's motion - please mention what the medium is for those unfamiliar with Aristotle
    • My fault. Fixed and clarified. FF
  • There are various pages to choose from as a link for "Scholastics" in the "Descartes" section. I urge you to choose one.
    • Done. FF
  • A question: How can Descartes not endorse a teleological view if he endorsed a God-centered conatus and innate ideas implanted by God?
    • Ok, here's a short and simplified answer to this question: first of all, innate ideas has nothing to do with the natural world. The mind is a seperate ontological categeory which does not obey the stricly mechanical cause-effect laws of nature (interchange and displacement of atoms in the material plenum of nature). Motion and rest are properties of the interactions of atoms according to eternally fixed mechanical laws of nature. God only sets the whole thing in motion at the start and later does not interefer except to maintain the dynamical regularities of the mechanical behavior of bodies. Hence there is no real teleology (purpose) in the movements of bodies since the whole thing reduces to the law-governed collisions of atoms and their constant reconfigurations. The conatus is just the tendency of bodies to move when they are collide with each other and so on. God sets it in motion, but thereafter no NEW motion or rest can be created or destroyed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. If you don't understand it now....FF
        • Does God know what is going to happen after he sets the system in motion? Is there free will in Descartes' system? Awadewit 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, he/she/it is omniscient. Yes, free will does exist for Decsrates. But this is taking us into Descartes' philosophy of religion. I don't remember how he reconciles the omnipotence/free will problem, but such views are obviously common even now. I don't have the knowledge/respirces to go there at the moment, to be honest. I've run into many articles arguing that Dscartes cannot entirely eliminate telology from even his mechanical system. Descartes clearly insisted otherwise. His physical/biological system (excluding mind)was intended to be as mechanistic as possible (animals are automatons, for example). The system was at least mechanistic enough to help inspire the rise of mechanism with La Mettrie (Man the Machine) and so forth. The only thing relevant for this article, I think, is to point out that Descartes' use of conatus is ambigous and, sometimes, contradictory. The two main interpretations of Descartes' view of conatus are the one I have described, and another one which suggests simply that the introduction of conatus and related forces are a throwback to Scholasticism and undermine the non-teleological, non-qualititive project. It's rather complex and subtle. But that's the best I can do without getting too heavily into the free will/omniscience problem (should be deal with elsewehere) and without going beyond my sources.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm more curious than anything - just trying to understand all of the complexities. Awadewit 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • This law is very closely related to Isaac Newton's better-known Law of Inertia, which was developed fifty years later. - but did he have the math? I know Descartes was a phenomenal mathematician, but what made Newton's laws such a breakthrough was that he could prove them.
  • Furthermore, Hobbes describes emotion as the beginning of motion and the will as the sum of all emotions. This "will" forms the conatus of a body[14] and its physical manifestation is the perceived "will to survive" - This sounds a little like Hume - desires drive the will which drives the reason. Is there a connection here?
    • Hume has no concept of conatus and Hobbes was earlier anyway. What's the point of mentioning Hume?FF
      • I was more curious than anything. Knowledge and all. Awadewit 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When referring to psychological manifestations of the concept, he uses the term voluntas (will). When referring to the overarching concept, he uses the word appetitus (appetite). When referring to the bodily impulse, he uses the plain term "conatus"." - Why are we bolding now? Seems unnecessary - italics are fine. (Other words get bolded throughout - no need to do that.)
    • Fixed. FF
      • Yea, I did that because Spinoza uses appetitus and voluntas as synonyms for the eponymous conatus, and both terms are redirects to Conatus. I think it best that their boldness is reinstated. -- Rmrfstar 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is perfectly understandable in the text - it is confusing why certain terms are bolded, though. You might ask others. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes he expands the term and uses the whole phrase, "conatus sese conservandi" (the striving for self-preservation).[28] - Latin should be in italics.
    • Fixed. FF
  • Spinoza asserts the existence of this general principle of a "conatus" in attempting to explain the "self-evident" truth that "nothing can be destroyed except by an external cause" (IIIP4). - What is this reference to?
    • Book III, proposition 4... I don't understand what's wrong with the statement; but perhaps that is because I'm too close to the material... What exactly doesn't make sense?
      • That is far from clear, actually, to people who don't read Spinoza. I thought it was Book III, paragraph 4 (as it is in Locke). But, actually, from my perspective the error was far more egregious. You did not mention which text you are citing. We do not all have Spinoza memorized. :) Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I presume this is the Ethics, but I'll look it up to confirm.FF
          • Done. FF
  • This resistance to self-destruction is formulated by Spinoza to equal an anthropomorphic endeavoring to continue to exist - "anthropomorphic" is unclear - a little explanation would be helpful
    • how's this: "to equal a human endeavoring to continue to exist"?
      • Better - "the human desire to continue to exist"? Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As he states in IIIP8 - what is this text?
    • Fixed. FF
  • Spinoza, extending the concepts of his predecessors, used the term conatus to refer to rudimentary concepts of inertia, as Descartes had even earlier. - how can he be expanding if Descartes had already done it?
    • Fixed. FF
  • There are inconsistencies in verb tense in the "Spinoza" section - carefully choose when you use the past tense and when the present tense. There were some present tenses that should have been past tenses.
    • Fixed. FF
  • Spinoza's view of the relationship between the conatus and the human affects is not clear. - "affects" links to a disambiguation page - which link do you want?
    • Fixed. FF
  • Spinoza states in IVP18 of his Ethics - perhaps just "Spinoza states in his Ethics"?
    • Fixed. FF
  • "conatus" should always be italicized.
    • Done. FF
  • Leibniz did do much to develop the concept of a conatus, incorporating it into the principles of the integral calculus. - please explain
    • I changed the wording around a bit to try and make the significance of that statement more clear. Conatus as a differential and in Leibnizian dynamics is described in the second paragraph.
      • Leibniz did do much to develop the concept of a conatus, incorporating it into the principles of the integral calculus; he thus made significant contributions to the early science of physical dynamics, adapting the meaning of the term conatus, in this case, to signify a mathematical analog of Newton's "force". - I'm afraid that I still don't understand - this sentence still does not explain how Leibniz "incorporated" the conatus into integral calculus. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. FF
  • The second paragraph of "Leibniz" could be explained in greater detail.
    • What in it? I consider this paragraph a basic summary, if concise, of the signicance of the conatus principle in Leibniz's mathematical and physical theories.
      • I don't think that the links are sufficient - you are relying on them to explain concepts that very few people know (also two of them are red links!). I cannot make out what you are saying and I actually do know a bit about Newton, Kepler and the late seventeenth century philosophers. I'm sorry to be difficult - it's just that I actually do want to understand the page and want it to be understandable to philosophy non-experts. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe FF has dealt with this now. -- Rmrfstar 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps in the "Modern significance" section you could explain that it was not just replaced but that the new theories are based on an entirely different methodology, namely the scientific method?
    • It shall be done.
  • In general, I think that the article should have more dates to anchor the reader who may have a poor grasp of history or may only have a grasp of certain sections of history.
    • A bunch of these were added before you read it; where are they still lacking?
      • Medieval section, Descartes and Spinoza don't have birth/death dates like Hobbes, all works should have publication dates, "Related usages" could use a lot more dates, etc. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My fault. I will restore them. Not a problem. FF
        • Done. FF
  • There are some page numbers missing from some of the footnotes and some page numbers missing from some of the article citations in the Bibliography and the Further Reading. Awadewit 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately my referencing is not perfect: sometimes I could not get the page number for various reasons (say the source didn't have pages...). The most painful instance of this is for the nietzsche material which is on my todo list.
      • I also would discourage the use of the book template that joins citations together so that you can't quote page numbers. I found footnote 2 particularly annoying. But that is a personal preference. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC
        • The reason that citation doesn't have page numbers is because it's from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has no pages. -- Rmrfstar 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My mistake. I assumed that the source was a book. Usually people link to web sources in the notes if they are using web sources as a courtesy to the reader. You might do that. Awadewit 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope I've helped out here. I will get to Descartes non-teleological notion a bit later. Hopefully, User:Rmfstar can answer some of the reference questions. I'll deal with the non-telelogical view of Descartes later on.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for those answers. Awadewit 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, what's left and necessary for a "support"? -- Rmrfstar 23:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few very small things and then I will support.
  • This law is a generalization of the principle of inertia, which was developed and demonstrated earlier by Galileo, and later adopted by Isaac Newton as his first Law of Motion fifty years later. - I still have a problem with this sentence. First, it uses "later" twice; and second, according to the Newton's laws of motion page, Newton was the first person to prove the law, so I would not say he just "adopted" it - he "proved" it, perhaps? Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is a mess and is not referenced at all. It certainly doesn't even assert that he "proved" it. Here's a good explanation of what really happened. Let's not start with the racist stuff here. Galileo proved it (insofar as such a thing is even possible with the inclined plane and the moving boat. Descartes generalized and Newton came up with the other two laws, making the three laws of motion. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a random site with very little information. According to the "Introduction" in my copy of the Principia (Cohen and Whitman translation):
"sometime in the 1660s, Newton made a series of computations, one of which was aimed at proving that what was later known as the outward or centrifugal force arising from the earth's rotation is less than the earth's gravity, as it must be for the Copernican system to be possible. He then computed a series of forces. Cartesian vortical endeavors are not the kind of forces that, in the Principia, are exerted by the sun on the planets to keep them in a curved path or the similar force exerted by the earth on the moon. At this time, and for some years to come, Newton was deeply enmeshed in the Cartesian doctrine of vortices. He had no concept of a 'force of gravity' acting on the moon in anything like the later sense of the dynamics of the Principia. These Cartesian 'endeavours' (Newton used Descartes's own technical term, 'conatus') are the magnitude of the planets' endeavors to fly out of their orbits. Newton concludes that since the cubes of the distances of the planets from the sun are 'reciprocally as the squared numbers of their revolutions in a given time,' their 'conatus to recede from the Sun will be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the Sun.' Newton also made computations to show that the endeavor or 'conatus' of receding from the earth's surface (caused by the earth's daily rotation) is 12 1/2 times greater than the orbital endeavor of the moon to recede from the earth. He concludes that the force of receding at the earth's surface is '4000 and more times greater than the endeavor of the Moon to recede from the Earth.' In other words, 'Newton had discovered an interesting mathematical correlation within the solar vortex,' but he had plainly had not as yet invented the radically new concept of a centripetal dynamical force" (14-15) - So it seems to me that Newton was applying Cartesian math as well as philosophy but that he still was the one who brought it all together in the end. It's the bringing together that is so hard in science, as I am sure you know. Awadewit 09:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats says nat a word about the specific phenomenon of INERTIA. You don't want me to whip out my original Italian vernacular copy of Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi and show excatly where Galileo discusses proves inertia (an empirical phenomenona which cannot be proved mathematically,BTW, with the experiments of the inclined plane and the moving boat). It will take days to find and translate this. Let's see of I can find something more authoritative in English, though I thought this was obvious.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We are obviously not getting anywhere with this. I just thought that the Newton sentence was misleading, but let's that go and focus on the citations. Awadewit 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes without pages numbers (that are not websources): 11, 16, 27 (? - is Osiris a database?), 40, 41, 50 (is this in a database?), 54 (is this in a database?), 57, 62, 66, 68 - the Thomson/Gale document number is not clear to me - is this a typical way of searching some database? I use Thomson/Gale's Eighteenth Century Collections Online database, for example, but one would never reference a document by number, as far as I know, or search by number. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not today. holiday in Italy. FF
        • You can find Thomson Gale documents using their numbers: see [32]. The number is redundant anyway: if you can't use it, ignore it. And not every short journal article needs page numbers. Those found by me with the Thomson Gale system are purely digital and do not have page numbers. -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "You can also make note of this number to return to the record in a later session, since searching by document number is often a search option in Advanced Search, if Advanced Search is available in the collection you are currently using. When Advanced Search is not available, some collections offer a document number search as its own search page that you can link to from the search path bar." - Which database are you referring to? Does it have this ability? Also, what if someone doesn't have access to the database but wants the article anyway? Then they would need the original publication information. This is a basic courtesy to the reader. Awadewit 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, I have included the basic publication information for those that can't use the Thomson Gale database. But for those who can, I have provided the number for ease of use. -- Rmrfstar 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (back out) Let us look at an example.
  • Arthur, Richard (1998), "Cohesion, Division and Harmony: Physical Aspects of Leibniz's Continuum Problem (1671-1686)", Perspectives on Science 110 (1), Thomson Gale Document Number:A54601187. This is what I mean. What database is this in? Thomson/Gale publishes hundreds of databases. To me, this citation looks like Perspectives on Science is a journal and you are referencing the 110th volume and the first issue. Why not just give the page numbers as well so that those who cannot access whatever database you are referring to have the most precise information? I can't understand the resistance here. It is standard practice to cite journal article page numbers. Also, if someone wants to request a journal article through interlibrary loan, they usually have to have the page numbers. Awadewit 01:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still looks to me like there are journal articles without page numbers in the "Bibliography" and the "Further Reading" and not all of the citations are formatted the same way. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might need some help from the nominator here and with the previous. FF
All of the citations use the one Template:Citation and so are completely consistent and standardized. If there are not page numbers for items in the Further reading section, it's because (I intended) the whole work should be read, or there is no especially relevant section. -- 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
By "citations" do you mean the footnotes? That's fine if you are referring to whole works in a footnote, although that is often difficult on a reader. What I was referring to was journal articles without page numbers (I've never seen this in a bibliography - what if you are getting the journal in paper format? wouldn't the page numbers be nice?). Also, the bibliography and further reading sections are not all cited the same way; for example, some books have the places of publication and some do not. Standardization of these small elements is easy and makes the page look more professional. Awadewit 17:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you not get a better source for the Buridan than that website? It looks a little sketchy when you go to it - just text typed in by a professor for his Astronomy 203 class. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a problem. Quickly fixed. FF
  • Spinoza, Baruch & Samuel Shirley (1677), in Morgan, Michael L., Ethics, at 66-67 - I find this reference confusing. Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem. Quickly fixed FF
        • What was changed? -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing yet. FF
        • There's a problem with translations. They don't seem to be accomodated by this Citation template.

For example, one needs to say: last = Spinoza, first = B. translator = Curley, E. But thus has to be either last2, first2 or editor. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • That's why I don't use the templates. They are crap. I just write out everything myself.
            • I enjoy their ease of use, and the inter-article standardization it brings. -- Rmrfstar 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groopman, Leonard Charles, The concept of conatus in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes - a publisher and a year at least, please! Awadewit 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quickly fixed. FF
        • What was changed? -- Rmrfstar 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, no, I couldn't find anything on this one. Do you have the dates, etc..? FF
            • I don't. But it's only Further Reading, so the page numbers or the whole citation could be deleted. -- Rmrfstar 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks to me as if their are differences of opinion over reference issues. The only thing I will say is 1) I'm not (and I don't think anyone else is) going to rewrite all the references so that they can include the translator and so on. The CITATION template format stays. If that's not acceptable, those who don't like will have to abstain or something. 2) I will work on finding specific page numbers, but I can't promise anything since I don't have access to most of these documents.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no differences of opinion over reference issues. If you want to use the citation template, that's fine. I was just expressing my personal opinion that it is sometimes difficult to use. The issue at hand is that the page's "Bibliography" and "Further reading" do not have all of the necessary information. Page numbers are de rigeur for journal articles. There is inconsistency in the way the page cites books (some have places of publication and some do not). I realize that the editors of this page have been burned by citation issues above (I feel that the demand to switch from Harvard was completely inappropriate, by the way), but that does not make my requests illegitimate as well. I assume that both of you are academics (one of you at least says so on his/her userpage). You must then know that this kind of citation doesn't fly in the philosophy world. My current stack of Locke books, for example, cites books and articles consistently and gives as much information as possible. Could we simply offer the same courtesy to our readers on wikipedia that we do when we write books and articles for the academic world? Really, I don't understand the problem here. Awadewit 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, no difference of opinion,then. As I noted above, the problem for me is that I do not have access to all of the books and papers that are referenced here. I've done subtanstial work to try to dig up some of these and have tried to correct many of the inconsistencies. Just look at the edit history!! But I can't do it all, because I don't have access to a library with all of these English books and papers at the moment. In fact, I am not well at the moment and have no access to anything except what is on the Internet or my bookshelves. That's the problem for me. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a few tiny things still.
  • Duchesneau, Francois (Spring-Summer), "Leibniz's Theoretical Shift in the Phoranomus and Dynamica de Potentia", Perspectives on Science 6 (2): 77 -109, Thomson Gale Document Number: A54601186 - year please?
1998... I fixed this.
  • Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von (1988), "Exposition and Defence of the New System", in Morris, Mary, M.A., Leibniz: Philosophical Writings, at 136
Is that what you are referring to? "London, J. M. Dent & Sons (Everyman's Library), 1934. (English trans.)" - whole line is unclear - what does "at 136" mean? It could be that Morris' translation was published in multiple editions; if that is the case, which one did you use?
That's page 136. I don't believe that's the edition; it's from the wrong year. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So say "p.136." What about the rest? What publication are you using? This is very confusing. Who published this? See how incomplete data leads to confusion? That is the Morris translation I found on the web. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I found more information on that exact publication. I included this in the article and fleshed out the reference so there should be no more ambiguity there. -- Rmrfstar 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von (1695/1989), in Ariew, Roger & Daniel Garber - incomplete
There was a typo. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spinoza, Baruch (2005), in Curley, Edmund, Ethics, Penguin Classics, at 144-146 - New York, right? I tried to add it in myself, but I didn't want to mess up your template.
I don't know. I'd rather not guess. It seems unimportant to me, as the ISBN is listed. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the vast number of people who look things up by ISBN. ISBNs change for hardback and paperback and reissues anyway. It's really not that helpful. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why the ISBN is helpful: it pinpoints the exact publication. Other information is redundant. -- Rmrfstar 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right and when that EXACT publication isn't available to a reader but the reader still wants to read that book? This is why publication information is more helpful than ISBNs. If a book has been issued in multiple editions, the publication information will help a reader find that book whereas the ISBN will not. Awadewit 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garber, Daniel (1994), "Descartes and Spinoza on Persistence and Conatus", Studia Spinozana 10, Walther & Walther - is this an independent volume or does it need an issue number and page numbers for the article?
I believe it this is an independant volume. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rabouin, David (June/July 2000), "Entre Deleuze et Foucault : Le jeu du désir et du pouvoir", Critique: 637-638 - is this a journal that should have a volume and issue number?
As I remember, I could find neither. That's why the months for which it was publisher was included: June/July 2000 defines which issue and number. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youpa, A. (2003), "Spinozistic Self-Preservation", The Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (1) - pages? Awadewit 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is further reading; no pages are suggested. -- Rmrfstar 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article in journal. The article's pages (not suggested pages) should be here. Awadewit 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Any reader with the journal will not need the page numbers to find the article within. -- Rmrfstar 02:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just unreal. As I stated earlier, it is a courtesy to the reader to provide as much information as possible. Also, as I mentioned earlier, when requesting articles from interlibrary loan, most libraries REQUIRE the patron to have the page numbers. Awadewit 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....unreal, eh?? Don't want to go there. Have a scan through Dbuckner's radically abbreviated list of atrocities (note that these are VITAL philosopy articles):

I evaluated the articles listed in the philosophy section of WP:VITAL, and here is the result:

  • Beauty – this is actually not bad
  • Ethics – no tags, and not a bad article
  • Epistemology – not so bad, but still has an unsourced claims template.
  • Belief – 'may contain original research or unverified claims'
  • Knowledge – 'Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed'. Begins 'Knowledge is what is known'. Indeed.
  • Truth – suffered a severe bout of trolling about a year ago, and is now a shattered relic of its original self
  • Dialectic – begins 'This article may contain original research or unverified claims.' Quite so.
  • Logic – I recruited an expert to tidy this up last year, but he disappeared, and the project was never completed. It's a mess.
  • Metaphysics - this has a well-deserved cleanup tag. Starts off OK but rapidly gets worse.
  • Existence – I tidied this up a year ago, but was vandalised late last year. I haven't had the energy to revisit it.
  • Ontology – good God I never spotted that one on troll patrol. Complete nonsense. An abomination.
  • Reality – as the title suggests, this was going to be complete nonsense, and it was. 'This page has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism.'

That's REAAAAAAAAAL. It's all to frighteningly real all over Wikipedia. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FF, comparing a philosophy FAC to other philosophiy articles is never cause for support. Just because other articles are bad, doesn't mean that this one meets the strict criteria. -- Rmrfstar 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't actually think I was arguing that, do you? Oh, why the hell do I bother? If I was "arguing" anything at all, it obviously had something to do with the use of the term "unreality" (meaning, I suggest "unbelievable", "shocking", "absurd", etc..). My point was to show that the lack of a few page numbers is NOT unreal, shocking, outrageous, absurd, or what have you, espcially in the context of an extroardinary mess of an Encyclopedia like this one. But, I see what you are trying to do here. Don't push it!! The fucking work that I, unnecessarily, have put in, and continue to put in, trying to ameliorate some tiny part of the madness and nonsense that dominates this place is still appreciated by a very few people, I suspect. You're obviously not one of them. But your welcome anyway!! Good day. Please take any other comments to my talk page. End. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "unreal" was directed at the resistance displayed to fix tiny issues that could have easily been fixed and should have been fixed before this article was ever submitted to FAC. I had to spend an inordinate amount of time making arguments for formatting to people who should obviously know better. (By the way, whatever you meant to argue, it is clear that your prose did not adequately convey your thoughts as two people misinterpreted your post.) Awadewit 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why you are comparing your article to a whole host of "start" and "B" class articles (I clicked on every single one - there is not a GA or A class among them). I would not expect a "start" or "B" class article to reach the same standards as an FA. I believe that is why we have a differentiated rating system. Also, I do not understand why you did not spend the time it obviously took you to type in this enormous list of "start" and "B-class" articles to fix up this article or improve one of those articles. Please note that a featured article "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." WP:FACR That is what I was trying to achieve here. Finally, Support. Awadewit 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Why I did not....?" That was just a cut and paste operation. But this is a discussion that will take us too far afield. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't like that Foreign Language philosophy terms template at the bottom, it seems like an indiscriminate bundle of links. Any chance it could be removed?--Nydas(Talk) 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate almost all templates. So I can support this motion. FF
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Samuel Adams[edit]

I've worked extensively on this article, and I have already asked a number of editors to copyedit and review the article. The article was promoted to GA status seven days ago, and I think it's ready for featured article status now. Nishkid64 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — bags of references, an interesting read and aesthetically pleasing. Definitely one of our best; anthony[review] 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I spot a 21 line paragraph in the Boston Tea Party section. Any chance of breaking it up for readability's sake? CloudNine 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Support - Lots of references and generally very impressive. However, could you please trim the opening? Those two paragraphs just seem a little dense to me. Otherwise it's great and I would support it. John Smith's 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; well written, well sourced and informative. Great work - crack open a bottle of Sam Adams: you deserve it! Laïka 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Underage and anti-alcohol. :D Nishkid64 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, could something like {{Quote box}} be used for the number of quotes that are in the middle of the text? Will support anyway, just wondering. -Phoenix 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was tinkering around with the template, and it seems to really get in the way of the text. Also, it might be difficult for users to see that a certain quote corresponds to a particular section of the article. Nishkid64 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmmmkay...support anyway, it looks good. -Phoenix 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a well-written article, no doubt. Here's my problem, though: just one paragraph on almost 4 years as governor; nothing on the 3(?) elections he contested for the office, etc. Compare that to MA's last governor to serve a full term, Mitt Romney: we have a lengthy article on his governorship, and an extensive article on the election of his successor. Of course, finding information on very recent events is much easier than unearthing 200+ year old material. Still, maybe a little more work could be done in this area. Biruitorul 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was one of the last sections I worked on, and even though I looked at a number of sources, both online and in books, I could not find any substantial details of his governorship. In any case, I'll see if I can find any more information that I can add to the article. The problem is that he mostly stepped away from the political scene after the Constitution was ratified, and he did not "do much" while in political office. Well, that's how I perceive it as. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for letting me know. As I said, I am inclined to support, but maybe take a couple of days and make sure there isn't any readily-available material on his time in office. Biruitorul 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I guess there was some more stuff I could write about. See this. I expanded the section. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Change to Support: much better. One point, though: elections were held in April at the time, so if he became acting governor in October 1793, I think he would have been elected, not re-elected, governor in 1794. You may also find this detail from a biography of William Cushing interesting: "In 1794 his name had been presented by his friends as a candidate for governor of Massachusetts against Samuel Adams, and while he made no active canvass, he received 7,159 votes as against 14,465 for Adams." (Dictionary of American Biography, vol. 4, p. 635. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930.) Biruitorul 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Corrected, and I'll add the bit about the 1794 governor race later. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I added the details of the 1794 governor race to the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit's comments[edit]

Oppose I am going to oppose for now because I have quite a few concerns regarding this article and fixing all of them will take quite a bit of time. If the editors feel that they want to address all of them, I will certainly work with them. First, the overarching comments.

  • Organizationally, I would suggest that the information regarding Adams' personal life be integrated into the article. It is odd to suddenly go backwards in time to his marriage and children. Since the article is presented chronologically, this material should be worked in where it belongs.
    • I originally had details from his personal life situated within the main content of the article, but I created a new section after I realized it did not flow well. It's weird making a transition from politics to children within a few sentences. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really feel that the editors should work on making it flow. Unfortunately, I have noticed a gender bias in the historical biographies that I have reviewed and read on wikipedia. They tend to relegate men's domestic lives to the end of the article while prominently featuring women's domestic lives. I would urge you to consider the political statement that your layout makes. It is not innocuous. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My layout makes a political statement? It would seem odd if anyone would think so. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is not odd. What you choose to emphasize on the page - putting it first, giving detail, etc. - is a political statement. I will give you an imperfect but hopefully helpful analogy. Before the 1970s and 1980s, there was an emphasis in American universities on teaching what was called the "canon," or what were thought to be the best books ever written. Interestingly, most of these books had been written by straight white men. Books such as Uncle Tom's Cabin which helped spark the American civil war were not taught because they were viewed as "lesser literature," partly because of their style and partly because of who wrote them (in this case a woman). During the 1970s and 1980s, a movement arose to de-canonize literary studies and question the idea of "great books" - who determines what is great? why is one literary style preferred over another? One can ask these types of questions about this article - why are you privileging Adams' career over his family so dramatically? What message is conveyed by your division of his life into the "personal" and the "political"? Did he divide his life that way? Actually, I highly doubt that, from what I know about eighteenth-century American revolutionaries. A page's layout is part of its rhetoric just as surely as its prose. One of the best ways to understand how this works is to look at old books. Looking at old texts, whose ideology is far removed from one's own, makes it easy to see how even the structure of the text itself is ideologically motivated. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. I have removed the section, and integrated it into the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "State politics" section seems very short compared to the level of detail in the revolutionary sections. I would suggest adding some more material there and deleting some of the detail earlier - this article is already a bit long.
    • As I told Biruitorul, I had just expanded the "State Politics". Adams' notability stems more from his actions before America gained their independence. Also, judging from Adams' view of governorship, I'm not surprised I could not find a lot of detailed information about his work as governor. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that Adams' notability stems from his revolutionary activities, but that does not mean that the article should shortchange other aspects of his life. Biographies do not cover only the aspects of a person's life that are notable. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although it's one of the suggestions at WP:LEAD, I think the lead section is fine here. People complain about lengthy leads and I tried to keep it short, and so I had to sacrifice some miscellaneous information. The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the subject, and also stand on its own. I feel that the lead does accomplish this, but I'll see into the matter and make necessary additions, if need be. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think that the "state politics" section could be expanded (in the article) to include more detail. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would get rid of the "Quotations" section - that is akin to "Trivia."
  • I would also delete the "See also" section since those topics are linked in the article. I was under the impression that "See also" sections were supposed to be for links not in the article.
  • Could you please explain why you are relying so heavily on nineteenth-century sources? So much has been written on this period of American history that I was kind of surprised. A little note somewhere on the page might not be amiss if there is some compelling reason.
    • Most of these 19th century works are considered the foremost authority on Adams. Besides, many of the newer books on Adams reference their information back to these 19th century biographical works. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will take your word on that. I still think it would be a good idea to mention this somewhere in the article. See the "Bibliography" in Sarah Trimmer for an example (although that situation was even more troublesome). Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I added a little note about it at "Further reading". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along those lines, I think that it is crucial that in the "Legacy" section, you say that you are presenting Puls view of the historiography. Since you cite that book during your review of the other biographies, I assume that that is what you are doing. Other historians probably view those biographies differently. Did you read those biographies as well?
    • Can you elaborate on that? I tried to use a number of varying sources detailing his legacy, and even though I used Puls book in about half of my references in the "Legacy" section, most of them were for direct quotes made by other historians and such. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was, you seemed to be using Puls' analysis of Adams scholarship - Puls' analysis of all of the Adams' biographies; that is what the notes led me to believe, anyway. Is it your own analysis of the Adams biographies? If so, that would be original research and cannot be included (as you well know). Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh okay. I used a number of sources in that section, not Puls' analysis of the Adams' biographies. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should say in the text of the article whose analysis of the biographies you are restating. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is still not addressed. In the paragraph beginning "Still, Adams has been overlooked by many biographers and historians," you cite Puls in the notes which leads me to believe that you are presenting Puls' account of these biographies. Are you presenting Puls' account of the biographies, your account of the biographies or are you using Puls to represent a common assessment of historians? If it is the latter, another source other than Puls would be good. If it is the first, you MUST mention that you are presenting Puls' assessment of the biographical tradition. If it is your opinion, that is original research and cannot be included here. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of all the Adams biographies that you know of would be nice for those of us who are curious - a "Further reading" section, perhaps.
    • Added back into the article. Please correct any formatting/layout issues. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might you also include the publication information such as the publisher and place of publication? That is essential in any bibliographic citation. Also, it is very awkward to have the first names first - most lists of this sort put the last names first. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article; this lead seems to summarize one particular part of Adams' career. WP:LEAD
    • Well, my lead covers the period of notability for Adams--from the early 1760s until his retirement from politics. Lead paragraphs are not supposed to be too long, and I basically covered the main points of Adams' life which will let the reader know why he was notable in the first place. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leads are not supposed to cover only the notable events. They are supposed to summarize the article. I quote from WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." - I point specifically here to "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "self-contained and cover the main points." Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm...I guess I'll add a bit about his early life to the lead then. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lead expanded to cover his earlier life, as well. That looks better. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that the lead could still use some work. I edited it a bit myself. It was getting too detailed and had some awkwardly worded sentences. You might try to eliminate even more detail. Try to tell a little story in the lead without getting bogged down in the details (leads are very hard). Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of links in this article. I wonder if you could trim them down a bit. Massachusetts and Boston, for example, are linked multiple times within sections. A lot of your links repeat.
    • Removed some duplicates now, but I'll continue to make the necessary corrections as I look through the entire article again. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still duplicates within sections (Articles of Confederation in "State Politics" for example). Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to get a picture of the Public Advertiser, such as the cover you describe; that would add a little to the page. This is a minor issue, though.
    • I wasn't able to find one. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think about a quote box? There are huge swaths of uninterrupted text on this page that should be broken up somehow, I think. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the quote box seems to format awkwardly in the article. Maybe it was just me, but I think I've covered quite a bit of quotes in the article. Perhaps, it may seem like I need some toward the end. (State Politics, Later Life, Continental Congress, etc.) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't thinking of using the quote box to add more quotes necessarily, but to add color and variety to the layout. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues. I copyedited a little bit while I was reading, but here are some issues with the language and the general sense of the article.

  • He also championed the approval of the Declaration of Independence with the delegates at the Second Continental Congress. - "with" clause is a little awkward - not clear what your meaning is
    • I tweaked it around a bit; hopefully this looks right. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams was very influential as a political writer and theorist - as a "political theorist"?
    • As a theorist, he advocated his principles of government (similar to Locke). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see that, but the phrase "political writer and theorist" is awkward - what about just "political theorist"? Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's both, because he commented on the role of government in society, and he also made a case to rebel against British colonial rule. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not clear what a "political writer" is exactly; that is not an easily recognizable category. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • in his writings, he articulated the principles of republicanism that shaped American political culture - "he was one of the key architects of the principles of American republicanism" perhaps? he did not do it alone!
  • He wrote to influence others by making a case to withdraw from the authority of Great Britain by forming a new government. - awkward displacement of revolutionary activities at end of sentence
  • After the United States gained their independence, Adams helped write the Massachusetts Constitution with his cousin John Adams and James Bowdoin. - not totally clear if Bowdoin was his cousin, too
    • Reversed names to "James Bowdown and his cousin John Adams". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page lists Adams as "congregational" - it should be "congregationalist"
  • The "Early life" section begins with "Samuel" - why not "Adams"? Always refer to him as Adams (there are several other "Samuels" and "Sam"). It is a sign of respect for the subject.
    • Fixed. I had originally used "Samuel" to avoid any confusion between him and his father. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is very tricky, I know. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In old age, Samuel suffered from symptoms akin to those of cerebral palsy or Parkinson's disease, so Samuel's daughter Hannah had to sign his name for him. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • tenth-born child - "tenth" is sufficient
  • Mary, the only daughter of businessman Richard Fifield, and Samuel Sr., a deacon of the church - mention name of church here rather than later
    • The Old South Congegrational Church was not built until 1715, which was two years after the marriage. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So how could he be deacon of it? Was he deacon of another church? This is confusing. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably another church. I'm not totally familiar with the subject area, so I interpreted my sources as they were written. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it is confusing as it is written. Something needs to be done here. Delete the information if you can't figure it out. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he served a very important role in many of the town's affairs - "played a very important role"?
  • Adams felt a special appreciation for church services and the captivation effect they had on parishioners - "captivation effect"? - unclear
    • Was supposed to be "captivating effect"; removed now, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams developed his own political beliefs about the rights of colonists and British control over America. - as opposed to those of his father? confusing
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentences in this paragraph now sound choppy and unconnected. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deacon Adams arranged for young Samuel to work at the counting house for Thomas Cushing. - "of Thomas Cushing"?
    • Reworded to "Thomas Cushing's counting house". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but he was never repaid back - "back" is redundant
  • Adams wastefully squandered the other half of the money. - "wastefully" is redundant
  • Samuel was seen through the streets of Boston lugging malt, and was called by some as "Sam the malster". - awkward word order
  • a woodcut illustration of Britannia liberating a bird tied by a cord to the arms of France - what represents France? not clear how a bird can be tied to France
    • It's supposed to be symbolic. France may have been a figure with arms, and the bird was tied to France's arms. Anyway, I quoted it almost directly from Puls' book (page 29). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's symbolic; the question is what is the symbol for France? Just because that author does a poor job describing it doesn't we should, too. Is there a picture? Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • then the royal governor should not have that power and influence over the colony - "influence over the colony" seems redundant
  • if we known our own happiness and how to improve it - are you sure this quotation is "known"?
  • as an example of what could happen to New England if it were to abandon their Puritan values - match pronouns please
  • I would discourage you from linking words inside quotations as it is a form of interpretation. The link to "patriot," for example, in Adams' father's obituary is particularly problematic. How do you know what the writer meant by "patriot"?
    • Will look into that matter. As for "patriot", I should have linked to Patriot (American Revolution). Patriots are usually referred to the people who supported America during the Revolutionary War, but it also applies to those who supported the cause in the earlier decades (1750s-1770s). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is, you can't ever really know what a particular author meant - it is all speculation on your part, which is why I would be very reticent to link inside a quotation. I would consider this kind of linking original research. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All linking within quotations has been removed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see links all over the place. I don't mind linking names and places, but abstract concepts are very questionable. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I forgot to remove the links from the blockquotes. Removed now. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams not only inherited the family brewery but a third of his father's estate as well, which he shared with his newly married sister and his brother Joseph, also a clerk in the town market. - "also" is unclear
    • Earlier, I mentioned Adams was also a clerk in the town market. However, he wasn't at the time, so I best remove that "also". Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams, however, was appalled, both by the Sugar Act itself and by the lack of public outcry against England's unauthorized actions. - "what he perceived as England's unauthorized actions"?
  • Adams got in touch with James Otis - "contacted"? - diction is colloquial as it stands
  • He tried to convince them that the Sugar Act was a violation against the colonies, and such actions could not be issued with colonial involvement. - "a violation of the colonies' rights"? and "without colonial involvement"?
  • Adams suggested the taxes were a direct hit on the freedoms and liberties of the American colonists. - "direct hit" is colloquial - how about "a direct assault"
  • Adams went to work drafting protests against the Stamp Act to protest British efforts to tax the colonists and called for a spirited defense of Americans' "invaluable Rights & Liberties." - repetition of "protest"
  • Adams became an increasingly dominant leader in Boston town meetings and the Massachusetts legislature. - "increasingly dominant" sounds a little odd, don't you think? it's a little vague
  • Not surprisingly, a number of protests resulted in Boston and as Adams had stated, British merchants now called for the repeal of the act. - "anticipated" perhaps?
  • He stated that the tax would do harm to the colonial economy and multiple boycotts in the future could be quite problematic. - problematic how?
    • Changed to "could damage trade relations". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams' repeated proclamations for the "inherent and unalienable rights" of the people[58] would become a theme that became a core element of republicanism. - drawn from Locke, perhaps?
    • Sentence seemed awkward, so I fixed that. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point here was that this is Locke's idea - it is in the Two Treatises. I would think that your sources would say that Adams got it from Locke. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce the "Sons of Liberty" rather suddenly. A little background - perhaps a sentence or two would be good.
  • In one such meeting on October 5, Adams asked for a vote to see if people were in favor - remind us of the year
  • It came down to either they destroy the tea illegally, or just give up. Adams had control and knew he could not give up the fight. - colloquial tone
  • You might mention who planned the "covert" Boston Tea Party.
  • The angry reaction from all the colonies was to expedite the opening of a Continental Congress. - "angry reaction" to what? as this is the beginning of a new paragraph, it needs to be clear
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colonies' reaction from the Boston Tea Party was to expedite the opening of a Continental Congress. - doesn't make sense
  • You might briefly explain "anti-federalist" in the beginning of the "State politics" section.
    • Done. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • His contemporaries nicknamed him "the last Puritan" for his views. - what does this mean? Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also briefy mention what Shay's Rebellion was - not everyone will know or click. Also, those two sentences don't seem to fit in their paragraph. They should be moved somewhere more appropriate.
  • One conflict that riled the attention of Adams was whether public theater should be allowed in Boston. - "riled the attention" - "garnered the attention" perhaps?
  • The following year, Adams drew criticism for opposing the Jay Treaty, which had been approved by over two-thirds of the Senate on June 24. - briefly explain the Jay Treaty for the reader
  • In one viewpoint, he is seen as a pre-Revolution political visionary and leader, noted as the "Patriarch of Liberty" by Thomas Jefferson and the "Father of the American Revolution" by the people of his time - awkwardly worded
  • but is stanch, and stiff, and strict, and rigid, and inflexible in the cause - are you sure that this is how "staunch" is spelled in the quotation? if so, you might insert a [sic]
    • As Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) was explaining it to me, the word in this case should be "staunch", since it is taken as an adjective in the quote. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it should, but eighteenth-century spelling wasn't standardized, so it could have been spelled "stanch" in the original text. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More crucial examinations of his record as a leader has produced works depicting Adams in a negative light. - "more detailed"? - unclear
    • Thorough? I changed it to "detailed" for now. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thorough is even better. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source problems. This is perhaps the issue most worrying to me. I already mentioned that I was concerned about your reliance on nineteenth-century sources (which do not have the same standards of scholarship as twentieth-century sources), but most of your web sources are unreliable. I am disturbed by this because if you relied on these sources to write the page to a large extent, then the page may be in error. I urge you to only rely on scholarly works when writing the page; what cannot be confirmed in works written by scholars and printed by academic presses, should be removed. I was even more surprised when I saw that you were a wikipedia administrator and had 28,000 edits. Surely you should know to carefully check all of your sources. I can only hope that someone else added these sources; even so, you should not have nominated the page without checking them all and removing the inappropriate and unreliable sources (WP:RS):

  • Jonathan Dunder. Samuel Adams Biography. The Free Information Society. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - This is not a reliable source. It appears to be self-published and it is written by an undergraduate computer engineering major. It should definitely not be used for information like Adams had symptoms of cerebral palsy or Parkinson's (very different diseases).
  • Lawrence Kestenbaum (March 12, 2005). Index to Politicians: Adams, S to T. The Political Graveyard. Retrieved on 13 April 2007. - This is appears to be a self-published website. Kestenbaum is an attorney from Michigan; he lists his favorite websites and political groups on the website.
    • TPG seems like a legitimate reliable source. I'll see if any other reliable sources have that citation. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is absolutely not a reliable source. This page describes the site's creator; he is an attorney in Michigan. The site appears to be his own self-published site and if you notice that same page lists things like his favorite movies and comic strips. This is not the sort of reputable, scholarly source that wikipedia wants to be association with. Also, notice that it says on the homepage "Information on this page — and on all other pages of this site — is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. Users are advised to check with other sources before relying on any information here." Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Missed that part. Link removed and replaced. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. Michael Waller (3 February 2006). The American way of propaganda: Lessons from the founding fathers. Institute of World Politics. Retrieved on 26 February 2007. - Something is amiss here. The link takes you to a self-published website by Scott Cummings - www.patriotresource.com.
    • Fixed link. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Self-published and therefore not to be considered reliable. Note that it says "Posted: Friday, February 3, 2006." If you can find it published somewhere else, fine. If not, find another source. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locke, John (1689). Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, And His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is an Essay concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government, p191. - You have to say which edition you are using if you are giving page numbers - publisher, etc. You might just give the Book and section number - that is a common way to cite Locke (e.g. II, 8).
    • Locke note is still not fixed. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott Cummings. The Patriotic Resource: Samuel Adams. Retrieved on 25 February 2007. - This is a self-published website.
  • Samuel Adams: Section 6: The Boston Massacre. Sparknotes. Retrieved on 11 April 2007. - You've got to be kidding, right? No one is going to take wikipedia seriously if we are referencing sparknotes. Sparknotes are not peer-reviewed publications.
  • Stanley L. Klos (2000). Samuel Adams. Virtualogy. Retrieved on 11 April 2007. - Self-published website.
  • Proceedings of the First Continental Congress. Independence Hall Association (February 9, 2007). Retrieved on 21 April 2007. - Self-published website by Thomas Kindig.
  • National Rifle Association (February 22, 2006). Founding Fathers: Samuel Adams. James Madison Research Library and Information Center. Retrieved on 21 April 2007. - I'm concerned that the NRA is not going to have the most objective view on history. Why do you need them for this piece of information?
    • Again, I am concerned the NRA is not an objective source (note that the James Madison Research Library and Information Center is associated with the NRA and is, according to their own site, "the premier site on the Internet for researching and learning about America's first freedom, The Second Amendment," or the right to bear arms). Why do you need this site to prove this statement: "A loyalist member, faking illness, was excused from the assembly and immediately went to the governor, who issued a writ for the legislature's dissolution; however, when the legislator returned to find a locked door, he could do nothing." - Surely that is available somewhere else? If it is not, then it becomes highly dubious. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signers of the Declaration of Independence: Samuel Adams. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - also comes from ushistory.org - a self-published website by Thomas Kindig
  • Tom Kindig. Articles of Confederation. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - Self-published website.
  • Account of a Declaration: Biographies. LeftJustified Publiks. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - Self-published website by Thomas Kindig.
  • Telling the Truth - Chapter 6: The Streets Declare the Sinfulness of Man. World (6 February 2006). Retrieved on 20 April 2007. - This is an opinion piece in a magazine that declares itself to have a "Christian perspective."
  • John Vinci (January 5, 2004). The biography of Elizabeth Checkley Adams, wife of Samuel Adams, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Colonial Hall. Retrieved on April 08, 2007. and John Vinci (January 5, 2004). Biography of Elizabeth Wells Adams. Colonial Hall. Retrieved on April 13, 2007. These biographies are not written by John Vinci. If you look carefully at their site, it says that the biographies on this site are primarily from 1 of the following 2 sources: Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence, by the Rev. Charles A. Goodrich. Published in 1829 and The United States Manual of Biography and History, by James V. Marshall. Published by James B. Smith & Co., in Philadelphia in the year 1856. You need to find out if your biographies are from those books. Awadewit 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I removed the sources, and replaced them. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to fix the source issues, but it totally flew right over my head when I was doing my pre-FAC evaluation. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really wish you had, because all of this took up a lot of my time. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing on the sources:

  • Signers of the Declaration (Samuel Adams). National Park Service (April 13, 2006). Retrieved on 21 April 2007. See this page for correct citation information for this note. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you list this article at the League of Copyeditors. They have a place for articles undergoing FAC. There are lots of little problems with flow between sentences that could be fixed up with a thorough copyedit. A lot of your sentences have the same structure, for example, and there are some incorrect prepositions. All of this could easily be fixed. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Mom and Dad[edit]

A new nomination of the most profitable exploitation film in history, a sub-article of sorts from current FA Kroger Babb. Much of the text comes straight from there in some reorganization, the article has been copyedited by a number of people over the last few months, and I think it meets the criteria.

  1. I believe it to be well-written, and there's no issues on comprehensiveness or stability - I believe this touches upon every aspect of the film that's readily available.
  2. Meets MOS guidelines to the best of my knowledge.
  3. Fair use rationale for the poster exists, no problems.
  4. The length is appropriate given the subject matter, the issues surrounding it, and the available information.

I think this meets the standard, so let's have at it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pretty good, but not featured quite yet. These fixes are needed:
  • Many redlinks in cast and crew.
  • References: At minimum, if using this ref style, you should indicate year and pages for print media, such as <ref>Smith (2002) pp 206-210</ref>. None of the refs mention the year, and many don't even mention page numbers. Consider using the referencing style of Cricket World Cup, which does what this article is trying to do, and is itself a featured article...

Happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Red liks are never a reason to oppose an FA candidacy. Red links show us we need articles, plain and simple. They are very important to the growth of Wikipedia. At any rate, "no red links" is not part of the FA criteria. Second, the referencing style used in the article is perfectly fine. "You did not use the referencing style I prefer" is not an actionable objection. — Brian (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Overt violations of the Manual of Style are not actionable??? I find that hard to believe. WP:WIAFA 1(c) asks one to use the WP:CITE page, where there are NO acceptable formats where listing only the author is acceptable. Other style guides like MLA, APA, etc. also never use this style. If this article is to be the best of wikipedia, then it should at least have references that are checkable, and formatted according to SOME style guide, not just some random format. The existance of redlinks shows that no one has created the articles for the people in question. This could be two problems:
        • 1) The people are notable per WP:N and WP:BIO, but no one has created an article yet
        • 2) The people are NOT notable per WP:N and WP:BIO.
      • If it is the first problem, create the article for them as a stub. Then we have a bluelink. If it is the second problem, we shouldn't have an article for those people, so wikilinking is inappropriate. There are NUMEROUS articles that come up for Featured nomination that are held up for too many redlinks. I never said there could be no redlinks. This is ALSO in the manual of style, in the page on linking, clearly advises against overlinking, especially in cases where ~10% or more of the links are redlinks. WP:WIAFA criteria 2 requires compliance with the MOS. These are not small problems, and we should not promote an article as the best wikipedia has to offer with such glaring issues...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a similar reference style to The Turk, except that I broke out the longer titles and put them in one place - all the sources are listed right at the bottom, and this doesn't appear to be unorthodox, but I don't necessarily mind changing it back if there's good reason. WP:CITE, after all, doesn't require a specific type of citation, but rather that the citations are consistent throughout. As for the redlinks, they're simply because I haven't made them. I'll create an article when I'm good and ready, or when someone else who can do it justice. As you note and I quote, "an article may be considered overlinked if...[M]ore than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist." Emphasis mine - just because our coverage of film in this area is low at the moment doesn't mean that we're overlinking now. It's entirely subjective. And if you really want to get specific about the MOS guideline, I have about 100 wikilinks in the article total, and 13 are redlinked. Either you can continue being concerned about those extra 3%, or I can find more things to Wikilink that I de-bluelinked right now to dip that number below 10%. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redlinks are for expansion, and I won't be removing them. I don't mind putting dates in if it's a killer for you, but the dates are already in the works cited section - is that redundancy useful? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was objecting to Jayron32's insistence that years be added to the footnotes. He/she is right that page numbers need to be added where applicable (i.e., for everything but web references). And I stand by my comments on redlinks. If Jayron had argued that the article was overlinked, that would be an actionable objection. But he/she was originally complaining about the mere existence of redlinks in the article, which is, of course, not actionable. — Brian (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise if you thought I was replying to you on that last one. With the page numbers, everywhere they're available, I've added them - some of my newspaper resources are photocopies from a library on the other side of the country and thus don't have that information. I've been as specific as possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I apologize if I made it seem as if the year thing was an issue. I want to state this clearly and loudly and for all to hear: The years make NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. I could have given a shit about the years. The issue is the page numbers. If a 300 page book is cited, it is inadequate to simply say "Somewhere in this book the info can be found." What the references lacked, and ALL THEY LACKED, was page numbers. The problem was NOT THE YEARS. It was that the references were inadequate because they lacked PAGE NUMBERS, which would allow someone to verify where in the book the information came from. Again, this miscommunication is MY FAULT and NOBODY ELSES FAULT, and I APOLOGIZE UNEQUIVOCALLY for the misunderstanding. However, it appears that this has been largely fixed. It was never a reference FORMAT issue, it was a COMPLETENESS issue. The refs were inadequate. This has been fixed. Oh, and apparently, you two care a WHOLE LOT about keeping redlinks in the article. If you think the article looks better with it keep them. The strength of your caring that they stay has outweighed the strength at which I would like to see them gone. You win, I will no longer force the issue, on the grounds that I don't care as much as you guys do. While we are on references, some other things that need clearing up:
            • The Joe Bob Briggs reference appears to be referenced to a journal. We have no issue, volume, or page numbers. That needs to be fixed, as if I want to look this information up myself, I need to find that article. The reference as yet does not let me do that.
            • The pressbook reference makes it unclear what this reference is or where it comes from. If I were to try to hunt this reference down, how would I locate it? Again, we need more bibliographic information about it.
            • The McDougal reference is also sketchy. It looks like an article that was published somewhere? Where? Was it in a journal somewhere? There is not enough information in this reference for someone to find it.
          • The big problem with this isn't format, it isn't some minor style thing, its that the references are inadequately complete for someone to use them to verify the information that they support in the article. I am not doubting that they do, it is just that it is impossible to verify that they do. If these references can be brought up to ANY level of completeness, so that someone could actually find them, I will change my vote to support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I'm glad we've worked that misunderstanding out. To answer your new concerns:
              • The Joe Bob Briggs info is sourced to the November 2003 issue of the magazine Reason. It's linked in the article under "external links."
                • It should be linked in the references section. If all it takes is moving it, then go ahead and move it.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The pressbook reference is...the pressbook for the film. The second paragraph under "Marketing and presentation" explains what the pressbook is. How can you get one? I'm not sure at this point - I have one in my personal collection, and they're not entirely rare, but perhaps some specialty libraries may have them.
                • Then expand the title to read "Pressbook for Mom and Dad, (CITY, STATE:Hallmark Productions, c.1959)" That might make it look more like a standard bibliographic entry, which would make it easier to cite and find if needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Pressbooks aren't typical books, they're promotional vehicles. They don't work quite like that, but I've expanded it for what I've got on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The McDougal reference is detailed as best as I can find - I went through this problem with FA Kroger Babb - the article came from a photocopy I recieved from a friend, who recieved it from the AMPAS Library as-is, with no date on it. Trust me, it's more frustrating for me than it is for you at this point.
                • Dropped in a google search for Dennis McDougal Press Enterprise. Found GOBS of stuff on the author, including this personal website which has a contact page where you can reach him by mail, fax, or email. Drop him a line, ask him if he has information on the article, which apparently was published in the Riverside Press-Enterprise, where he wrote from 1973-1977. It can't hurt to simply say that you are trying to cite the article he wrote for a scholarly paper, don't have the original, and need full bibliographic information about it, such as issue date and so on. Even if he doesn't have it, he could probably refer you to the research department at the paper in question, who can look up the information in short order since you have the author and title. The website for the paper is here; who knows, maybe they have searchable back issues or something as well. I love Google...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've done that already. No response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, have you tried the paper? They have a research department. You have an author and a title, if you call them on the phone they should be able to find the information for you. It really should be trivial for them to look up when the article was published. Then you can make the bibliographic entry complete. this google search turns up a google yellow pages entry for the paper, and there is a phone number there.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have, and, as I said, I received no response. I saw the link the first time, and I've tried to no avail. It's important to me personally, forget Wikipedia, as I'm trying to write a book on the producer in my personal life, so getting stonewalled on it hasn't been the most pleasant experience. I don't want you thinking I'm poo-poohing your concern on this one or blowing smoke - I have made the effort for myself and received nothing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hope this answers some of your issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsIt's most useful if at least two works by the same author are cited. That does not appear to be the case here.--Rmky87 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems to be a very good article. The redundancy with Kroger Babb is nearly gone, and what remains is (I think) acceptible. It's well referenced, and while I agree the referencing style might be a little confusing, I see no reason to change it. It is well written, and seems to have a faster pace than a great many FAs which, IMO bog down in the middle. Good luck! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My assumption is some with any sub-article is going to occur. I'm glad it meets your standard for it, since you were one of the more vocal about the redundancies, so thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Production section seems rather short and not all that comprehensive. Is there more information available about the topic or possibly a reason why information on this aspect is limited/unavailable? ShadowHalo 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The genre is mostly at fault - the productions were done very quickly and with little budget, so not a lot is really known or out there. Detailed records aren't really that available, and I've searched high and low - this is possibly the most comprehensive information available on any of Babb's films, which is saying a lot when you're left wanting some more information on the filming. To the best of my efforts, this is the most information on the actual production that's available for use. Looking at it now, combining the two sections (production and plot) may help the issue, as much of the plot filling was tied into the production end. Would that make any difference? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that makes sense. I've been focusing on song articles recently, where six days of production is more than enough to write about there, but certainly not for a film. If you think merging the sections would help, go ahead. I'll support as it is though. ShadowHalo 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate it. I'll merge anyway on further thought, but thanks for the comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice work. It's great to see such hard work put into cult, exploitation, and horror film articles. Article offers a lot of interesting information on the production. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. I went in a cleaned up the refs a bit to be internally consistant, and also to remove the ambiguity of the Press Enterprise cite (there are 2 newspapers named Press Enterprise, on in PA and one in CA. This one is the CA paper). Also, I noticed that one of the Joe Bob Briggs refs has been commented out, specifically his book. Why was this done? Why not leave it in as a reference?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your commentary, help, and support. I've commented out the JBB ref only until I can get my hands on the book again, where I'll then work from the page numbers instead. As they're both essentially the same words, it's merely temporary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can apply the reference formatting the way it is done in Beijing opera? - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be honest, that style hurts my eyes, and is inconsistent between the use of the <ref> and <ref name=> tags. While I don't nearly have the amount of refs in this article as that one does, that's exactly the type of thing I'd be trying to avoid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is a fine article and is well written, researched, and cited. Two questions however; why is the girl referred to as just "the girl"; and who or what is "The Presenter", exactly. Ceoil 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

École Polytechnique massacre[edit]

I have been following the progress on this article for some time, after I was asked for my help during a bit of an edit war in December. My personal contributions to this article are relatively minor, but a few editors have worked a great deal to make it an informative, balanced account of the events. I am greatly impressed by the research, thoughfullness and debate that has gone into this article's creation, as well as intrigued by the article's topic. It is well-referenced (not an simple task, as many of the original sources are in French), it has informative and attractive photographs and it addresses the facts of the event, as well as its interpretations, in an even-handed and encyclopedic style. It is a solid article created by deep collaboration about a significant subject and I believe that that makes it a good candidate for a featured article. I know that the primary contributors would be happy to receive and respond to any feedback about how to achieve that status. Dina 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment lead does not summarize the article's main topics adequately, needs expanding. A bit listy.Rlevse 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by "listy"? I understand that to mean that it contains too many lists? The only list in the article is the list of the women who died as a result of the massacre. The content, style and inclusion of this list was the result of some debate and therefore may include some compromises. However, it's unclear to me how else to include this information, and I do believe that a truly comprehensive article on the subject requires it. The only other method I have seen has been the creation of a fork article called something like "List of victims of..." which I don't think is necessary here as there are only 14 names on the list. Dina 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The criteria state that a Featured Article should be 1. "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable"; 2. "complies with the Manual of Style and relevant WikiProjects"; 3. appropriate images appropriately labeled; 4. length and focus. I think that this article meets all the criteria. It is excellent: clear and balanced, with an appropriate number of relevant links. It cannot have been easy to craft an article on such a fraught topic; congratulations to the editors involved. — scribblingwoman 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article has a lot of French in it for English Wikipedia, like under the various images, that isn't translated. I know some that I can translate some myself, but this is ENGLISH Wikipedia, and should have English translations if not entirely in English. Remember, this article is read by a global audience. GreenJoe 18:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article now meets with my standards, and I support. GreenJoe 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just saw your edit and I believe it is based on a misunderstanding. The original caption was "Place du 6-Décembre-1989" which is the name of the park dedicated to the victims. In English, basically it means "Place of December 6 1989". Your translation "Place on December 6 1989" is inaccurate, as that implies that the photo was taken on that date, which it was not. Perhaps a translation of the title of the park should be included in the caption, but I believe it is generally in line with Wikipedia guidelines to call "works of art" by their most commonly used names, which in this case is French. However a bracketed translation can easily be included in the caption. Is there any other untranslated French that you could specify? Cheers. Dina 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's that kind of misunderstanding that makes it difficult to support this article. It needs to be explained better in the article. There's another image further down with a similar situation. You need to go through this with a fine tooth comb and make sure there are no stray, unexplained French that non-French people wouldn't understand. GreenJoe 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request: Re. the captions: the name of the school (École Polytechnique) is in French, and the name of a park (Place du 6-Décembre-1989). The only other French in the captions is the name of a memorial ("Nef pour quatorze reines, detail"), and that is translated in the text, nearby. I imagine the editors could translate the phrase in the caption, too, if it is felt to be necessary. Other than that, the captions are all in English. The only French in the article itself are proper names: again, the name of the school, the name of a newspaper, the name of a church, the name of a city borough, and many of the names of the people involved. Those that are not individual names are linked to English-language wiki articles, and in the two cases they are not -- both memorials of the massacre -- there are images nearby. The only French language in the entire article that is not a proper name is the phrase cause célèbre -- a phrase that is commonly used by English speakers -- and it is also linked. So I am at a loss to see what is in need of translation. Could you be more specific? — scribblingwoman 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do need to explain it in the captions. That's what it takes. As for cause célèbre, I've never head that term, and I live in Canada. So imagine someone from Australia struggling to understand it. I suggest it be translated. GreenJoe 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the remaining French (captions and in the text) has been translated. I'm a little bit at a loss about cause celebre, as I'm an American and I consider that to be an English expression (derived, obviously, from French). However, it could certainly be substituted with something else. Dina 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think cause célèbre needs to be translated; it is linked. — scribblingwoman 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cause celebre is probably the most precise term for that context. It's maybe not heard everyday in English, but is common enough, and there's no English equivilant ("celebrated cause" is the translation, which simply isn't used in English [I'm in Canada too]). The only other untranslated French, now that the captions are translated, that I see is Cote-des-Neiges/Notre-Dame-de-Grace, which is never translated by English speakers ("No Damn Good" for NDG notwithstanding) bobanny 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Cause celebre' would be like using 'coup d'etat' or 'raison d'etre'. Plus, it's wiki-linked, so if you don't know what it means, you just have to click on it to find out (as I did). Nathanalex 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cause celebre" is a perfectly acceptable, oft-used and well known term. Given that the term is a long established part of the English language, there is no need to amend its use here. I also didn't think there was "too much French" in the pre-amended version at all, and do not understand GreenJoe's issues with this. -- Zleitzen(talk) 01:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, we have added a couple of translations of photo captions etc since he made his comment. Slp1 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Oops missed pre-amended part, so not really a logical response! Slp1 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the article, but I'll dispute the cause celebre being well-known statement. I actually got into a disagreement on the Martin Scorsese page over the use of it, myself and no one in my family had ever heard of it (I asked five family members—two of whom had college degrees). If it's linked I guess it's okay but it's definitely not common or well known outside of intellectual circles. Quadzilla99 13:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is just the opposite, coming from a non-intellectual background. Maybe its use is less common in some places, but it seems to be settled here that it's at least common enough, and appropriate, for this context. bobanny 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well first off, I've never heard of the term either and it's not common, also I would delete the in popular culture section or at least convert it to prose, I'm half tempted to slap a triva tag on it as it is. I'll give a full look over tomorrow, but I'd oppose based on that alone. Scattered pop culture references in a random, unconnected way is almost the definition of trivia Aaron Bowen 09:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of the references in popular culture could be moved into commemoration? "So and so wrote a song about it, so and so wrote a play, etc."? Also, about cause celebre, if you don't know what it means, look it up! It isn't fair to judge the article negatively because it contains a word/phrase you didn't know... isn't Wikipedia about learning new things!? :) Nathanalex 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion on the talk page of all that you suggest -- trimming the pop culture reference section, getting rid of it, or making it less of a list. Your thoughts are valuable there, because I don't think a lot of editors are terribly attached to a pop culture reference section, but it would be interesting to include some of this material. Dina 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pop culture has been converted to prose and moved to the commemoration section. Thanks for the great suggestions. --Slp1 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request: It would be helpful if commenters here framed their no-doubt legitimate but sometimes minor problems with the article in the larger context of the article as a whole. — scribblingwoman 10:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on User:GreenJoe's talk page asking him to review the article, in light of the changes made in response to his comments. Dina 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cause célèbre still needs to be fixed up. Just based on the comments here some people do and some people don't know what it means. Wikilining is great, but if it hinders the ability of the reader to understand a large part of the article, then I cannot change my opposition. GreenJoe 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I still respectfully disagree that cause célèbre isn't an English expression, it certainly isn't important enough to the article to draw a line in the sand. I have exchanged the expression for "galvanizing incident", however, I welcome any other suggestions or edits, as the reason the expression exists in English is because, well, there isn't really an English expression for that concept exactly. "Galvanizing incident" is what I came up with, but there may be something better. Cheers. Dina 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This cause célèbre business is ridiculous. It is a common expression used throughout the English speaking world - even Jimbo Wales uses the term in informal debates. If it is in the English dictionary [33], is used by the BBC, Fox News, the Australian, the Tapai times, the Jamaican gleaner and on and on, then it should be perfectly acceptable to use here. For people who haven't heard of this common expression used throughout the English speaking media; they should thank this article for improving their vocabulary and knowledge of common terms, which is one of the joys of an encyclopedia. Normal media simply assumes readers have heard of the expression and rightfully uses it when appropriate without definition. I'd actually go further and say that if an editor hasn't heard of this standard literary expression, they are not in the best position to judge an article's prose in the first place, sorry if that sounds rude.-- Zleitzen(talk) 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Zleitzen here. Cause celebre has been in the English language for over a century, and would be considered slightly hackneyed if it were not for the fact that there is not a good synonym. Our cause célèbre article (aside from using French diacritics, which it usually does not have in English use) is weak and mostly a list (possibly largely WP:OR), but it should be a phrase recognizable by most high-school educated English speakers. I'm not sure where we're aiming reading levels here, but I'm a bit surprised that anyone would object.--Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice speech. I'm surprised you just didn;t just pull some imaginery numbers out of your butt like "I'd say 80-90% if the people know what it is". Aaron Bowen 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rlevse 10:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has grown by leaps and bounds since it was put up for the FA nom. It explains both the incident and what came of it very well; well written and well cited of course. It should be a "cause celebre" for editors! Hahaha, couldn't resist. :) Nathanalex 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have only a few FAC comments in the past, so I hope I'm within bounds here. I think the article has improved, although as a FA I personally think it has some weak spots. I'll identify one: the plaque photo, the article's main image, is poorly explained. I'm not sure it's the best choice, partly because it's too close to see the context it's in. I don't have a specific preference for another, although obviously a memorial that isn't at the school is less relevant. I believe that fair use news photos are pretty much out of question due to the large number of free images available, so they're what has to be chosen from. In any case, plate should be "plaque", the idiomatic English word, and I would name the stone (granite, presumably). The word "side" should be "exterior wall", preferably more precise e.g. "on the exterior wall of the school near the classroom" or whatever is correct to say, and somehow the body who affixed the plaque (the school administration or somebody else?) should be described. Perhaps a sourced "Each of the aluminum pegs represents a victim". What is the design or designs on each? It just seems like there isn't enough context in the caption. If it isn't the main image, I think a briefer caption would be sufficient. Some more small points: I would move "The massacre profoundly shocked..." bit into the "Search for a rationale" section, which could use it as a transition. Oh, another: "Nave" in English means part of a church; the English word for nef is "Knave". I would also include at least part of a section, if not an entire section, placing the shooting in context with international shooting incidents including e.g. Charles Whitman. It actually seems like there's an attempt to limit comparisons to Canadian incidents but this isn't the CBC with Canadian content quotas, eh? Obviously this was a heavy death toll among mass shootings and has only been surpassed a few times, so a global view here would help.--Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions, Dhartung. I made some of the changes, but I don't agree with them all. The level of detail you're suggesting for the image caption I think would make it more about the plaque itself rather than what it's illustrating. As for the photo selection, without a concrete suggestion, I don't know what other free-use images we could use that would improve the article. We probably could get away with some fair-use image, given it's a unique historical event, but I'm not convinced that's necessary. More recent school shootings, especially Virginia Tech, have more photos, thanks to cell phone cameras that didn't exist in '89. I also disagree that the article has some kind of nationalist tinge. Virginia Tech is wikilinked in the main text, and the 'see also' section points readers to List of school massacres, which is international, as well as School shooting. That's pretty much what 'see also' sections are for, and the point of those two articles is for context. Also, one of the main editors on this article is American, and we went to great lengths to anglicize the text (see the cause celebre debate above). To be frank, I don't think this kind of suggestion would be made for a US school massacre article. Columbine High School massacre doesn't look outside the US borders at all, even though the body count was less and the article begins by ranking it with other school killings. If there's a nationalist conspiracy here, I don't think it's from my side of the border (perhaps some people are still upset by that Capitol Hill thing?). Finally, "Nave" is the correct translation for the memorial. bobanny 09:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't require you agree with all my suggestions, certainly! First, the photo bit was me wondering (or hand-wringing) out loud. I just don't feel the plaque is visually compelling enough for its position, but I frankly admit there doesn't seem to be a better choice available. I simply feel if this is the most prominent image in the article, it should have a more formal and explanatory caption. It still seems inadequate to me, but I'm just one opinion. As for the context question, I certainly didn't mean nationalistic, just parochial -- and in fact the context section now in Virginia Tech massacre was, I thought, done well with a global view in mind (and I would recommend one for the Columbine article as well, and yes, I'm American). It's much better and more informative than just a "See also" list. Finally, I see I misunderstood about nef, my memories of French failed me. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate that your suggestions were not framed as a deal-breaker for the FAC. This article has improved a lot from this process because of fresh eyes and outside suggestions, whether or not everyone agrees. On the context thing, I'm not convinced that would add much to the article. In some cases, such discussions seem to be more about ranking them by bodycount, as if some kind of gruesome contest, rather than a meaningful comparison. Some of the commonalities linking such incidents don't seem to apply here, such as the copycat phenomenon, and the issue of gun politics is exceptionally pronounced in the US (and gun regulation is a national thing, in terms of policy implications). I'm not opposed to adding more context, and maybe I'm just not the one who should do it, but I'm not sure what would be included in such a section that would add value to the article beyond what the 'see also' section adds. I found your parochial comment ironic because that's a Canadian stereotype of Americans (with all the pitfalls that come with stereotypes). I guess part of my reservation is not wanting to artificially define this event by how it is or isn't like school shootings in the US. bobanny 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the American involved in the article, to be honest, some of my contributions have involved more "localizing" than global contextualizing. I recall altering a statement about the effect of the events on the women's movement to say the Canadian women's movement, because I didn't see any evidence that the worldwide women's movement had been affected. While it's impossible to prove a negative, I feel like such statements are generally supported by the available sources. It seems to me that there wasn't widespread (at least within North America) effects from these events outside Canada. There's a whole other debate to be had about why that's true, but I was a pretty aware, though pre-internet adolescent in '89 and I hadn't heard of this shooting until recently. We can't do original research about global context, we can only reflect what's been reported. And the facts of the matter are that I don't recall a substantial number of sources or commentary about these events coming from anywhere outside of Canada. In "defense" of the US, I'd offer that we have more than enough school shootings ourself to make meanings of (though we did not, perhaps, in 1989, and we have yet to have any with this particular bent of anti-feminism.) I'd genuinely be interested to read any sources that contexualize and compare this event, and the Dawson school shootings with the U.S., but right now, it doesn't appear that anyone has written any to report on. For now, I think the article should reflect these events for what they are -- a specifically Canadian event, with specifically Canadian responses and consequences. It seems enough as it is to me, possibly more than enough. Dina 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very reasonable responses both. I definitely recall that in 1989 these events were not so dreadfully common and the U.S. perception of Canada being a less violent, friendlier place made it seem all the more baffling. I'm probably not doing any real good asking for new sections to be created. I did see the article months ago and it's most certainly improved a great deal, and some of my questions about the article may be more about the event itself which offers no simple answers. And now I'm just sliding off topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Cameroon[edit]

I've been working on this article for the past four months, and I think it's finally ready to run the FAC gauntlet. This is definitely the most ambitious FA candidacy I've pursued. Peer review was helpful but netted some conflicting opinions on the relative length of various sections. I'll be working on turning red links blue as the FAC progresses. Thanks in advance for any comments. — Brian (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support I think it is a very good article. However, there are an overwhelmingly large number of redlinks.... Booksworm Talk to me! 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is no different from many Africa-related articles. I'll try to help stubifying some of them. Picaroon 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to agree with Picaroon here. We have to factor in user bias here. It is difficult to get a large user base out of Africa creating articles about smaller things like you get in the US or the UK. I personally won't factor this in for this particular FAC, but efforts should be made to blue them and make overall Africa coverage wider. JHMM13 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have taken the liberty of removing all of the red links, they look unsightly and should not be in a featured article --HadzTalk 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree with such an action. It is, in effect, giving in to systematic bias, by saying "oh well, no one's going to create those." You will find that the vast majority of Africa editors would rather see redlinks than none at all. Whether it is going for featured article candidacy should have no bearing on the inclusion of redlinks. And as to unsightly: who cares? Wikipedia is a work in progress; featured status is not the be all and end all. Please consider reversing. Picaroon 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree with Picaroon here. Redlinks collectivly represent, in my opnion, one of the most important classes of data for the improvment of wikipedia. There are a lot of good editors who use redlinks (especialy the number of them pointing to a single article) to decide what to contribute. The idea that redlinks shoudl even be considered when evaluating for FA is I think bad for wikipedia. If we think that way we will never cover anything but western pop-culture and manga. Dalf | Talk 09:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. Like I said in the nomination, I will be working on the redlinks during the life of this FAC. By the time this article ever appears on Wikipedia's main page, everything should be blue and beautiful. — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Almost nothing about the climate. Should be some sentences on climate in the Geography section. Yes there are some sentences on temp/humidity of certain regions. But hard to get an idea about the climate of the country. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate on what else should be there? The article currently distinguishes the five major climate zones and gives some notion of their relative wetness and temperature. There isn't much else to say about the nation's climate unless we start quoting specific temperature ranges and/or annual rainfall, etc. Is this level of detail necessary in a broad country overview? (Not a rhetorical question. . . . ) — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, in a broad country overview, so many details are not necessary. Somehow I missed the sentence on ...all major climates and vegetation of the continent: coast, desert, mountains, rainforest, and savanna. In fact, the rest of geography has pretty good info on climate scattered within the text. Sorry for the quickly made comments above. I read the section carefully today and found it ok. Just one question, which portion of the country is having desert vegetation? The "northern lowland region extends from the edge of the Adamawa to Lake Chad"? Also, please try to replace "pleasant" in "...enjoys a pleasant climate...". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed the offending wording, and I've tried to clarify that it is the extreme north (the lowland region) that is arid. — Brian (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, incredibly high quality and very well-referenced. Picaroon 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Very nice article. I agree that the climate coverage needs to be expanded and a gentle reminder that the word climate is not synonymous with the word temperature. Instance: "Its average elevation is 1,100 m (3,600 ft),[45] and its climate ranges from 22° to 25° C (72° to 77° F) with high rainfall." Also, if you wish to talk about the climate in the Geography section, call it Geography and climate. Take a look at Germany for an idea of how to separate the two and summarize. JHMM13 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the two changes you suggested. As I asked Dwaipayan above, can you elaborate on what more should be said on climate? Unlike with Germany, Cameroon has diverse climate zones that vary in relative humidity, rainfall, and short/dry season duration, so I feel it is important to keep the organization as it currently is. But as for what else should be mentioned, I'm not quite sure. — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose—Support: it's good! Good things here, but the prose needs to be squeaky clean. Here are examples of little issues that are sprinkled throughout the text.
    • Second sentence: why the semicolons? Commas would be smoother.
    • Overuse of "or" instead of "and". See last sentence in lead.
    • "Humankind"—a bit grand.
    • Overlinking, which makes it harder to read and less attractive on the screen, and dilutes high-value links. Why are dictionary term such as "torture", "fishing", "livestock" and "propaganda" linked? We do speak English. "Nigeria", for example, is linked twice. Why? "France" better a piped link to French colonialism within the article on France (if there's such a subsection), or not linked at all. Questionable linking of common European countries; is anyone really going to hit those link while reading this article? (There are good piped links in this article already, which shouldn't be watered down.)
    • "Touristic"—ouch—just "tourist" as an adjective.
    • "Red tape, high taxes, and endemic corruption have prevented the private sector from developing." Prevented? So there's no private sector at all?
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a significant oil industry in Cameroon? No mention of it.
    • Little glitches like "Other" in the middle of a sentence.

Please fix, preferably in collaboration with others who are unfamiliar with the text. Tony 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I know these were just examples, Tony, but I've gone ahead and fixed them. I'll print the article out tomorrow at work and give it another red-pen makeover. As for some of your specific concerns, I used semicolons because the three-nation sequence of "Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo" need to act as a unit and separate out from the other singular nations. Perhaps they should be broken out into a second sentence? Nigeria is linked twice because the first link is in the lead. My usual practice is to link stuff in the lead and then reset once the main article begins. Petroleum exploitation is mentioned both in the "History" and "economy" sections. Should I change the word "petroleum" to "oil"? Thanks for the comments. — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Picaroon and I have tweaked the text quite a bit more. Would you mind taking another look, Tony? — Brian (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I've hardly done anything; please don't give me undeserved credit! I would like, however, for you verify that this edit of mine isn't in error. I added the accented "e" based on the second bolded spelling in the article, but maybe it wasn't a typo. Neither French nor the accompanying àććěñṭŝ are really my thing. Picaroon 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that was a legitimate fix, so thanks. I've changed "Benue" and "Benoué" to "Bénoué" in a few other places, as well. With Cameroon, there's always a question of whether to use the anglicized spelling of the francophone spelling of place names, but most of the literature prefers French spellings for places in the French-speaking part of the country and English spellings for places in the English-speaking part of the country. Ethnic groups and languages always take the English spelling. I've tried to follow this convention throughout the article, so any help is appreciated if I've slipped up. — Brian (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - absolutely superb, with only one problem, that of the oil industry. While in decline (correct me here, I'm no expert on the topic) oil is, I think, the first source of exportations and of revenues for the state's coffers. I think you should add something about this, as its impact on the country must have been considerable.--Aldux 16:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. As I told Tony above, petroleum and its importance to the economy is mentioned under both "History" and "Economy". — Brian (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose support - Per Tony, the prose needs a bit of a copy-edit and tighitning up. I noticed a few he did not mention I will try and list them ehre or jsut fix them. Dalf | Talk 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The healthcare paragraph at the end of the "Politics and government" section is a little weak and could do with perhaps fleshing out and its own headding. It could also perhaps be reworded so that the redlink to "Healthcare in Cameroon" was not linked with the word "healthcare" alone. I still am looking over some of the later sections but I am going to go ahead and change my vote now. Dalf | Talk 03:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-sourced article. It is also a very good article. --Carioca 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Uannis 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment Really good article, well done. Just that paragraph that begins with “On 1 January 1960…” doesn’t flow right for me and needs a massage. I had a tinker with it but left it because I wasn't confident about the subject matter. If that paragraph can be improved I'd certainly vote Support.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to fix it up and make it flow better. What do you think of it now? Picaroon 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Picaroon. Thanks, indeed that is an improvement. Good work.-- Zleitzen(talk) 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I will be away from reliable internet access from tomorrow until the 30th. If any further oppose !votes are registered, I'd appreciate it if the article could remain listed until I get back to stable internet access and have an opportunity to address any issues raised. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wouldn't it be better to leave pics size unspecified as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. --Victor12 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Russian-Circassian War[edit]

This article is one that I have been working on for quite a while. After the success of a previous article of mine to FA I was keen to bring this one up to that standard. After a peer review, GA nom and A class nom which were all successful and provided some helpful comments (though albeit not as many as I hoped) I think I have worked at it hard enough to push forward for FA class. Originally there were some POV views with a number of my initial sources coming from a pro-Circassian source from a group of Circassian historians working out of New York. From these references I decided to take only dates and a minimal number of figures in order to cut out POV risks. However I have subsequently come across a couple of highly useful printed sources on the war which have proved invaluable.

Please be specific with your concerns and points, and please check back here when you can, as I will attempt to rapidly address/fix any issues raised here. I look forward to critical comments as always, as they will improve the article. Fire away! SGGH 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is there a citation (the Unrepresented Nations and People Organisation one) redundantly listed so many times? It should be grouped like the others. Also, just out of curiosity, why aren't there any interwiki links? I find it odd that the English wiki would be the first to discuss a Russian war. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a hunt around and see, but I honestly don't think it has been covered. As for the UPNO, there are about 4 different articles there that I am using as sources, so if I refnamed them all up I don't think it would reduce it too much, but I will get on to that soon. You have already done so, thanks! The UPNO articles were less varied than I remember, I must have used the others pureply for reference without taking cites. SGGH 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Cryptic, you have covered over two different sources and named them both as UPNO when they were in fact different URL's, I'll go through and change them back in a moment. SGGH 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've gone through it again now. Sorry, I had to revert your second edit because it was easier to start again. Thanks for working on it though, it should be all fine now! SGGH 07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think you ought to take a closer look at citation formatting, or take a look at other featured articles that use large books. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean I ought to replace the long citations with "Badley p.206" then I will do so shortly. SGGH 07:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few MOS issues. I've seen 350'000 instead of 350,000, and all citations should come directly after punctuation marks,[like this] without spaces. [not this] Next, I'd recommend reducing the size of the people images. They look cruddy at their large size. Also, I solved the earlier curious lack of interwikis. There's already an article about this conflict at Caucasian War. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same thing, as explained in the article. Also please see my above comment regarding the citations, so that citations aren't overwritten with refname's when they are actually linking to different sources. SGGH 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Impressive responsiveness. Oppose needs copyediting throughout. I recognize this may have been written by non-native speakers, but this is supposed to be our best work. Some of the copyediting has nothing to do with language skills but is just careless.
    • Infobox: Russian strength 200,000, casualties 1,500,000. How is that again? removed for now, will search for more accurate figre, however it is possible to maintain a strength of 200,000 over 101 years of war and loose 1,500,000 isn't it?
      • You removed that, but left the similar issue with circassian str. Tell you what, just cite a source for each figure, and I'll accept, OK?
    • 778 years prior to 1763[4] when in 985 - do we really need to have the math done? Rephrase. fixed
    • Prince Sviatoslav, General Yermolov, Prince Mstislav, Princedom of Tamatarkha - seem like important figures who should be wikilinked fixed
      • Partly, but not completely. For example, you wikilink the second occurrence of Sviatoslav, not the first, and the link should probably include the "Prince". Same for Mstislav. You don't link Yermolov in the text at all - is he the guy linked in the infobox? You don't link Kasogia Better that it was, but not perfect.
Yermolov was linked in the prose. I have fixed the others bar Kasogia
    • Circassian cavalry - a bit late to wikilink Circassian fixed
    • In October 1809, - don't wikilink October fixed
    • 30,000 Russian soldiers; army of 11'000 men - pick one number style fixed
      • Not quite. "Russian figures stand at 300'000" (in citation 3) fixed
    • 43, 247 Circassians, - spacing I can't find where this is, can you point it out?
      • Previous hostilities, third paragraph; it was faster just to fix it myself. :-)
        • I find it very worrying that I could just not see that! Thanks. SGGH speak! 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cape Adler; Cape Alder - typo? fixed
    • it was not until 5:00 in the afternoon that the Circassians were beaten back from their positions, the landing had begun at 10:00 that morning and the Russian suffered many casualties in oe of their few major upsets of the conflict. - incoherent, reorder, typo fixed, but still not 100% happy with this sentence
      • Suggestion: At Taupse, one of the fiercest battles of the conflict, the Russian landing had begun at 10:00 in the morning, and the Circassians were not beaten back from their positions until 5:00 in the afternoon, with the Russians suffering heavy casualties. thanks for the suggestion, have taken it up
    • Liko ... divided his fortress in half - did this have an effect on the battle? Did he pick the right half? he decided that with the size of his command he could only afford to defend one half, though its my understanding that he was unlikely to hold the fort no matter what he did he was severely outnumbered, have reworded to maek clearer
    • Later that year, the Russian Tsesarevich - any real need to use an obscure term when the person's name will do? fixed
    • With Russia's overwhelming economic and military superiority, surviving Circassian leaders saw little chance. In 1840 alone, for instance, Russian estimates for artilliery cartridge expenditure was 11,344, and musket cartridges 1,206,575 - incoherent, misspelled fixed
    • Great Prince Michail - again seems a notable character, wikilink. Or is this yet another name for someone who has been mentioned before? fixed
    • Ottoman Empire figured show - figures? fixed
    • many tribes were totally destructed. - destroyed? it is a direct quote, destructed was the word used by the historian Zaharyan
      • No offense, but I tend to doubt it. A Russian historian, writing about a Russian/Caucasian conflict, doing it in English? I'd suspect it was a poor translation from the Russian language. Are you just citing http://www.circassianworld.com/reports.html? That's not a very good source, it doesn't give the book or article, date, nothing. erm.... it lists four sources right at the bottom
        • None of which are the historian Zaharyan, which makes it not a very good source at least for that particular quote, I hope you'll agree.
    • the Ageyan public organizations; Adygean (Circassian) people - which is it? fixed
      • No, not fixed. I'm referring to the last paragraph of "Civilian casualties", though of course you should do a full text search for other occurrences. erm... it is the last paragraph that I am looking at, there is no text in brackets anywhere I've left it at Adygean
        • "In October 2006, the Ageyan public organizations of Russia, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Syria, the USA, Belgium, Canada and Germany sent the president of the European Parliament a letter with the request to recognize the genocide against Adygean people, one of the ethnic groups in Circassia." - I bolded what I'm referring to, pick one spelling! Also probably need a "the" before the second one. Ah im following you, I thought you were talking about the bracketed text
    • stated in May 1994 statement - phrase needs rephrase of its phrasing haha, fixed
    • In 1911, 216,950 Circassians were found in Armenia during a census - makes it sound like they were hiding fixed
    • An exile map here - what's an exile map? Also, what makes this a reliable source? fixed, its from the circassian historical organisation 'CBA' in new york
      • An map -> a map done
    • Circassian decent - as opposed to Circassian indecent? fixed
    • The depleted Circassian lands - depopulated, perhaps? Depleted lands usually mean they were over-farmed or mined or something fixed
    • with Turkish commanders fleeing under the protection of Circassian forces, such as on April 29, 1807 when the fortress of Anapa fell to Russian forces and the Turkish Pasha fled along with the Circassians. - yeesh. Surely Turkish sources wouldn't put it like that I have changed it to "fighting alongside the circassians, though that might not have been what you meant Yes, that was what I meant; no reason to take passing shots at the Turkish military.
    • constructing the Labinski Line in 1840 - what's the Labinski Line? Wikilink would be good here. it was just a name for a chain of new defensive positions, not notable alone for an article
    • and beginning to develop a new form of scout, known as a plastun. - what's so special about a plastun? Wikilink would be good here. fixed
    • the Russian navy captured an English merchant ship supplying ammunition to the Circassians, supplies which helped inspire the remaining free Circassians - if the ship was captured, how did the Circassians get the supplies? Rephrase fixed
    • General Volkhovskiin; General Volkhovski - are these two different people? fixed, its volkhovski
    • May 13 - wikilink this, per WP:DATE fixed
    • an Russian Orthodox Chaplain - a fixed
    • defection of exiled Poles to the Circassian cause - was this a significant number? Why were there Poles in Circassia? i believe they were exiled there before the conflict, but i doubt it is of major significance, so have removed it
    • Half of them needed to be crashed - crushed? killed? fixed
    • Aside from a question of possible genocide which is still debated today,[38] - we just had a section on that, move this phrase there fixed
    • Some sources; Other sources - WP:WEASEL this appears to have been fixed already unless im looking a the wrong one
    • as far a field - afield fixed
    • This was one of three defensive lines which were built during the whole conflict, which were: the Caucasian Line in 1780, The Chernomorski Cordon Line in 1793, and the Sunja Line in 1817. - capitalization, wikilinks, explain what a Line was. A bunch of forts? Seems to need a map.fixed, none of the lines have article,s Sunja is an area in Croatia now, I will try to find a map but sources are tricky
      • Still capitalization - why The Chernomorski? because it's a name, like Caen, or Belgium, or the Maginot Line
        • Sorry, without a citation of usage, I still disagree. Note it's the Caucasian Line, not The Caucasian Line, the Maginot Line not The Maginot Line...
          • I did it myself. :-)
    • The latter two periods were those during which the Russian military concerned itself with forays into, and the later invasion and occupation of, western Circassia, known as Minor Kabardia and inhabited by numerous tribes, particularly the Abkhazs themselves. - So, readable, becomes, rephrase, reorder, and, this. fixed
Not stopping because I'm done, just because I'm tired. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, give me a little time and I'll deal with all those. Please come back later if you have more comments, I want to catch every chink as the peer review and so on weren't too much help. SGGH 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed a number of the above points, and will continue with the others after a break! SGGH 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More issues, mostly nitpicks (I said I wasn't done, just tired!)
    • June 2, 1864, (May 21, O.S.). - remove comma before parentheses done
    • ended with the signing of several Russian loyalty oaths by, among others, Circassian leaders - I'd remove "among others," as you don't go into who the others are. Or you can replace with Circassian and Caucasian or Caucasian and Ottoman or something - more information for the same wordage. done
    • September 6, June 6, possibly others - wikilink per WP:DATE in my last FAC I was told not to wikilink lone days without years, but I'll do as you say this time :)
    • Ottoman Empire; Ottoman empire - pick one capitalization, probably the formerThey all seem to be Empire that I can find... '
      • "Russia hoped to cripple the Ottoman empire as well as the trading interests of Great Britain."
        • Did it myself. :-)
    • Bosphorus and the Dardanelles - wikilink them in the article text preceding the quote, not in the quote. Also link Black Sea. fixed
    • 227,000 sheep[6] - unless that cite is merely for the sheep, I'd move it to the end of the sentence done
    • General note - the numbers of sheep involved are cited several times, which isn't the sort of thing you usually expect in military history articles. Why were sheep particularly important? Why not pigs, goats, cows, oxen, camels? Probably not worth a whole section, but at least one sentence explaining why "counting sheep" was particularly important would probably be useful somewhere. well i suspect that sheep's milk was important, but I don't have any sources on that. I simply quote sheep because sheep are what the sources quoted, they don't mention why they quoted sheep that I could see
      • Well, then, frankly, I'd remove them. I won't oppose over just this, but editorial decision is all about including important things and not including unimportant things, and if you don't know why it's important (by the way, once you've read enough about a subject to write a Featured Article on it, you're at least something like an expert!), there's a fair chance it's not important. I sympathise with your opinion, but personally I would choose to leave them in at the moment because its information, the lack of facts about the conflict in general mean that every statistic like that is valuable, we can debate the mention of specific animals but when grouped together they paint a quantitative picture
        • Looking again, you also have cattle. I'll accept that.
    • Previous hostilities - I'd combine the first two paragraphs into one. They're really on one idea, "when did the war really start". 5 sentences is not too long for a single paragraph. done
    • Events of the war - I'd similarly combine the first two paragraphs into one done
    • Tuapse ; Taupse - which one? Seems to be the former according to our article, if so, wikilink. fixed
    • River Sochi, Subash, Gunib, others - Wikilink and/or provide a map showing as many as possible, please, so we can get an idea of the locations involved I have linked Sochi to the city through which it flows, the others don't have article
    • http://www.circassianworld.com/reports.html is cited in two different cites (34, 35) should be one. done
      • I'm not sure you understood what I mean there; I merely meant use <ref name=> so the reference would appear once in the references list, and the link to it would appear twice in the article text. But just deleting one is OK too. I new what you meant, but both lines were so close one source was fine.
    • What's more, it isn't a very good source, doesn't give book or article name, publication date, full name of several historians, and I strongly question the English language skills of the translator. I'd recommend striking it, and all entries that depend solely on it, entirely. Seeing as they are historians, I could ref the history books themselves but I can't speak russian, to the translation is what I have to go by. If I removed the quotes it hampers the section quite a bit
      • Looks like we might have to agree to disagree on this one; I personally think that one page of poorly cited fragments from many books is not good enough to cite for much. On the other hand, you're not using it to cite much, just a relatively small section of the article, so I won't oppose strictly based on that, as your other sources seem better. If it were entirely gone, it would still be fairly clear that a hundred years of continuous warfare isn't going to be a nice thing to the people living in the region. I removed it in the end, found some trustworthy cites
    • A Russian Historian - lower case H->h. fixed
    • Karl Friedrich Neumann - wikilink. He seems to be much more of what we mean by a Wikipedia:reliable source than http://www.circassianworld.com/reports.html - not that he's necessarily right, just that he has more of a reputation. done
    • merchant ship was part of an on going -> ongoing fixed
    • Russian commanders, by Colonel Olshevski - remove "by" fixed

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • A new one - "Occupation of Eastern Circassia" but "Forays into western Circassia" - pick a consistent capitalization. fixed
      • Not completely, but I did the rest myself.


I'm striking my opposition, you are responding very thoroughly. If you can fix the rest (and if I don't come up with other nitpicks by that time!) I'll support. If you just can't get them all (for example, you seem to be set on the reliability of that page on Circassian World) I'll support weakly, or at least I won't oppose strongly. -AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Im interested to discuss the issue of how reliable that source is. It is collected on the same site maintained by the CBA that the historians who published some of the articles I cite from work with. It's a list rather than opinion, and I could cite from the books themselves if I could speak Russian. I'll try to google some alternatives or solutions. Thanks for all your help!
I have found a source that discusses the 'genocide' and have removed the questionable quotes. I hope you are pleased with how I have addressed your points! SGGH speak! 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Damn good article and I'm confident that you will cover and fix the areas as requested above. Tony the Marine 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Nice and interesting well-documented article with proper references and good images and maps. It really worth making it a featured article! Eurocopter tigre 11:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is indeed well-written, but I have never heard that the land inhabited by the Abkhaz people was called Minor Kabardia (Events of the War section; second paragraph). Is the term supposed to be synonymous with Abkhazia? If yes, are there any credible sources for that? Thanks, KoberTalk 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have been related. Thought without a source I'm sure if I can change it, the sources are rather confusing in places, and it's particularly hard as not many of the regions or countries mentioned exist anymore, and that there were so many tribes and ethnic groups. SGGH speak! 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did some googling on that. There are very few (if any) English-language sources available on Minor Kabardia, but I found quite a few references in Russian, including this insightful article about the Russian-North Caucasian relations. Minor Kabardia (also spelled Minor Kabarda) appears to have been located on the both sides of the Terek River where the Circassians arrived in the 12th-13th centuries. Following the Circassian ethnic cleansing, the area was populated by the Ossetians and Ingush peoples. It is now part of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. Several posts at the Adyge Forum also confirm this version. Hence, Minor Kabardia's geographical or ethnic connection with Abkhazia sounds somewhat unplausible. I think this particular passage needs to be somehow fixed. Cheers, --KoberTalk 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that dammed paragraph, I scrapped it in the end and re-wrote it in a far simpler format hoping that it works better. Sometimes flowing prose just can't handle massive influxes of data. SGGH speak! 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

York City F.C.[edit]

I have been doing a lot of work on this article recently, and I believe it has been raised to meet the FA criteria. The article has had a peer review. Mattythewhite 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've added the fair use rationale to the applicable images. Mattythewhite 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale must be article-specific. Pagrashtak 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All sorted out for applicable images. Mattythewhite 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection struck. By the way, I noticed that one public domain image had fair use rationale added. Only non-free content needs fair use rationale. Pagrashtak 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a lot of hard work has gone into the article and it's on a par with other featured F.C. articles such as Arsenal F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C. which is compliment to Mattythewhite as York City isn't such an easy subject for FA. Well done. The Rambling Man 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object Needs a thorough copyedit (I'll help with this over the weekend), and the stadium section is under-referenced. Oldelpaso 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you be specific with the under-ref's? I advised that each sentence with the same ref could be un-ref'd and the whole paragraph could be dealt with in a single cite. However, I'll examine it too...! The Rambling Man 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the same ref once per paragraph makes sense, but there are several paragraphs with none. Examples I'd expect to be cited include the WWII damage and the various construction costs and resulting capacities. Looking at the ref (#22 as I write this) some of the sentences need totally rewriting - there are sentences which are lifted verbatim. One additional thing, I've just noticed that the current capacity isn't mentioned in the section. Oldelpaso 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've done a copyedit of the Stadia section (as well as the whole of the article itself), it is more-well referenced and now gives the current capacity. Mattythewhite 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more things I noticed while doing some copyediting on the History section:
    • York won the Fourth Division with a record 101 points, the first team to do so in the Football League - the reference does not support the assertion that York were the first team to get 101 points.
     Done Reference given. Mattythewhite 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Batchelor promised the club much, but after more financial controversy regarding funds promised to City which went undelivered, - this needs a citation, and ought to be more specific; "promised the club much" is very vague.
     Done Reference given and more description added. Mattythewhite 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph of the history section lists several managers with little context. It ought to focus on what happened to the club rather than who they hired and fired. Oldelpaso 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I think I've got this sorted out. Mattythewhite 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Prose has now gone thoroughly through the wringer, changed to support. Oldelpaso 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object, sorry. Agree with need for overall copyedit, but here's a selection of specific issues from just one part of the article:see changed opinion below --Dweller 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. photo captions need years for context
 Done Dates for images now stated. Mattythewhite 19:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "traditional kit" caption is ambiguous - define "traditional"; the club's had various colours down the years, as the article explains
 Done Changed "traditional" to "original". Mattythewhite 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. more than one Stadium in club's history suggests section should be called "Stadia"
 Done Renamed "Stadium" section to "Stadia". Mattythewhite 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. which year was "York City's FA Cup run, which included games against Arsenal and then Liverpool, as well as a replay against Liverpool in front of a crowd of 43,000"?
 Done I've given the season this Cup run took placce. Mattythewhite 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Parag beginning "The capacity of Bootham Crescent" needs a copyedit.
 Done I think I've got this sorted out. Mattythewhite 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Various problems in parag beginning "A planned move to Huntington Stadium had fallen". Quirky English, no explanation why ground needed to be bought, wikilink KitKat for people who dont get the Nestle connection. It also confusingly overlaps with the next section.
 Done Rewritten this sentence so it makes more sense, wikilinked KitKat. Mattythewhite 11:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#New Stadium more logically should fall into the Stadia section as a subsection

  1. "By then" - by when?
 Done Date given for when they have to move. Mattythewhite 11:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What Nestle site?
 Done More detailed description of sites given. Mattythewhite 17:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "the favoured York Central site" implies it's previously been mentioned
 Done I've reworded that so it makes more sense. Mattythewhite 12:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. New Stadium section reads like a bulletin board that's been updated every so often by different people, rather than flowing prose. Lose some detail of aborted moves into a new main article on the subject?
 Done I've sorted out the whole of that section. Mattythewhite 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of comments on just a small chunk of the article. You've done the hard work with the referencing, but now some further thought and a thorough copyedit will take this to FA. Cheers, --Dweller 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of work's gone into this over the weekend. I'll find some time asap to review the article as a whole. Hoping to support. --Dweller 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of work's gone in to this, but I still don't see evidence of it having received a third party copyedit. This is essential. Some specific objections just from the first few lines, all of which would be caught by a non expert who can copyedit:

  • Line one - is a club singular or plural. I'd go for "is" for club.
  • "as far as" - "as high as"
  • "have enjoyed more success" - than what? It's the start of a paragraph. And the last one was about the stadium.
  • As far as I know, Old Trafford have never won a trophy

Sorry. Please let me know when the article's had a third-party copyedit. --Dweller 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to support Well done, Matty (and collaborators). An enormous amount of effort's gone into this and you've kept cool in the face of my pedantry. I think it's an excellent article. It's good to have "smaller" clubs represented in the galaxy of FAs. Contrary to some perceptions, not everyone in England supports one of the "big" clubs... and there's huge amounts of interest, tradition and passion (if not silverware) outside of the usual suspects. --Dweller 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fantastic article, brilliant research. Only suggestions are that there should be a link to York City F.C. season 2006-07 and that the 'notable players' section could perhaps use a little bit more subjectivity - for instance: players who went on to bigger clubs, greater fame, international teams rather than just emphasising the number of appearances.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me677 (talk • contribs).
Subjectivity is a no-no - see WP:NPOV. --Dweller 18:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - on par with other football FAs; great job considering subject matter. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article, and it is well-sourced. --Carioca 04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hugely improved from before the peer review, deserves featured status. Qwghlm 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Lage Raho Munna Bhai[edit]

previous FAC

Article about a Bollywood comedy film that has created great interest, and revived the tenets of Gandhism (principles of Mahatma Gandhi) in India. Besides being a very popular film, it has made strong cultural impacts. The article is a Good Article, thanks to the excellent effort of User:Classicfilms.

The previous FAC was a bit premature (version during the previous FAC is this). It's a pleasure to nominate the article for FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that a number of people contributed to this article. Looking forward to your feedback. -Classicfilms 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Removed two images. Fair use rationale for Image:Munnaradio.jpg seems to be ok. I request you to please review the rationale. If it still seems not permissible, the image will be removed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Lage raho munna bhai.JPG and Image:Lagerahodvdcover.jpg have no fair use rationale. Pagrashtak 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also noted here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lage_Raho_poster2.jpg that Image:Lage Raho poster2.jpg needs to be smaller - could you specify the exact dimensions it should be reduced to? -Classicfilms 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The size of Image:Lage Raho poster2.jpg has been reduced from previous 104 kb to 34 kb. Image:Lage raho munna bhai.JPG and Image:Lagerahodvdcover.jpg have been provided with fair use rationale for the article. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dimensions of the image are still large. Right now it's 750×563, but the article doesn't require an image nearly that large. It could easily be half that size with no detriment to the article. Pagrashtak 05:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Reduced. Now it's 350×263, size is 12 kb. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work, objection struck. Pagrashtak 05:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pagra for your help! -Classicfilms 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support- This article must be a FA beacuse it meets all the required criteria. I accept the fault of nominating the article previously, and it is now much better than the previous nomination. Amartyabag TALK2ME 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amartya, thanks for the comment. However, nominating previously was not a fault! It's rather unfortunate that the article could not be upgraded during the previous FAC. Thanks for your enthusiasm. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice improvements from last time. A question I have is the chai-wallah incident, I can't see how that is important enough to mention. Unless perhaps someone important told the story. Similar for the statement "Several real life incidences followed that were inspired by the themes repeated in the film." in the lead. I don't get a sense from that of how it is important enough to be mentioned. It can also be phrased much more encyclopedically as something like "The film has impacted life outside the film in a number of ways", and then tell us what about those things is important. Also the box office section could use more numbers if they are available. How many tickets were sold, how much revenue, and exactly how well did it do overseas. It doesn't need a volume of material on that, but I think it should be standard for a successful movie to tell us the box office numbers. Close to support. - Taxman Talk 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the suggestions. Please check back in 24 hours. Have to sleep now (it's past midnight here in India)!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Available figures added in box-office. Chai-walla incident was mentioned by director Hirani in an interview. The incident (and some more observations by the director) has now been incorporated as quoted text. The sentence in the lead has been changed per the suggestion. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I fixed the info a bit based on what the source reported. I removed "nett", since I've never heard of nett gross, and that's not what the source said anyway. If I made an error, let me know of course. The lead could stand to be three full paragraphs, but it reasonably summarizees the article now, so it's not a huge problem. - Taxman Talk 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Taxman - you were right to remove "nett" from the overseas, but the source for the 2006 earnings does use "nett gross" - "nett gross" is defined here, at the bottom of the page. I'm wondering if you could elaborate more about the lead paragraph - what information do you feel needs to be added? -Classicfilms 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Support A very good encyclopedic source of information well structured meeting all the criteria for a film FA on wikipedia - featured articles always have that something special -in this case it involves the cultural influence of Gandhi -further information which takes it beyond a GA. Maybe one of two sentences need polishing up to avoid repetition particularly the synopsis but this article has seen considerable improvement since the GA review visibly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Could you give me an idea of what areas need work? -Classicfilms 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, rather narrowly, I think it would be nice if there weren't visible jpeg artifact on the film poster. Limited resolution is necessary, but, the low resolution images should be sharp. gren グレン 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Do you suggest increasing the size of those poster images?--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the suggestion you gave in my talk page, a new poster has been instituted in the infobox. However, the size is 43kb, and 490 × 368 pixel. Please comment if it is better, and also if it is acceptable for fair use. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets the criterion from a to e fine. I only have two observations - (1) at 53 kilo it may be a bit too long; and (2) the surprise blockbuster stuff may be worth mentioning in the lead, the same goes for the wave of Gandhigiri stuff. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved material above and removed some material to reduce the length. If you see other material to trim, please do so. Thanks for the feedback. -Classicfilms 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the present version, the size is 50 kb (52,017 bytes). However, readable prose size, as depicted here and here is less than 30 kb. In fact it is only 24,194 bytes. So I request Aditya to reconsider his observation on size. However, that does not mean trimming is unwelcome. Rather, good trimming would help the article become more easily readable. We'll try --Dwaipayan (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this version (3 May), the size is 53 kb (55,964 bytes). Will update the readable prose size soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - though I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the comment about footnotes. What else would you like to see? -Classicfilms 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Hmm... well, some media-related Featured Articles are based on footnotes alone, without any separate section on references. For example, The West Wing (TV series) and Lost (TV series). Some film-related FAs are there based primarily on footnotes, such as V for Vendetta (film) and Tenebrae (film). However, the last two examples use some book-sources, though those books are not listed separately under references.
IMO, this article satisfies WP:V. Yes, there are no separate reference section, since no single source has been extensively used as a reference. Multiple sources have been used, and hence footnotes were thought to be more appropriate. No publications (books etc) have been published on the movie yet (AFAIK). If such books were available, of course we'd have tried to incorporate details from those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few comprehensive references. -Classicfilms 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Classicfilms for adding the references. Being the principal creator of the article, you know the best which sources have been used extensively so as to place them under "References". :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) Wolf talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A very well written article which meets the required criteria. -- Pa7 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article on a great topic! I have a few suggestions that may be helpful in improving the article, but the article is good enough to be FA even without these.
    • Under 'Influences and allusions', the similarities between Munnabhai MBBS and Patch Adams can be added. I would say that is a more strongly evident influence than anything in Parineeta.
    • The not-so-subtle reference to Bollywood's love for numerology, especially the double K is a humorous minor theme that can be explored in more detail.
    • More on how the Munnabhai series celebrates the Tapori culture of Mumbai, and uses it as a contrasting background for talking about humanism in medicine or integrity in day to day life.
    • I don't see why the comment by Shastri Ramachandran in Reviews section deserves special quotes. Sure, its superlative praise, but so is everything else above it.
-- Longhairandabeard 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (1) Influnces and allusions - good point. Will try (depending on adequate source abiding by WP:V)
(2) Bollywood's love for numerology - probably would be difficult to get good ref per WP:V and WP:RS that this thing in the film was satirical to Bollywood's numerology fad. Where do you suggest to incorporate the exploration (if possible)? Plot is not the best place to do so, as it would increase the size of plot.
(3) Celebrating Tapori culture - Again, depends on good ref. And more appropriate for Munna Bhai series. However, an interesting aspect. Would be great to have at least some lines.
(4) Done.
Thanks a lot for exploring some newer aspects. However I fear without good refs, points 2 and 3 may sound like WP:OR, even if we understand that this is prbably true :) Will try, nevertheless. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More Both Hirani [34] and Vidhu Vinod Chopra [35] denies influence of Patch Adams on Munna Bhai MBBS. Reports ([36]) vary though. In any case, this article won't be a good place to discuss that, IMO. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually the fact that people so closely associated with the project have commented on it makes it a must to be included in the article. A short line that says "some people have drawn similarities between a and b but this has been refuted by x (cite) and z (cite)."--Blacksun 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a point which already exists in the Munnabhai MBBS article (see trivia) - since this is a topic about a different film, how would you suggest writing the sentence so that it ties to this film (the film Parineeta is only mentioned by name in this article, for example - the use of allusion is discussed only in the article Parineeta itself - for consistency we could change the sentence to say "such as Munnabhai MBBS and Parineeta" - if we add the details for one film, we should add for both). -Classicfilms 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha yes, that makes sense. I did not realize it had more to do with the original film. Never mind then.--Blacksun 08:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great job guys.--Blacksun 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport: Article good as it is well-sourced but only one small prob - Budget: 12 crores....but no source and also a source for the release date will make make it better.--KnowledgeHegemony 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so IMDB says 12 crores (estimated) acc. to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456144/business and also - http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/0LARM.php. says the same... But I don't know how to use these link as sources so I leave to others.
I added a reference for the release date (date is also given on IMDB). This fact cannot be given on the page, but I also saw the film on opening night and know that it was September 1. As for the estimated budget, IMDB does not list a secondary source for it - it would be nice to have that to confirm the amount. -Classicfilms 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a reference for the estimated budget. Can it be considerd as a secondary source for the IMDb data? Don't know.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Comprehensive coverage. Well written. Well sourced. --Indianstar 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Equipartition theorem[edit]

The equipartition theorem is an important result of 19th century physics. Being one of the most general results of classical statistical mechanics, it is still used in calculating properties of physical systems, ranging from the average tumbling rate of proteins in solution to the maximum mass of a neutron star before it collapses into a black hole. The disagreements between experimental specific heats and the specific heats predicted by equipartition were the first evidence that classical physics could not be correct. Together with the ultraviolet catastrophe — likewise predicted by equipartition — these disagreements set physicists on the path to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. The article is stable, and has benefited from a scientific peer review, a normal peer review and less formal reviews. Thank you for taking the time to consider it! :) Willow 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Do you think you could cut down the length of the image captions; the oscillating system at "Limitations" for example has caption which is 10 lines long! It's a very technical article, which should be no barrier to FA status, but it must then provide context and explain at the very least, the meaning behind an equation. For example, it's all very interesting to derive that , but if you don't explain why you've done it, all you'll do is put casual readers straight off the article. What is this equation used for? Who first derived it? The Stellar physics section is an example of how I personally think the article should be; it's got quite a few equations in it, but it also makes bold and interesting statements about scientists can know how hot the sun is without going there; now that's interesting! Also the article doesn't link a few technical terms (hypersurface for one). I'm not going to write this article off yet; it has potential to be a challenging but very rewarding one. Laïka 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, and especially for your faith that the article is redeemable, which I hope to justify. :)
  • The caption of the normal-mode image is indeed long, but it tells a complete story. I could delete most of it and rely on the text alone to convey the ideas, but my thought was that the caption helped to distill the essential ideas.
  • I agree very much that we shouldn't put our readers off, especially early in the article, which is why I relegated the derivations to near the very end. On the other hand, the readers shouldn't have to take my word for everything, which is why I start from the general formulation and take derivatives in the various Application sections. Does that seem sensible to you? Please share your suggestions on how to do a better job in maintaining the connection to the casual reader! :)
  • The references in the History section do describe how the equipartition theorem was derived and by whom, right? Maybe there's a glitch somewhere in the exposition? The particular formula you cite is the theoretical definition of temperature.
  • I added the hypersurface wikilink, and would be grateful for others that I should add.
Thank you again, and I would welcome your further insights or suggestions.
Willow 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other major comment I have with this article is that it uses the units Calories/(mole x kelvin). Is this a unit frequently used for calculating equipartion, or would the entirely SI joules/(mole x kelvin) be better, given that there are lots of different types of calorie? Laïka 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main advantage of the cal/(mol K) unit is that R is so close to an integer, 2, with the added advantage of canceling the 2 so often seen in the denominator, e.g., (3/2)R. If you think it'd be helpful, I'd be happy to convert those to SI units, though. Willow 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps giving the units as 6 cal/(mole·K) (25 J/(mole·K)) would be best; by the sounds of it, the calorie is the easiest unit to use in this particular field. Still, I have no further complaints about this article, so Support. Laïka 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written article having some great assist with the superb animations and images.Though I also feel on the similar lines of the previous comment that the equations should be tried to be given a more general readership by explaining them a bit. Also, I think that the History section should be introduced before the Formulations section. Overall the article is well referenced. DS 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Deepak! The placement of the History section is an ongoing source of confusion for this article's editors, some wanting it near the beginning and others near the end. For myself, I'm also wondering about leaping straight away into the Maxwell-Boltzmann probability distribution; some reviewers had wanted the quadratic derivation as a "warm-up" to the general formulation, but now it seems rather daunting to the casual reader. What are your thoughts? Willow 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, offering the Maxwell-Boltzmann probability distribution and other such formulations first as a warm-up may be helpful to some readers, but I think for a casual reader, as you said, they rather look daunting and for them it would have been better to place the History section before. So, the opinion still exists divided. So as a solution to the problem, I think the present format should be kept because in other case after History section, the article would have been predominated only by large equations and even that will seem daunting to the casual reader. So let it be so. DS 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. This seems as clearly-written as is possible for such a mathematical subject and has beautiful illustrations.
  • Are refs with partial page numbers correct? Such as the first citations in ref 15 and 16.
I haven't been able to get hard copies of those references, so I don't know what their final page numbers are. :(
link p330 indicates some were on a single page
1286 1906 ANNALEN DER PHYSIK 22 (1): 99-106 Wigand A Temperature speed of specific heat solid elements link
  • Need ref for The average temperature of a star can be estimated from the equipartition theorem. maybe repeat the citation from the review in the paragraph above?
OK, although I should check that first!
  • Lacks summary style, you need to add links in each sub-section to other relevant articles.
You mean like {{Main}} links?
Exactly.
  • "Graham's law of effusion, which is used in purifying radioactive isotopes of uranium." I thought they used centrifuges? :)
That's the new way (I think); effusion was the old way. Another fine Scotch scientist, Dr. Graham, by the by. ;) Thanks for your bon courage, Willow 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but however solid, a theory doesn't hold much gas. You might want to say "which is applied in purifying isotopes of uranium."
Check! I'm on it, boss. ;) Willow 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TimVickers 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim! The article's much better for your attention to details. Good luck with the big E; you're much braver than me, but I'll help where I can... Willow 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the weird reason to oppose. DS 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to an article must be actionable; is there anything that could be done to this article to improve it? Laïka 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Featured article criteria are not dependent on subject. This objection is not actionable. TimVickers 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I expressed my concerns regarding the numerological parlour tricks of 15 April, I was flatly advised that the fault was my own for neglecting to voice my opposition for said article at the time of its nomination. I am trying desperately to avoid making that same mistake twice. —freak(talk) 17:46, Apr. 28, 2007 (UTC)
Hi Freakofnurture. When commenting on a FAC, you are expected to assess if the article meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. If you have any questions about how this review process works, or find these criteria unclear, just drop me a note on my talk page. TimVickers 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello yourself. This is not a personal matter — I've never heard of you either, actually (and no, I don't forsee dropping any notes on your talk page) — nor am I concerned with the criteria to which you refer. I merely feel that topic would be an ill-advised featured-article selection at this time (or in the near future), for the simple reason I've outlined above. If my opinion ultimately counts for nothing (and frankly I suspect it will), then so be it, but you are in no position to decide that. —freak(talk) 19:34, Apr. 28, 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps your objection would be taken more seriously if you could explain in more detail what the problem is. So far it looks just like you don't like two science/mathematics-related articles appearing on the front page within a month or so of each other. If this is your reason, probably people whose tastes differ from yours can't really see a problem. --C S (Talk) 07:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article reaches featured status, it does not necessarily mean it will be featured on the Main Page. CloudNine 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you oppose the article appearing on the main page then think the page you want is WP:TFA/R, assuming this article is ever nominated there. As Tim said, this page is for assessing articles against a set of criteria, not to decide if the article will appear on the main page. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, F of N, but I don't know the 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · fiasco. I can assure you, though, that this article is about physics, not math. The math here is straightforward multidimensional calculus — ok, maybe that's an oxymoron ;) — and uncontroversial, nothing as arbitrary as summing divergent series. If it's any comfort, this article seems unlikely to ever reach the Main Page, when there are so many great articles on more interesting topics. Besides, the balloon-animal rights activists would hound me relentlessly if it did. ;) Willow 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well-written article. I too had a concern about the rather detailed image caption, but then realised it would hard to explain elsewhere. However, I'm not sure about the Sun image. It's cyan background is a little off-putting (a purely stylistic issue of course!), and I'm not sure how relevant the diagram itself is. CloudNine 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of replacing this figure with a version with a white background. TimVickers 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim! :) Willow 09:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe the "thermal motion" image looks too much like a set of points in 3D space representing a dog walking on its hind legs while quickly plucking the hairs from a teddy bear. Is this actionable? Thanks, (aha!) 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You must have either had a very unhappy childhood or great drugs as an adolescent. It is obviously a weasel riding a broomstick. TimVickers 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all four. –Outriggr § 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My daughter got a balloon animal that looked like it. I put it out of it's misery. -Ravedave 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that isn't the "mean Outriggr"; I liked the nice one! ;) This is fun, like looking at the clouds — I totally see them! :) Now I'm going to get some long colored balloons and try to recreate Dave's poor creature... ;) mwahaha... 09:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
After days of rapt contemplation, I've received the insight that Figure 1 is actually a picture of three mice riding uphill on a friendly catepillar. Happy May Day, everyone! :) Willow 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layman's Support. I'm in agreement with DS, the history section should go at the beginning. Casual readers (assuming some reach this article :) might see the formulas and move on to elsewhere. I believe the intro should have when the theory was proposed (as it gives context re:Einstein & relativity) and also probably mention Waterson as well. I love the sedimentation example, it's an excellent way to draw readers in. Perhaps that should be a DYK. Should there be one more step in the Ideal gas law derivation, converting it to the more familiar PV = nRT? I did a copy edit pass on the whole article, here's my diff feel free to revert any of it. Another great Willow article. -Ravedave 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dave! I'll work on the History section; I definitely see how launching right into the math could be off-putting. I'm glad that you love the sedimentation example; I was grinning from ear to ear as I wrote about the "infinitely tall bottle of beer". The friendly message from darkliight on my talk page inspired me. :) Willow 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a well written article that seems to meet all of the criteria, with two small issues to be fixed.
    • please fix the citation needed in the History section.
    • References 14, 22 are missing the date of publication - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Peripitus, especially for your sharp eyes in detecting those two glitches. I've fixed the references and added the needed citation. Sweet thanks from Up Over for the support from Down Under, Willow 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please fix WP:MSH in Derivations — don't repeat words in sub-sections. Can you put Further reading in alphabetical order by last name? And, there's a newfound requirment; you're never supposed to specify px size on thumb image — you need to take those out so that user preferences take precedent (that's somehwere in WP:MOS and was the subject of a bid deal on WP:AN). I wish I had time to read it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the section headings and Further reading - thanks for pointing this out! I'm sorry to hear thumbs caused a big deal at WP:AN, but this is only a recommendation, not a requirement in WP:MOS#Images. Anyway, none of the images in the article are thumbnails: the thumb tag is simply used to scale down some large images with captions to recommended sizes for articles, per Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial. However, I've been through the article replacing thumb by frame for those images which have not been scaled. Geometry guy 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Uncle Tom's Cabin[edit]

Because Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel in the world during the 19th century, and is one of the most influential novels in history, this article has been rated as top-level importance by WikiProject Novels. The article was promoted to good article status two months ago. Since then I've added more heavily referenced information while also putting the article through a peer review. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article has brilliant prose, is well referenced, comprehensive, well organized, uses appropriate images, features a neutral POV, and appears stable. Well done! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Other characters' section only has one or two sentences for each character. It's not a problem at all, but could it be would it be more effective if it were combined into one paragraph? --Phoenix (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've condensed them into a bulleted list. Does this work for you?--Alabamaboy 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks; Looks much better. Support. --Phoenix (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finally, a good page on a piece of literature (so rare around here!). I peer-reviewed this article; it was good then and is even better now. But there are just a few tiny issues that I would like to see improved before I support:
  • The over-riding theme in Uncle Tom's Cabin is Stowe's desire to show the evil of slavery, especially with regards to how this "peculiar institution" forcibly separated families from each other. - perhaps you could reword this sentence so the theme isn't "Stowe's desire" but the "evils of slavery"?
  • What about this as introductory sentence to the "Themes" section: Uncle Tom's Cabin is dominated by a single theme: the immorality of slavery. While Stowe weaves other subthemes throughout her text, such as the moral authority of motherhood and the redeeming possibilities offered by Christianity, she emphasizes the connections between these and the horrors of slavery." (or something like that)
Works for me. I've made the change. What do you think?--Alabamaboy 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Themes" section is missing a close paranthesis.
  • Can you make the "Themes" section flow a little better? Right now the only transitions we have are "another" and "final." What are the relationships between these themes? For example, you end the first paragraph with a quote by a woman; the next paragraph is about the moral authority of women - surely you could make a better transition there?
  • I would have liked to see even more transitions, but it is fine, I suppose. Awadewit 04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle Tom's Cabin is written in the sentimental[27] and melodramatic style common to 19th century sentimental novels and domestic fiction (also called women's fiction). - I think you have to explain why it was also called "women's fiction" and how sentimental novels were not considered as serious specifically because they were written by women. This is all in Tompkins.
  • This is fine, but it might be good to make Tompkins' point here that it was the sentimental style that was popular at the time. Awadewit 04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the death of Little Eva - do you have any reader-response on that? I know that Little Eva was like Clarissa - readers wept buckets - it would be good to illustrate that reaction.
I've added in contemporary reactions to the novel. Some interesting stuff, if I do say so myself! Best, --Alabamaboy 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was Tompkins' book, Sensational Designs, that was the foundation of the revisionist thinking on UTC, not the essay.
  • A lot of the paragraphs in the "Literary significance" section begin "other critics" and "other scholars" - it is a little repetitive. Awadewit 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essay "Sentimental Power: Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Politics of Literary History" by Jane Tompkins is from her book In Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction. The reason I went with the "landmark essay" is that I have a strong citation stated that the essay is a "landmark piece of criticism." Since the essay is specific to the subject and has such a good cite, that's what I mentioned (although the citation for the essay does say it from from Tompkins book).
I agree wholeheartedly that it is a landmark piece of criticism and I'm sure you could find many sources to say that. My beef is with the word "article." Shouldn't it say "book"? To an academic, it sounds like you are referring to a piece published in an academic journal and Tompkins' chapter is most emphatically not that. I would go with, "in her landmark book Sensational Designs, Tompkins...".
I changed it. Check it out now.--Alabamaboy 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made edits based on your other suggestions (aside from the reader-responses to Little Eva's death, which I'll have to look for). Please let me know what you think and if further changes are needed. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this well-written, well-researched and comprehensive article. Very nice work. Awadewit 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive, well-written. A few notes on the images though. I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have the author look towards the text in the first image. And the first image in the adaptation section disaligns the main article line from the actual text. Moving these would probably mean moving around more pictures to balance things, but I think it would nicely finish the article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the images to fix this problem.--Alabamaboy 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Quatermass II[edit]

Self-nomination. This is already a GA, and during the peer review it went through before GA nomination earlier this year (here) it was already being suggested by some users that I nominate it as an FA. Its immediate predecessor and successor are already FAs, so it might be quite nice to have the complete 1950s trilogy as an FA set. Angmering 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Meets the FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This should be the model fiction article. The plot summary is PERFECT: long enough to give the general idea, without rehashing every scene. I rarely review fiction articles myself, because it's like banging my head into a brick wall trying to get editors to reduce plot summaries to an encyclopedic length. I will now have this one to point to. Great job in all aspects, including the referencing and all. Congrats on a finely written article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One further comment. When this one is elevated to Feature status, it might be nice to nominate the entire series as a "Featured Topic" at WP:FTC.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. One thing with regard to plot summaries: sometimes, in the case of RPGs like Final Fantasy VIII, a longer synopsis is fine, because RPG plots tend to exceed 40 hours in length and feature numerous subplots and perhaps alternative situations. — Deckiller 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, wow...I actually enjoyed reading that article. --Phoenix (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—THANK YOU. A FAC that needs little copy-editing! Please write more FACs.
    • There are virtually no issues with the lead.
    • Couple minor issues in the first section (i.e. we usually try to avoid saying "the fact that").
    • I'll go through and look for anything else after I pick up lunch, but thank you! — Deckiller 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your kind words — although bear in mind that it has been through a peer review to weedle out my rubbish bits of writing. Anyhow, I've changed that "the fact that" you flagged up in the first section. I look forward to your further advice for improvements. Angmering 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made a couple of minor MoS fixes, but this is a breath of fresh air, a virtually problem-free article. Quadzilla99 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Original Stories from Real Life[edit]

This is another in my little series of articles revolving around eighteenth-century British education. Original Stories from Real Life is Mary Wollstonecraft's only complete work of children's literature. There is not much scholarship on this text, so the page is by necessity short. Please see the extensive peer review this page underwent as well as the other helpful comments that aided me in my revision. Thanks. Awadewit 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It needs a gallery of all the plates (and/or appropriate ones decorating the earlier parts of the text), and if possible, discussion of more than just the frontispiece. If there aren't any better sources (have you scan-able access to a copy with the original plates?) you can grab them from the Google Book.--ragesoss 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think that a gallery of the plates would overwhelm the page. The page is supposed to be about Wollstonecraft's text, not Blake's illustrations (a gallery would be more appropriate to a Blake page, I think). One could argue that the page is about the book, but when you consider that the first edition of the text had no illustrations at all, I really do think that the focus should be on Wollstonecraft's text (by the way, there are some 200 pages of text and six prints in the 1791 edition). That is why the illustration section is last and receives the least emphasis. Also, I chose to focus on a single illustration as an example of different interpretations primarily because that is the only illustration that two opposing critics discuss. Let me know what you think. (I can get all of the images from Eighteenth Century Collections Online, if necessary) Is this your covert way of suggesting that the article is too author-centered and that I have not properly accepted the death of the author? :) Awadewit 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale for only discussing one plate is convincing, but readers will still inevitably want to see the rest of them. At the very least, add all the images to Commons and use {{Commons}}. However, I don't see why the first edition should have priority (except in a literal sense), nor why the article should be about the text rather than the book. I also feel let down by the lack of discussion of reception (prior to becoming a subject of professional literary analysis), but I suspect there is nothing you can do about that. Other details I would like if possible are the usual: what was the physical form of the book in its first and second editions, how many copies were printed, and how much did it cost? (I have very little experience with literary theory; the way I judge an article about a book is to compare it to the hypothetical featured article that could be written about Vestiges of Creation... unfair, I know.)--ragesoss 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you are a "history of the book" critic. Fair enough. Unfortunately, with Original Stories, we are missing a lot of information.
  • I'm not really sure what you mean by adding the images to "Commons." What do you think about having a separate "Plates" page? A lot of literary articles have separate pages for things like a "List of Charles Dickens' works." I could do a "Plates from Original Stories from Real Life" page.
  • Done and note added to article. Awadewit 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In literary studies, first editions are usually given priority (unless there are good reasons to give other editions priority). There are some interesting textual changes between the first and second editions, by the way, but very little has been written about that as well. Perhaps one or two sentences. I'm not sure I could justify putting it in. Do two sentences in one article by one scholar justify a scholarly consensus? I myself have done an exhaustive comparison of the two texts, but that material is in my unpublished dissertation chapter. Too bad.
  • There is no real information available on reception (this came up in the peer review, too). I might be able to quote one contemporary review, but that might again be considered original research. What do you think? Certainly the scholarship doesn't talk about its reception.
  • I think a contemporary review is fair game, but if you think it's better left out, that's fine.--ragesoss 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might take me a few days. The only review I know of is in our rare book and manuscript library. I'll have to go over there and get it again. Awadewit 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added one reference from the 19c. I still have to get the contemporary review. Awadewit 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book would have been "published" in sets of pages and customers would have paid to bind their own copies. In the eighteenth century, very few books were bound by publishers. The aristocracy often had all of their books bound in identical bindings with their crests stamped on them. This idea was imitated later when mass-produced "sets" of books were published. (I am constantly removing "Hardback and paperback" from infoboxes on 18c book pages for just this reason - it had no meaning during that time.)
  • Are there any notable copies that could be mentioned (annotated by other authors or other historical figures, for example)?--ragesoss 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no idea how many copies were printed. I can tell you how many copies of different types books were printed on average, but none of the scholarship on this book says anything about that, so I have a feeling that would be original research of the synthesis kind.
  • I'm afraid I don't know how much it cost. Neither of the title pages has the price (some title pages have that information), none of my sources do, and we don't have Joseph Johnson's (the publisher) records anymore (as far as I know). Awadewit 07:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I figured few of those questions would be answerable (at least, in a Wikipedia article).--ragesoss 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet even when this friend needs assistance, Charles cannot act quickly enough and his friend is imprisoned, his daughter is forced to marry a rake and, tragically, he dies. Whose daughter? Who dies? It does not become clear until the next sentence.
  • I tried to fix this. Unfortunately, Charles' friend does not have a name in the story, so it is a bit tricky to retell the story. Awadewit 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...rather than judging it according to twentieth-century tastes.' This is not going to age elegantly, since presumably newer historicist reassessments will not judge it by 21st century tastes either (and twentieth-century tastes is pretty broad, considering that the Summerfield source is only from the 1980s), although the easy alternative "modern tastes" has some unwanted connotations.
  • I used "modern"; "personal tastes" sounded even worse. It really is something more like "post-Alice in Wonderland," but that would require a lot of explanation. Awadewit 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, there are too many quotes for my taste. The only thing that I think it a real problem is when one quote stretches across several lines (her peevish temper...; to convey her message...; guile is a natural talent...; embodies an investment...); either use block quotes, or (preferably) quote less.
  • Me too; if you go way back in the history, you will see a dramatic decrease in the number of quotes. During the peer review, I was encouraged to add more from the text to illustrate the style of the text and to be fairer to Rousseau. Trying to achieve consensus. I have blocked the largest quotes; I think people can follow for a line and a half or so. Awadewit 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article is well-written and appears complete. Support.--ragesoss 04:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well written and exhaustively researched. While I'd like to see one more image from the book on the page, I can accept Awadewit's reasoning above for not doing that. The only thing I'd add would be more of the historical significance of the book (perhaps merging it into the historical context section). Best, --Alabamaboy 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean rearranging something in the article or adding more material? Frankly, there isn't any more material to add. If I knew of any scholarship that said anything about the relationship of her book to nineteenth-century children's literature, I would have put it in. It's just that so little has been written; what has been written did not focus on that or the book was not significant in the way you are thinking (started a war and all). Just thousands of people read it and it helped formed their reading tastes and their identities. No biggie. :) Awadewit 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant adding more info. If there's no scholarship on the subject, then don't worry about it. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well-written and well-cited article. MLilburne 09:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't find myself qualified to oppose or support an article on this level, but it looks very good to me, and it also makes me glad for once to see a plot summary section without that hideous and unencyclopedic spoiler-tag. But allow me to make a few comments, feel free to ignore:
You seem to be very conservative in your wiki-linking. I'm in general fine with that, most articles have way too many repetitive or trivial links that just distracts the reader and devalue the real important and informative ones. But in this article I miss some links, and especially some that would have been red links. Red links look ugly, and many of them will even make a FAC fail, which is meant to suggest that to gain FA-status, also subjects close to the topic at hand should have articles, or at least stubs. In this article I see many of those. Being a novice on the subject, I may overestimate the importance of many of them, but by just reading the article, and emphasising that it's just my uneducated opinion: Mitzi Myers, who you cite several places and who wrote a "series of seminal articles", should have an article (and therefore be linked to so people are more encouraged to write at least a stub). The same with Joseph Johnson who published this book (and all of Wollstonecraft's work). C. M. Hewins, and maybe even her book History of Children's Books, looks to my uneducated eyes to be of importance and therefore improve this article if it had at least a stub readers could turn to for context. Just the very basics in a stub on three or four lines is sometimes enough to give the context that you can't put in this article without bloating it. Adèle et Théodore and Tales of the Castle also seem to me to be important and relevant to this one, as they are the novels Original Stories were modeled on. Overall you do a good job in explaining, in a few words, who the people you cite are (i.e. why we should care what they think). But you miss out on the first time you mention Gary Kelly. "According to Gary Kelly, the last edition of Original Stories...". Who the hell is Gary Kelly, I thought. And, again, an article on him would probably make this one better. But you still have to qualify his opinions in this one, of course.
  • You are right that I am a conservative linker - I am for precisely the reasons that you list. I have fixed the Kelly reference - thank you for noticing that.
  • According to WP:BIO, the primary criteria for inclusion is being "the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Mitzi Myers and and Gary Kelly are scholars and therefore no one has written anything about them; furthermore, they are not theorists like Michel Foucault who has made a lasting impact on the entire discipline. They are important to eighteenth-century studies and Myers is to children's literature, but I am not sure that that merits them a page. They are brilliant scholars, but do all brilliant scholars get a page? I didn't think so.
  • C. M. Hewins appears to have been a librarian for the Hartford Library Association (I have added this nugget of information into the article, but I really do feel that I am tipping over into original research here - I was afraid of this); she also seems to have published a few edited works for children herself (see a google search). But, as far as I know, she is not an important figure in children's literature history. A google scholar search, for example, turns up no references to her in any academic works. Hewins simply published an article in the The Atlantic Monthly on the history of children's literature. I included this because other reviewers here at FAC wanted information on how Original Stories was received during the nineteenth century and this is what I could find.
  • I'm not sure that there is enough scholarship on either Adèle et Théodore or Tales of the Castle to write entire pages on them; that is why I linked to Madame de Genlis, who is the author of these texts. I would argue that these texts should be discussed on her page. I might be convinced otherwise, if I knew for sure that there were more than a handful of articles on these texts (perhaps there is more in French). Eighteenth-century children's literature is an up and coming field and there is very little scholarship at the moment. It's like dark matter. Either way, I have red-linked them just in case.
  • I have created a stub for Joseph Johnson who was a significant figure and has a biography. Awadewit 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't know anything about this topic, I just read the article. And maybe having every expert and notable person on the topic explained to me would be aiming too low with your audience. We have narrow topics on Wikipedia with articles far less accessible than this. Many of the physics articles, for instance, I understand very little of. And I'm a physicist. Regarding red links, opinions may vary. It's probably you who would have to write the articles, anyway. But nothing is more inviting than a red link, a link to an article not yet written. There might be Wollstonecraft scholars out there who would be tempted to join the project and write those articles if they saw the "please write me" flag that red links signal.
I only wish the Wollstonecraft scholars would write for wikipedia. Awadewit 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your excellent work! Shanes 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b c d e f "Yahoo!" (HTML). Yahoo! Inc. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
  2. ^ a b c "Google" (HTML). Google Inc. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Example3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2007&oldid=987558787"